Gaming Steve Message Board

Random Encounters => Everything Else => Topic started by: Inkling on March 18, 2015, 08:44:38 pm

Title: 2016 Election
Post by: Inkling on March 18, 2015, 08:44:38 pm
What the hell, let's get this trainwreck started.

(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/beartato%20politics.png) (http://nedroid.com/2014/01/political-roundtable/)

This will be the thread for discussing all aspects of the 2016 elections, from state and local candidates flipping out and doing stupid things, to which Republican will lose to Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 18, 2015, 08:48:16 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/N2qmGHc.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 18, 2015, 09:05:47 pm
Too late, Pat.  It has already begun.  NPR said so.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/09/391704815/in-iowa-2016-has-begun-at-least-for-the-republican-party
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: sgore on March 18, 2015, 09:26:54 pm
I am probably voting for another party. (http://nedroid.com/2009/05/party-cat-full-series/)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on March 18, 2015, 09:44:24 pm
wet yourself! at the party
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 19, 2015, 02:12:05 am
What are you talking about Ink, the general election is this year, not in 2016.

(http://i.imgur.com/syrDnRO.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 19, 2015, 05:43:56 am
What are you talking about Ink, the general election is this year, not in 2016.

At this point the SNP could probably win some seats in England if they bothered running there.

It's the dawn of 3-party politics. (RIP in piece Lib Dems ;_;7 F)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 19, 2015, 11:56:33 am
Because first-past-the-post is so healthy for third parties.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 19, 2015, 11:59:30 am
Obama for Dictator.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 19, 2015, 12:18:14 pm
What are you talking about Ink, the general election is this year, not in 2016.

At this point the SNP could probably win some seats in England if they bothered running there.

It's the dawn of 3-party politics. (RIP in piece Lib Dems ;_;7 F)

Help me Green party you're my only hope.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 19, 2015, 03:51:17 pm
UKIP is gonna take over, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 19, 2015, 04:29:30 pm
I know by American standards UKIP seems very sensible and liberal but you have to understand that our entire political spectrum exists in what you would call the "commie zone".
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on March 19, 2015, 05:13:25 pm
The main problem with UKIP is that people too quickly bring up the whole race and nationalism thing. Their far bigger problem is the fact  that that is their sole issue. They don't have any other concrete policies - Farage says one thing; the BBC ask the person in the party actually responsible for that issue and they have to clarify that Farage may have misspoke.

Like when they gained council seats a few years ago. After those elections, my gran (a long-serving Tory Councillor) said she didn't understand why anyone would vote UKIP to their town or county council. Councils sort out bin collections and things like that, not the immigration policy for the country. Then she told the story of how a local councillor had to step down because he printed a cartoon of a Muslim being spit-roasted over a fire.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 19, 2015, 05:16:58 pm
The more local the office, the more entertaining and sadly unnoticed the antics that get the politician in trouble.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 19, 2015, 05:25:43 pm
UKIP is gonna take over, right?

Its more then likely they will end up in a coalition with the Tories,but UKIP would never make it on it's own.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 19, 2015, 05:32:48 pm
Is Haseri's assessment an accurate one? I'd like to hear a second opinion just for the sake of having one. :D

The main problem with UKIP is that people too quickly bring up the whole race and nationalism thing. Their far bigger problem is the fact  that that is their sole issue. They don't have any other concrete policies - Farage says one thing; the BBC ask the person in the party actually responsible for that issue and they have to clarify that Farage may have misspoke.

Like when they gained council seats a few years ago. After those elections, my gran (a long-serving Tory Councillor) said she didn't understand why anyone would vote UKIP to their town or county council. Councils sort out bin collections and things like that, not the immigration policy for the country. Then she told the story of how a local councillor had to step down because he printed a cartoon of a Muslim being spit-roasted over a fire.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 20, 2015, 02:13:01 am
Yeah he's right.

Ultimatum is wrong though, the Tories will never form a coalition with UKIP, it would alienate all the swing voters that any party relies on in a FPtP system.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 20, 2015, 10:52:31 am
UKIP (by that I mean Nigel Farage) are popular and people are voting for them,I expect therefore that the results of the election will show this.

And while Sam is probably right about UKIP not joining in a coalition with the Conservatives,I ask this;Will the election see an end to the coalition?And if not,who is to replace the liberal democrats?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 20, 2015, 01:04:41 pm
Will the election see an end to the coalition?

Yes. The Lib Dems might be dumb enough do that again but won't have enough seats left for it anyway.

There's an outside chance they'd be able to make a majority coalition with Labour, but more feasibly you're looking at a Labour minority government or possible Labour/Tory coalition nightmare time-to-emigrate scenario.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 20, 2015, 04:16:14 pm
Labour/Tory coalition sure, yeah, of course.

Maybe enough nationalist parties and special interest groups will get seats that they can form a coalition of the damned.

UKIP/GREEN/PLAID/SNP/WHATEVER NORTHERN IRELAND HAS.

A terrifying political rainbow.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 20, 2015, 05:19:37 pm
So,being realistic we are looking at the Conservatives remaining in power (I don't see any major challengers from either Labour or Lib Dem to be honest)

So it's not this election but the one after that should be worth voting in
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 20, 2015, 05:23:05 pm
You guys are really selling me on why the two party system is bad.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 20, 2015, 06:20:01 pm
So,being realistic we are looking at the Conservatives remaining in power (I don't see any major challengers from either Labour or Lib Dem to be honest)

So it's not this election but the one after that should be worth voting in

Conservatives are the incumbent (so guaranteed to lose votes), and didn't have a majority to start with.

I don't know why you'd expect them to still be in government.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 21, 2015, 03:29:17 am
Obviously Ultimatum is a closet conservative and is wishful-thinking the Tories back in power.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 21, 2015, 11:02:07 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6AlQiWatD4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2015, 02:12:31 pm
God gave me a gift this morning. I was eating some breakfast at work and watching TV before we opened and Ted "the man" Cruz appears and says he's running for President.

Why would the Republicans let this happen? And then I hear that Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are also going to be throwing their hats into the ring. Seriously guys? I hope you are all as stubborn as Santorum was last time and end up doing harm to the Republican effort. Jesus this is going to be another fun election. Why do people tolerate these insane ideologues? They know they'll only hurt an actual Republican candidate's chances, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 23, 2015, 03:37:53 pm
If I remember correctly, they've cut down on the number of debates to try and reduce the circus that was the 2012 primaries.  Other than that, I don't think there's really a structure in place for the party to say someone can't run.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2015, 03:54:19 pm
The problem wasn't the number of the debates. The problem was the content of the debates.

If the candidates aren't going to debate why bother? It's a waste of airtime to have them sitting up there fielding soft ball questions that are almost meaningless.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on March 23, 2015, 04:19:27 pm
Can we get a brief rundown of who those dudes are? I know Santorum is the semen-ass-foam guy?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2015, 05:35:18 pm
They are all idiots that have no chance, except to potentially dilute the Republican ticket and damage their own party. :o

Rick "deregulate it!" Perry is the Governor of Texas and he's got a three-point plan to solve everything. He just can't remember that third part.

And the other guy I already forgot who he was by the time I got down to this part of my reply so that pretty much tells you that. :P
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2015, 05:36:02 pm
Oh right, Ted Cruz.

Another Texas fringe candidate that is a freshman Senator.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 23, 2015, 06:19:33 pm
Here's a decent enough list, though I don't think Cristie has dropped as much as it implies and it includes people who are very unlikely to run.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2015, 08:09:29 pm
WHAT THE **** IS JOHN BOLTON DOING ON A LIST OF POTENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES? :|||||||||
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 23, 2015, 08:23:27 pm
Exactly my point. I have no idea why he's on the list.  I think the fourth tier is the author just making stuff up, to justify having a category to put Lindsey Graham in.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2015, 08:26:28 pm
An unmarried President? What is this, the 1800s? :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 23, 2015, 08:36:48 pm
Er, which one of them is unmarried?  Also, there's the subtle implication that those absurd wildcards and people who aren't even considering running are more likely to actually announce than The Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2015, 08:52:47 pm
James Buchanan was a bachelor for life, I think. And one other president was unmarried at the time he held office I think, though he had been married before or something.

Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and was pretty ****ing terrible. :(


He uh... pretty much caused the Civil War.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 24, 2015, 02:17:29 pm
Rubio has the best chance of winning the general, I think.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 24, 2015, 02:24:34 pm
Eh I kinda agree, actually. He's the most normal of the bunch and if he doesn't double down on the crazy he can at least make it to the general election.

But at that point it depends if the others will bow out in time. I really think the fringe is gonna **** this up for the Republicans again. Because Scott Walker is a heartless despot and Jeb Bush has the personality of a brick and the wherewithal of an orange.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on March 24, 2015, 02:49:52 pm
Scott Walker is my governor yay
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 24, 2015, 02:51:09 pm
But at that point it depends if the others will bow out in time. I really think the fringe is gonna **** this up for the Republicans again. Because Scott Walker is a heartless despot and Jeb Bush has the personality of a brick and the wherewithal of an orange.

That would **** it up for more than just the republicans, if it's Hillary they end up running against.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 24, 2015, 03:10:02 pm
All hail Queen Hillary!

And say "hey" to First Dude Billy C.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 24, 2015, 03:10:45 pm
I'm curious lurk, what do you not like about Hillary?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 24, 2015, 03:26:30 pm
Pretty sure she is an affront to all Scottish people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 24, 2015, 04:02:09 pm
Scottish people naturally have an aversion to female leaders after what happened last time, and I'm naturally opposed to american-style political dynasties in general.


Hillary specifically has said and voted some particularly contemptible things in the past, too.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on March 24, 2015, 04:48:12 pm
That's got me curious- has there been any study done on how related all of our presidents are to one another?

Because that might be interesting. As far as I'm aware there haven't been any more than two Presidents from the same family before, but then again I'm not very familiar with American history like that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 24, 2015, 09:47:51 pm
Yes this has been done and pretty much everyone is related to one King of England and/or Charlemagne or something.


**EDIT**
But I think a lot of us are related to Charlemagne anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 10, 2015, 04:33:16 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/10/hillary-clinton-to-announce-plans-to-run-for-president-on-sunday/

Hillary 2016:
Embrace the Inevitable
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on April 10, 2015, 04:35:49 pm
surprising no one
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 10, 2015, 06:12:35 pm
Actually I am a little bit surprised.  I thought she'd wait longer.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 12, 2015, 12:32:34 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uY7gLZDmn4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 13, 2015, 11:36:49 am
And Rubio's said he's going to run, formal announcement later today.  Can't let Hillary have the spotlight for too long.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 16, 2015, 08:45:24 pm
A bunch of people are running now.  But the news of the day:

Trump 2016:  The Worst that Could Happen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/16/the-many-many-things-that-are-great-according-to-donald-trump/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 17, 2015, 07:13:15 am
Those troops.

So great. I love them.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on June 17, 2015, 08:00:46 am
He tried to fight the windmills.

The windmills won.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on June 23, 2015, 04:46:57 am
Hold on for a minute.

The more local the office, the more entertaining and sadly unnoticed the antics that get the politician in trouble.

Do you have more of these? Ironically, I cared more about presidential elections when I wasn't able to vote.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 23, 2015, 09:14:02 am
Go look up Joe Morrissey and Scott Desjarlais, and Aaron Schock.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 23, 2015, 09:44:19 am
Don't do those things, dnd.

Local elections are insane in the membrane insane in the brain.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 23, 2015, 04:19:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghP_bXBM2Ec
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on June 23, 2015, 04:31:36 pm
I wound up here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States).

No regrets.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 23, 2015, 05:16:04 pm
I know sex stuff is two thirds of the ones I gave you, but those are almost boring.  I prefer the politicians that are more creative in being unfit for their office.  Oh, and I thought of another to look up, Ophelia Ford.

My new goal in life is to be the guy that names these Operations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_corruption_investigations_in_the_United_States
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on June 24, 2015, 10:06:56 am
My personal favorite government conspiracy was Operation INFEKTION (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION), a joint Stasi-KGB operation responsible for the majority of AIDS disinformation still propagated to this day. First found it from a Cracked submission and eventually ended up doing a twelve page term paper on it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 24, 2015, 10:23:28 am
All of our current political troubles can be traced to old Soviet subversion programs that, in the absence of their central governing body, have taken on a life of their own and are morphing America into something nobody can begin to predict.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on June 24, 2015, 10:36:47 am
Or just commie fear in general. Because apparently that's still a thing people do.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 20, 2015, 06:57:38 am
There's a lot of talk about Bernie Sanders but I haven't watched any of his speeches yet.

So here, I found one. Have some Bernie with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d9poJU6Kiw
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 20, 2015, 07:28:29 am
At about 26:25 he says something I've been saying for years and he says it almost word-for-word.

If you work 40 hours a week there is no reason why you should be struggling to pay bills or buy food or pay insurance. If you work full-time you should expect to have some stability in your life.

I've lived this. Every job I've had in my short life so far, every single one... man, I bust my ass and do everything I can to do things right and then to do them better. And I still have almost everything I make taken from me to pay my health insurance. I'm one of those people that has all-but given up on finding a job. I've been unemployed for a month and I dread working now. I just don't want to expend all the time and effort for nothing. I can have nothing and not bust my butt. And the worst part is that feeling this way makes me hate myself, which compounds and causes more problems because now my stress is so high I can barely function.

It's so ****ed up. All I want to do is work and be paid a living wage for the work I do. Because I am hardwired to give any job I do everything I have. It's in my blood. But not if it puts me on a hamster wheel. I'm not going to kill myself to break even or to come out with less. That's just absurd. I just won't do it anymore. And I've given up. :(


**EDIT**
Maybe I should put my efforts into helping this Bernie guy since I don't have much else going on right now.

Some of you guys know how hardcore I get when something has my interest or I have a passion. That same ethic is what I bring to the workplace. I should help this guy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 20, 2015, 10:35:09 am
I'm getting some serious Ron Paul vibes from Bernie.  He's reaching a grassroots crowd, his supporters are very enthusiastic, he has the reputation for saying what he actually thinks and not what is politically expedient.  And so far, he's being ignored or downplayed by his party and the press.  What does he think about going back to the gold standard?

The economy and job market are still very jacked up, and I think the candidates for both parties are taking notice... in their own way.  Apparently Jeb was talking about needing to get people who want to work full time out of of part time jobs they're stuck in, and it was interpreted as Jeb wants to abolish the 40 hour work week and make people work 50 or 60.

Has anyone been talking about the prevalence of "independent contractor" jobs?  Because that absolutely gets abused so that companies don't have to give benefits to employees.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on July 20, 2015, 11:30:55 am
I think Bernie may succeed where Ron failed,largely because I see a democrat in the whitehouse and not a libertarian
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 20, 2015, 12:21:13 pm
Sanders is realistic imo. He's utilizing the internet in a very modern way; maximizing outreach with minimal cost. His battle is one of economics and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. He has a large donation base which will allow him to 'return to the tap' at times and refill coffers but he will never be able to compete at Clintons level of media output. Her name recognition is enormous. For some reason it's really strong even though she's seemingly pro-corporate.

He has to get people involved asap and it's not like his campaign isn't doing that. He is filling large stadiums, and if he can convert some of those into volunteers and so on, he can get real traction. The national polls, imo, do not matter. The nation does not pick the democratic primary candidate, and those that kind of do, they do not do it all at once.
 
It matters in places like NH (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html) and IA (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html) and every other state that has an early primary election. So stupid but that's what it is. And it's striking how quickly he's risen in those states. The ground game is building and hopefully he has the people with the talent to get him through. Winning those states would have to put the national spotlight on him, and that's a good thing.

His policies resonate with tons of people for good reason in my opinion. Once people percieved that he has a chance, there's a real shot.

If he won the primary he would win the national election easily. National exposure, a solid ground game from the primary (because that's the only way he'd win. If his ground game can beat Clinton it can beat the GOP), it's the primary that's the real challenge for the guy.

Go Sanders. I wish WA was more important.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 20, 2015, 12:40:25 pm
Her name recognition is enormous. For some reason it's really strong even though she's seemingly pro-corporate.

Why would being pro corporate diminish the name recognition of one of the most famous politicians in the country? Unless you mean positive name recognition, in which case I guess being pro corporate isn't that big of a deal to primary voters.

To be competitive in the primaries you have to have grassroot support, infrastructure and a ground game in all of the contested states, and money.  Bernie will never be able to match Clinton's funding, but it's early enough that he could be competitive in all of those aspects.  Hillary is a political juggernaut, but she's been beaten before.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 20, 2015, 04:27:17 pm
I'm getting some serious Ron Paul vibes from Bernie.

Me too! I've barely been paying attention to your primaries but everything I see of this Sanders guy paints him as the Left's answer to Ron Paul.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 21, 2015, 10:18:27 pm
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/lindsey%20graham%20phone.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 21, 2015, 11:06:39 pm
this is joke. Dude just did an ad
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 22, 2015, 02:01:52 am
What is it with Americans giving boys girl's names?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 22, 2015, 05:20:20 am
THE SOUTH

Also, Trump gave out Graham's cellphone number to the public. What a chode. :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 22, 2015, 11:01:09 am
What's with Americans pronouncing Graham "Gram"?

What's with Americans pronouncing Worcestershire "Woorsestershy-er"?

What's with Australians pronouncing Loughborough "Loogabarooga"?

What's with English people pronouncing Arkansas "Arkansas"?

These are mysteries.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 22, 2015, 11:08:10 am
Gray-ham

Gram

Worcester-shire

Worsh-ter-shear

Wush-ta-shire

I hear all of these in my region. People can't agree on things. :U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-sFEgDQEZ0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 22, 2015, 12:38:24 pm
Here, have some more Sand-man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OewBDIwy-O4

"All of these guys have so much power... that no President can defeat them unless there is an organized grassroot movement making them an offer they can't refuse"

I like this guy's wordage.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 22, 2015, 02:38:20 pm
http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 22, 2015, 02:55:47 pm
I hope he Perots the other candidates so Sandman can win.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 23, 2015, 07:24:42 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY

Wouldn't vote for him, but I generally like Lindsey Graham and he doesn't seem like a bad guy. I like this, it's neat. Did you notice the blender they use breaks as well and sends plastic shrapnel flying?

Also, Graham is a pretty interesting individual in the world of politics. He has never married and has no children, which is definitely a political oddity. Usually bachelors don't fare so well in the realm of politics. Except that one time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) But then that didn't work out so well because he kinda caused this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) by being a lazy do-nothing Pennsylvanian. :|
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 23, 2015, 11:22:21 am
Except that one time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) But then that didn't work out so well because he kinda caused this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) by being a lazy do-nothing Pennsylvanian. :|

That jabroni should have the confederates an ocular patdown and defused the threat before it happened.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 23, 2015, 02:42:50 pm
When in doubt, go to Nate Silver.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-the-worlds-greatest-troll/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bernie-sanders-surge-is-about-bernie-not-hillary/

Trump will probably fade away, Sanders isn't much of a threat to Hillary yet.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 23, 2015, 02:49:48 pm
Good rule to live by.

Until he is wrong. Then **** him. :P
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 28, 2015, 02:28:23 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/28/clinton-ducks-keystone-question-says-she-will-give-an-answer-when-shes-president/

I think Keystone has been given too much importance by both sides, and in general I think a pipeline is preferable to shipping this stuff by rail.  But I'm guessing that this won't sit well with some people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 28, 2015, 03:00:49 pm
Is it? Do you have sources because I've never considered

She's more of the same imo, a tool to money at the end of the day
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 28, 2015, 04:33:12 pm
I mean, I don't exactly have sources for a vague opinion that I have.

There have been a lot of oil car derailments, and they often catch fire.  Here's an article about a few from back in March.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-oil-trains-have-derailed-this-year-2015-3

You've got thousands of tons of potentially dangerous fuel being hauled through residential areas, vs a purpose built pipeline that could avoid such sensitive areas.  I don't have any information about the risks or rates of pipelines breaking, it could be just as bad of a problem if not worse.  All I know is that we can't switch off of fossil fuels overnight, and the stuff has to get shipped one way or another.  A purpose built method of transport seems like the better choice.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-oil-trains-have-derailed-this-year-2015-3
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 29, 2015, 08:22:14 pm
“Imagine a NASCAR driver mentally preparing for a race knowing one of the drivers will be drunk. That’s what prepping for this debate is like.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-presence-in-first-gop-debate-makes-prep-challenging-for-candidates/2015/07/29/2e34766a-3564-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html

This is going to be one hell of a show.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on July 29, 2015, 11:18:30 pm
Also, Graham is a pretty interesting individual in the world of politics. He has never married and has no children, which is definitely a political oddity. Usually bachelors don't fare so well in the realm of politics. Except that one time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) But then that didn't work out so well because he kinda caused this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) by being a lazy do-nothing Pennsylvanian. :|

To be entirely fair, Buchanan was also probably gay. Though heredity matters little in American government (yeah, I know, but shut up), historically having a wife and children was important because it meant that you had a strong lineage to inherit, not just proof you weren't gay. The closer you get to present day the less important the former is but the more important the latter. As long as he doesn't come out of the closet and has some sort of heterosexual track record, I don't think anyone's going to bat too many eyes at him being single. It's probably less scandalous to have a president who's available than a president who isn't supposed to be available but is anyways.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 30, 2015, 10:52:50 am
Also people just trust married people who have kids more.

It sort of signifies that this person is together enough to look after some other human beings, and is probably not secretly a murderous psychopath or dweeb who's incapable of attracting a member of the opposite sex.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on July 30, 2015, 11:39:02 am
Presidents should only be married to GOD.

Protestants OUT. >:(
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 31, 2015, 05:42:47 pm
Get out of here you dirty papist.

I know that I should lay off the Trump stuff.  I know that giving him attention is making it worse.  But look at it this way: I'm sure some perfectly mediocre movies came out on the same weekend as Pixels, but we spent all of our time talking about how terrible Pixels was and ignored the rest.  Anyway, more Nate Silver.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-the-nickelback-of-gop-candidates/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 31, 2015, 05:45:09 pm
Have read this article. It's pretty neat.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on August 03, 2015, 12:49:22 pm
Is anyone else tired of the election coverage yet?

I'm sure glad that there's only a few months until the November election.










 >:(
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 03, 2015, 03:49:27 pm
This is the most wonderful time of the year except for E3.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 03, 2015, 04:08:24 pm
Silly Season lasts about a year and a half now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 03, 2015, 06:21:09 pm
I almost missed this.  C-SPAN had a republican candidates' forum tonight.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327157-1/2016-republican-candidates-voters-first-forum&live

Candidates come on stage at about 27 minutes in.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 04, 2015, 07:02:51 am
Sorry I vanished on you last night, Ink. All that lack of sleep caught up with me yesterday.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 04, 2015, 09:51:29 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9XB4lxUQ40

SAAAAAANDMAN!!

Ain't nobody in that room to listen to him. They were out blowing their sugar daddies.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 04, 2015, 09:59:17 pm
Yeah but the room is usually empty for speeches.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 05, 2015, 08:13:27 am
Yeah but that room is usually empty.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on August 05, 2015, 01:53:07 pm
Usually? You mean there are times when it isn't empty?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 05, 2015, 03:05:20 pm
Well, this is going to be interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 05, 2015, 03:10:25 pm
Eh, I wonder if it's actually him trying to help expose the ridiculousness of the GOP or if he was just phoning a former president for campaign advice
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 05, 2015, 03:16:49 pm
I see this being spun a few different ways.

- The mostly harmless phone call, looking for advice from the former president he's thrown money at in the past.

- Trump and the Clintons are working together in a vast conspiracy to sink the GOP.

- Trump is getting played by the Clintons to sink the GOP.

- The Clintons are getting played by Trump.  He makes it look like the Clintons wanted to collude with him to sink the GOP, therefore sinking Hillary.

I'd go with the simpler answer.  Trump's people are a collection of the greatest asswipes in all of the NYC and New Jersey area, and someone is trying to destroy the boss for personal profit by leaking this story.  As for why the actual call was made and it's content, I have no idea.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on August 06, 2015, 05:50:18 am
Or, of course, that these are five made up people and the news is making the news again. That's always a possibility. The article is filled with background information between the two and drama between Trump and Hilary, but little to no actual information about the telephone game. Is this because of how little news this actually is that they needed fluff for the page, or because of how flimsy the claim is that they need to layer on unrelated facts in order to make the piece seem more factual?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 06, 2015, 08:00:44 am
Ink I'd say your kind of falling into Hanlon's razor
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 06, 2015, 02:49:24 pm
I knew Occam's razor, but I didn't know Hanlon's.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Yeah I pretty much always go by that.

And now, Inkling's Official Drinking Game for the first primary debate:

If Trump is talking, drink.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 06, 2015, 03:18:27 pm
Rip
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on August 06, 2015, 03:45:02 pm
Oh man you mean they actually have to take him seriously?


Money talks, I suppose.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 06, 2015, 04:02:20 pm
He's won over the people who listen to too much talk radio and the "low information voters," which is a nice way of saying idiots who don't follow politics but recognize his name from him being on reality tv.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 06, 2015, 04:07:40 pm
He's won over the people who listen to too much talk radio and the "low information voters," which is a nice way of saying idiots who don't follow politics but recognize his name from him being on reality tv.

We have someone like that over here.
(http://i.imgur.com/gYQH4d0.jpg)

Luckily he only ran for Mayor Of London instead of being in charge of the nuclear button. Wiff-waff.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on August 06, 2015, 05:41:34 pm
I actually recognize him too, and no one here even remotely cares about UK politics so that's saying something.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 06, 2015, 06:02:25 pm
When does the debate start?

I'll just watch it online I guess.


**EDIT**
Hey I found it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 06, 2015, 06:55:09 pm
Well this is a ****show.

Carson and Kasich are still the most reasonable, in my opinion. Too bad they have no chance.

Trump is pretty good at dodging, though I feel like allowing the crowd to boo and cheer is giving Trump a decided advantage. But I complain about how they handle the crowd every year. It's a debate, but you wouldn't know it by the way the crowd conducts themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 06, 2015, 08:52:50 pm
I didn't break into the emergency bottle of whiskey, so I guess the night was a success.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 06, 2015, 08:58:05 pm
No emergency treatment needed tonight.

So, when we turn on the news tomorrow and find out nothing has changed, then what? :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 06, 2015, 09:41:07 pm
Trump outright saying he partakes in the quid pro quo of DC, and then saying the system is broken was neat. I remember reading it in the live transcript and thought holy ****
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 06, 2015, 10:14:04 pm
Yeah that blew my mind.  He bragged about being part of a problem he was complaining about.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on August 06, 2015, 10:26:55 pm
Takes a crook to know a crook?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on August 07, 2015, 02:53:23 am
It's the gamer attitude of 'this is horrendously broken, but if you're just handing me the option, of course I'm going to abuse it'.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 07, 2015, 08:45:44 am
(http://i.imgur.com/jR0sLcA.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on August 07, 2015, 04:20:53 pm
I just thought of it because I saw it a million times over when playing Magic, and another game I've been in with a competitive scene, really. I've seen players get hired onto game design teams to fix issues, but you can't fix the issue without abusing it first, both to reveal the initial problem and to be in the position to do something about it.

It's unfair to criticize someone for abusing an issue if they acknowledge it as abuse. Show, don't tell. The easiest way to convince someone there's an exploitation problem is to exploit the problem yourself. The real target of animosity should be anyone who exploits a broken system and tries to deny it was broken.

Not that I'm actually defending Trump. Just, such a move is hardly outrageous.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 07, 2015, 04:27:36 pm
Romney did this a few times as well during the previous Presidential election cycle.

When asked about his "unethical" behavior, he would reply that he did nothing that was illegal and followed every law to the letter. He's not wrong, but he looks like a smug prick when you get down to it. Hillary has done stuff like this as well with her email scandal thing.

At the end of the day though (for me) their point breaks down because they are still being unethical and because the system is generally rigged in the favor of these kind of (super rich) people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 07, 2015, 10:58:12 pm
I'm starting to think Pat was right, I think Trump is trying to find rock bottom, to find how absurd and offensive he can be before he gets any backlash.  You have to try to be this terrible, right?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-on-megyn-kelly-blood-coming-out-of-her-eyes-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/08/donald-trump-disinvited-to-speak-at-redstate-event-megyn-kelly-invited/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on August 08, 2015, 02:33:12 am
As unprovoked as some of these remarks may be, I really can't fault a guy for ripping fox news a new one.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 08, 2015, 06:54:26 am
That second story about Trump being uninvited. It was all well and good until they replaced him with Megyn Kelly. They should have just uninvited him. Instead they did that, as if it makes up for something? Or... something? Now they're just poking him with a stick and he's going to get even angrier. I can't wait.

Also did Trump make a period joke? I know Megyn "hot" Kelly is still of child bearing age, but sheesh! Bears in the newsroom.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Flamester_ on August 08, 2015, 05:55:50 pm
The entire republican debate, start to finish. Hopefully this helps, somehow.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4406746003001/watch-a-replay-of-fox-news-prime-time-presidential-debate/?#sp=show-clips
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 08, 2015, 11:23:45 pm
Hey, let's see what happened when Bernie went to Seattle:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on August 09, 2015, 05:57:39 am
He didn't have any security goons? What if they just wanted to walk on stage and shoot him?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 09, 2015, 06:32:47 am
They wanted to get arrested in my opinion, to show that the white man has no respect. Walking away was the better option for Sanders. The protesters  got their say and showed that they are not looking for a solution, only blame. Not good for their movement.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 09, 2015, 09:02:18 am
Agreed.

Especially because of any of the candidates, Bernie Sanders was quickest to tweak his message for this movement. He's been including their message for almost two weeks now and has mentioned specific cases and names of black people who have been killed.

Quote from: that article
After the few minutes of silence, the protesters said they wanted to confront Sanders for failing to address their concerns when he was similarly interrupted at a town hall for liberal activists in Phoenix last month.

He adjusted his message after this happened last month. And of course just like any extremist group, it's never enough. They don't actually care about what you are saying and giving them any concession just leads to them wanting more. It's disappointing to say the least. I mean, look at this:

Quote from: that article
In a news release posted on social media, local Black Lives Matter activists said they were holding Sanders and other white progressives accountable for failing to support their movement.

This is literally the opposite of the truth in the case of Bernie Sanders. I've got a lot of time this election cycle. I've seen almost every major speech (if you could call it that this early on) made by every candidate and a lot of minor ones. Sanders is not the guy these morons should be trying to derail.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 09, 2015, 10:40:05 am
I wonder if they'll protest Clinton

If not, then hrm....
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 09, 2015, 04:40:49 pm
I suspect the chances of being protested correlate to how likely you are to get to the stage.

You'll probably get shot before you get on stage at a Clinton rally.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 09, 2015, 06:26:25 pm
I suspect the chances of being protested correlate to how likely you are to get to the stage.

You'll probably get shot before you get on stage at a Clinton rally.

Yeah, they would need to email her first.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 09, 2015, 07:44:04 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/k4fnRBm.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 10, 2015, 10:35:43 am
I suspect the chances of being protested correlate to how likely you are to get to the stage.

You'll probably get shot before you get on stage at a Clinton rally.

Yeah, they would need to email her first.

-Lego

What are you talking about Hillary is very approachable.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-reporters-moving-rope-line-hampshire-parade/story?id=32225818
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 10, 2015, 11:45:31 am
God damn I hope she crashes and burns. I respect her qualifications but jesus she is unlikable.

Come on Sandman.

(http://i.imgur.com/IbpwztR.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 10, 2015, 04:32:01 pm

What are you talking about Hillary is very approachable.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-reporters-moving-rope-line-hampshire-parade/story?id=32225818

Oh, and here I was thinking she was just stringing everybody along.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on August 10, 2015, 06:03:06 pm
Bleh. I'm registered as a Democrat, but why even bother in the primaries? They're going to give Hillary the nomination regardless of any other candidates.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 10, 2015, 06:35:16 pm
Hillary 2016:  Embrace the Inevitable.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on August 10, 2015, 06:40:12 pm
don't blame me, i voted for bush
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on August 11, 2015, 08:20:15 am
...I really hope that will never be a phrase I have to hear someone say. But now that you mention it, I know it's inevitable.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Flamester_ on August 11, 2015, 06:02:51 pm
Looks like they DID email her first, or call. One of the two.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-black-lives-matter-2016/index.html
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 11, 2015, 06:15:50 pm
So who do you think the first candidate to drop out will be?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-rick-perrys-campaign-staff-working-without-pay/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 11, 2015, 07:20:03 pm
Well, I doubt Santorum will leave first if the last Presidential election is anything to go by. Huckabee should bow out, but he won't because of that superfluous bump he got from the debate.

I dunno. Let's go with Rick "deregulate it" Perry.

Quote
"Pay is only one reason people do this," Katon Dawson, Perry's South Carolina state director, told National Journal. "We'll be able to live off the land for a while."

Pure gold. Sadly, not redeemable for US Currency.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 12, 2015, 07:47:42 am
I forgot Chris Christie was in the race. He'll probably leave sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 12, 2015, 07:37:50 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2lgcQ1ZSu8

MORE SANDMAN!

If you've been watching these videos as I post them, you've more or less heard all of this. But as a PoliSci nerd, it's neat hearing how a politician adjusts and works on their speech as time goes on. He's getting pretty good at this one.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: LadyM on August 13, 2015, 10:50:48 am
Hillary 2016:  Embrace the Inevitable.

Never.

"What difference does it make?"



 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 13, 2015, 11:08:49 am
Bernie! Make it Bernie!

New episode of Political Junkie (http://krpoliticaljunkie.com/) is out today. They've got a couple really good interviews.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 13, 2015, 06:26:46 pm
Hey NH is polling at a competitive level now. That's good
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 24, 2015, 04:10:25 pm
Growing talk about Biden running after a weekend meeting with Elizabeth Warren:

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/24/434209419/politifcs-in-the-news
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 29, 2015, 07:57:56 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4iNAtg6W0

SAND THROUGH A KEYHOLE!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 29, 2015, 10:50:38 pm
Pat didn't post this yet so I will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_iL8TtPOt0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on August 30, 2015, 11:46:57 am
That was beautiful.

Growing talk about Biden running after a weekend meeting with Elizabeth Warren:

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/24/434209419/politifcs-in-the-news

No! Bad Warren! You go endorse Bernie right this minute, young lady! Biden's the most moderate potential DNC primary candidate. Shouldn't her politics put her on the lefter bit?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 30, 2015, 01:49:02 pm
It could be that Warren is being pragmatic and thinks Biden has better odds than Sanders.  It could be that when the Vice President wants to have a meeting, you have a meeting.  It could be any number of things.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 03, 2015, 09:43:54 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDcK3cbrn30

hahahahahahahha
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 08, 2015, 08:29:39 pm
Yeah sure why not.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/antivirus-mogul-john-mcafee-makes-his-bid-to-run-for-president-official/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 08, 2015, 08:33:47 pm
That guy had better not make enough of a dent to be a spoiler for people who are big on privacy and social libertarianism.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 08, 2015, 08:48:59 pm
dumb
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 08, 2015, 10:29:55 pm
You didn't dislike him already?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 10, 2015, 06:55:02 pm
I'm going to go ahead and make a prediction so that I might see my incorrect assumptions (or genius/luck) in future hindsight.

(http://i.imgur.com/sXob7ia.png)

Biden and Sanders will bifurcate the Democratic working-class vote, then Biden will endorse Hillary. Sanders will end up with less than one-third of the delegates. Clinton/Biden 2016 seems most likely right now to me.

It'd also be the most electable ticket, I think. Goddamn dirty centrists.

EDIT: I Imagine Warren would also endorse Clinton, if she decided to make an official endorsement. Traitor. (hypothetically)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 10, 2015, 06:57:38 pm
Biden for VP for life.

I just want more **** to fly Hillary's way.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 10, 2015, 07:02:59 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/sXob7ia.png)

Clinton/Biden 2016 seems most likely right now to me.

Biden for VP for life.

I just want more **** to fly Hillary's way.

I just looked it up and, apparently even though there's no law or rule or anything about it, there's never been a VP that has served more than 2 terms.

So I dunno then.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 10, 2015, 07:37:42 pm
I don't think It'll happen.  Hillary's VP choice will be someone young and not a white male.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 10, 2015, 09:27:28 pm
Like who?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 10, 2015, 09:36:58 pm
Corey Booker, one of those Castro brothers from Texas, some young up and comer from a critical state that isn't on my radar.  I don't know.

I just saw Biden on Colbert's show.  Man, that was a heavy interview, they mostly talked about all of their dead family.  I really don't think Joe has another run in him right now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on September 11, 2015, 04:58:54 am
Can someone give me a quick explanation of Hillary's policies, pros, and cons? Just curious. I see a lot of hate thrown her way.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 11, 2015, 07:05:09 am
Here's her website. (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/)

If they don't have the info you are looking for on their campaign website, that should also be fairly informative.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on September 11, 2015, 08:06:05 am
I'm not gonna trust someone's campaign website to give me an unbiased overview of their pros and cons. Regardless of who it is.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 11, 2015, 09:09:24 am
O-okay.

You can try the wikipedia page, though I don't know how much more trustworthy or unbiased that may be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on September 11, 2015, 10:41:51 am
I was kind of hoping a person would tell me. Not because of laziness but because I want insight into what you guys think. I know how to use Wikipedia. :p
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on September 11, 2015, 11:27:41 am
If only there were a way of summoning Daxx
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 11, 2015, 03:18:32 pm
There weirdly doesn't seem to be much support for Hillary around here.  Or rather, everyone seems to have someone else as a top pick.  If you're looking for a critical or cynical response, we're all very good at that.  She doesn't really have a flagpole cause like Sanders or others.  Again, the cynical response would be that her stated goals are going to be things that poll well with primary voters and keep campaign contributions rolling in.

In other news:

So who do you think the first candidate to drop out will be?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-rick-perrys-campaign-staff-working-without-pay/

I should've put money on this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/11/rick-perry-suspends-presidential-bid/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 11, 2015, 06:50:31 pm
I was kind of hoping a person would tell me. Not because of laziness but because I want insight into what you guys think. I know how to use Wikipedia. :p

I think you should come to your own conclusion. Citizen or not, you said you didn't want bias. So you should figure it out yourself.

I have a bias concerning her and so do most other people because of her history and the amount of spotlight she has gotten during her career. She's one of those kinds of politicians. You won't get an unbiased response about her. That's why I think you should see what she says (and does not say) on her website.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 11, 2015, 07:39:54 pm
Not sure where you're going with the boiling frog in a pot in terms of Trump, but I definitely see the throwing the baby out with the bath water you were sort of alluding to in the second part.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 11, 2015, 09:17:03 pm
Trump won't just sit idly by while the world burns up.

But he's not exactly a rational actor either. He might try to save the baby by torching the hardware store or something.

Oh also! Here is Hillary Clinton's YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLRYsOHrkk5qcIhtq033bLQ/videos) for you to peruse, Tesla.

Tesla, do not read the spoilers until you've formed your own conclusion.

What I am getting at by sending you to her websites is that if you look at them, you will notice there is barely anything to see. She hasn't come out with many of her current platforms yet, so there's not much to judge. I or anyone else can only tell you older stances she has. And while most of them probably won't change, some of them will and we just don't know which ones those are and it wouldn't be wise to try to predict.

You just gotta wait and see. We're still so far out from the election and she's waiting for a lot of the dust to settle before making any substantive moves. That is unless her hand is forced.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 11, 2015, 09:41:52 pm
Or you could check her twitter page.

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/631538115514007553?lang=en&lang=en
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 12, 2015, 08:47:24 am
lol yes
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on September 12, 2015, 08:58:24 am
Trump won't just sit idly by while the world burns up.

But he's not exactly a rational actor either. He might try to save the baby by torching the hardware store or something.

Oh also! Here is Hillary Clinton's YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLRYsOHrkk5qcIhtq033bLQ/videos) for you to peruse, Tesla.

Tesla, do not read the spoilers until you've formed your own conclusion.

What I am getting at by sending you to her websites is that if you look at them, you will notice there is barely anything to see. She hasn't come out with many of her current platforms yet, so there's not much to judge. I or anyone else can only tell you older stances she has. And while most of them probably won't change, some of them will and we just don't know which ones those are and it wouldn't be wise to try to predict.

You just gotta wait and see. We're still so far out from the election and she's waiting for a lot of the dust to settle before making any substantive moves. That is unless her hand is forced.


so i did all this stuff

and yeah, this is pretty much what i suspected. she's like this kind of template democrat, a total blank slate.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 12, 2015, 09:03:35 am
She was the heir apparent eight years ago and Obama swept the rug out from under her.

I imagine that this time her entire political machine is being meticulous and cautious about releasing anything that might seem like an opinion or information in general.

If she can hold her lead, she wins. If she reveals a policy and it backfires in the media, it'd be the kind of excuse a lot of people are looking for to switch candidate preference.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 12, 2015, 09:56:52 am
Genius.

(http://i.imgur.com/DzOdUec.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 12, 2015, 07:12:26 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opVaEC_WxWs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmMPytjrK4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 12, 2015, 07:18:41 pm
I used to think Biden was just some Blue Dog Democrat with a big mouth and charismatic personality.

I've stopped thinking about him like that lately. This interview is just a cherry on top, and I loved watching it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 12, 2015, 07:44:36 pm
Here's some sand to throw on that sundae.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8cex4VTrwg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 12, 2015, 08:11:12 pm
I get the feeling that that guy likes Bernie.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 12, 2015, 08:50:13 pm
He was okay in the Matrix movies I guess.

And before I forget:

https://vine.co/v/erQH0K9JthD

I really want that coozy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 13, 2015, 01:31:42 am
He was okay in the Matrix movies I guess.

And before I forget:

https://vine.co/v/erQH0K9JthD

Politicians trying to be "hep to the young folk".

(http://i.imgur.com/QgvJBi6.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 13, 2015, 06:46:26 am
All I can think of (yet I can't really find in isolated form) is Ruben from Rick and Morty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lD7zvg1reM

Jump to 1:46.

Korea.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 13, 2015, 10:30:41 am
(Or watch the whole thing, because Rick and Morty is the best)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 13, 2015, 11:35:37 am
Rick is pretty awesome.

Morty is a drag, man. Needs more Jerry.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 13, 2015, 02:58:00 pm
Needs more Summer.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 13, 2015, 03:57:55 pm
Nah, she's in the show enough.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 14, 2015, 01:52:33 am
Needs more Summer.

top kek
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 15, 2015, 07:03:23 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOS0Yd5rCp4

Let the sand flow over you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 16, 2015, 02:52:17 pm
Including the losers' bracket in a few minutes, there's nearly five hours of debate tonight.  I don't know if I'll survive.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 16, 2015, 04:05:22 pm
Watch it tomorrow without commercials, son.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 16, 2015, 04:13:13 pm
There's been one commercial break so far, they're better at this than fox was.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 16, 2015, 05:28:09 pm
...they're better at this than fox was.

Setting a high bar, there.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 16, 2015, 06:52:27 pm
CNN has run fewer commercials, though.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 16, 2015, 08:46:34 pm
I don't know who won, but the loser was Rick Santorum in the consolation round.  He actually compared Kim Davis to the Columbine victims.  **** you Rick.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 17, 2015, 06:13:41 pm
I watched half an hour of the Republican debate and didn't even realize Santorum was running again.

What's with these guys?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 17, 2015, 08:05:31 pm
Downloaded the debate! (lol)

Now I can enjoy while I Minecraft or whatever.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 17, 2015, 10:06:03 pm
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 17, 2015, 10:58:11 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 18, 2015, 02:42:23 pm
Not until he comes up with a birth certificate.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 18, 2015, 03:53:27 pm
Patman isn't eligible. He was born in Burkina Faso.

Also once he tried crack and he did inhale.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 18, 2015, 06:47:35 pm
I admit all of these things.

Figure that makes my chances of winning pretty good.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 18, 2015, 07:16:20 pm
Why is Trump on his way out? Nothing about the debate separated him from his accumulated base.

No Token is going to win the nomination so I still think it's Bush or Trump at the end
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 18, 2015, 09:11:38 pm
I mean. Fiorina lied entirely, JEB lied entirely, they all lied. Did you listen to them talk about m j? He's no worse for those comments to the base.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on September 18, 2015, 10:35:42 pm
Trump's regurgitation of demonstrably false information on vaccines,  and his lack of a John McCain level correction to the misinformation leveled by a questioner at that subsequent townhall meeting.

This revealed his soft underbelly of ignorance that the press will continue to gnaw at until any remaining support for him will be equated with giving the election to Hillary.

I feel like you're overestimating voter intelligence. Never overestimate voter intelligence.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 18, 2015, 11:15:23 pm
Trump's regurgitation of demonstrably false information on vaccines,  and his lack of a John McCain level correction to the misinformation leveled by a questioner at that subsequent townhall meeting.

This revealed his soft underbelly of ignorance that the press will continue to gnaw at until any remaining support for him will be equated with giving the election to Hillary.

This reveals it?

(http://i.imgur.com/uPcbxK0.jpg)

Man, I'm so great. Let me tell you how great I am. I am so great. People tell me all the time just how great I am. That's because I'm great.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 18, 2015, 11:52:57 pm
Don't get me wrong, his debate performance should sink him.  But every speech and interview he's given since announcing has something in it that should have sunk him.  So I think this kind of talk is premature until we see some post debate poll results.  Trump's base of support probably contains people who are already skeptical of vaccines.  And remember all the Birther noise Trump made in 2012?  The handling of the "throw all the Muslims out" question is going to bother the press and people already against Trump a LOT more than it will bother his supporters.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 19, 2015, 03:18:32 am
Man, I'm so great. Let me tell you how great I am. I am so great. People tell me all the time just how great I am. That's because I'm great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCx6x0h0RiQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 21, 2015, 05:21:25 pm
And Walker is the next to drop.  I'm actually a bit surprised by this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-an-early-contender-makes-surprise-exit-from-2016-race/2015/09/21/3b7929fa-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 21, 2015, 05:50:11 pm
I am so going to say "I told you so."

I told you so. AND I'M ON THE BOARD!!!

Inkling - 26
Giant Cave Bugs and Mice - 0
Pat - 1
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 21, 2015, 06:02:00 pm
Looks like the Kochs are euthanizing
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 13, 2015, 04:05:48 pm
Debate night for the Democrats!  Get ready to get Chafee'd!

This was the second most intelligent political thing I saw on facebook today.  The bar isn't very high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apfd10FlgME
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 13, 2015, 07:23:05 pm
Cover me in sand.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on October 13, 2015, 09:21:21 pm
Cover me in sand.

Does he look like a beach?

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 14, 2015, 12:40:51 am
w-what?  :'(
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 15, 2015, 09:28:40 am
I love Lex Steele.

(http://i.imgur.com/BE8zRQU.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 15, 2015, 04:08:06 pm
So what's all this conspiracy stuff I see about CNN deleting comments from Sanders supporters?

Actually real or just internet warriors getting buttmad and jumping at their own shadows?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 15, 2015, 07:06:51 pm
No idea!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 15, 2015, 07:08:57 pm
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/ITS%20HAPPENING.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 15, 2015, 07:34:28 pm
Can't wait until I can reinstall Flash. :3

lol not really
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on October 15, 2015, 09:54:49 pm
Bernie literally gives me more hope for the American political system than I've ever had in my whole teenaged life.

If more **** like this gets pushed his way I'll be pretty ****ing pissed.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 15, 2015, 10:24:00 pm
Then strap in, it's a long way to go.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 16, 2015, 06:35:42 am
Oh what rys can vote

Wat
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 16, 2015, 09:03:53 am
I had that realization when we were playing Civ on skype and his voice was roughly three octaves lower than expected.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 16, 2015, 11:08:10 am
If the election isn't Bernie vs Trump, then the media oligarchs have won.

Well, no. Because there's is a huge (mostly) silent majority supporting each party that would never vote for either of them in a million years and don't see the point in even taking them seriously at this stage.

The noise about Sanders is mostly people who have a lot of time to spend making passionate posts on the internet and Trump's big block is backwoods racists. Their electoral clout is totally absorbed by hordes and hordes of middle-class voters who make their decision based on which candidate has a more presidential haircut and tribal types who want to vote for a moderate of the party their parents always voted for.

And before you say that this isn't so because look at these online polls I'll remind you that Moot was once top of time's Top 100 and the new flavour of Mountain Dew was going to be "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong".
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on October 16, 2015, 12:01:35 pm
To be fair, those were the result of concerted efforts to change those polls by groups of hundreds.

To be fairer, I don't think the types of people who do online polls may necessarily be representative of the democratic population at large anyways.

To be even fairererer, even my grandparents like Bernie better than Hillary.

etc etc.

The point is, do we have any sort of larger more serious polls about this right now?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 16, 2015, 12:37:05 pm
hordes and hordes of middle-class voters who make their decision based on which candidate has a more presidential haircut

TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 16, 2015, 07:43:30 pm
lolsam

That's not very fair to Hitlers. They have a culture to and you must respect it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 16, 2015, 08:00:15 pm
I guess there are some valid comparisons to Sanders and Trump since they're both non-establishment candidates, but the comparisons fall apart because Sanders wants to do things that he thinks will improve the country and Trump is just there to feed his enormous ego.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 17, 2015, 04:14:05 am
That's not very fair to Hitlers. They have a culture to and you must respect it.

Jahwohl meine herr!

I guess there are some valid comparisons to Sanders and Trump since they're both non-establishment candidates, but the comparisons fall apart because Sanders wants to do things that he thinks will improve the country and Trump is just there to feed his enormous ego.

Yeah but if you were more involved in Hitler Culture then you'd think Trump wanted to do what was best for the country and Sanders is only there to serve his shadowy puppetmasters in the Kremlin.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 18, 2015, 12:06:47 pm
only there to serve his shadowy puppetmasters in the Kremlin.

Who isn't, really? My shadowy puppetmasters never give me any time off.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 19, 2015, 11:40:28 am
It's being reported in multiple places that Biden will make an announcement on whether he'll run or not in the next 48 hours.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/biden-nears-decision-time-n447051
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 19, 2015, 11:59:45 am
People keep talking about whether or not Biden will run and all I can think of is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmMPytjrK4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 19, 2015, 12:01:57 pm
I've brought up that interview multiple times, too.  Maybe he's ready now, but he definitely didn't have the mindset to run then.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 19, 2015, 06:01:35 pm
If this is true (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459), then I find the man gross and calculating just like most politicians
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 19, 2015, 07:04:04 pm
SAND SAND SAND SAND
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on October 20, 2015, 02:45:56 am
but how does ron paul fit in to this and will he personally give everyone who votes for him a warm hug
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 20, 2015, 04:15:27 am
Not that difficult to give out ~50 hugs.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 20, 2015, 08:15:35 am
Ron Paul is gone. He has retreated to Odinsleep.

Rand. It's all Rand now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 20, 2015, 07:21:33 pm
Jim Webb is out of the Democratic primary, considering an Independent run.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/20/webb-exits-democratic-presidential-primary/

It might not be that crazy of an idea.  If certain candidates win there might be some real interest in a moderate alternative.  Dunno if Webb could fill that role, though.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 20, 2015, 07:35:36 pm
He's opening up a space for Biden, obviously.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 20, 2015, 07:39:25 pm
This guy... (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-triples-down-on-911-comments-160233313.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 20, 2015, 08:05:55 pm
Ooh,  the rare triple down.  ...I was going to quote and analyze some of the dumber quotes, but then I remembered that this is Trump and that would be a waste of time.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 20, 2015, 09:02:19 pm
Triple down... 3...

3x3 is 9
3-1 is 2
9+2 is 11

Gabe Newell caused 9/11.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 21, 2015, 12:52:03 am
Jim Webb is out of the Democratic primary, considering an Independent run.

Jim Webb
Wim Jebb
Wim Jeb
Win Jeb.

Jeb Bush will win the election.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 21, 2015, 01:29:37 am
As dumb as trump's statements may have been, he just got Jeb to defend George W. Bush's administration. Who really wins, here?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 21, 2015, 06:56:49 am
You really think Jeb is going to trash talk his own brother?

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 21, 2015, 02:54:17 pm
He's opening up a space for Biden, obviously.

Yeah, about that...

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/21/450611627/joe-biden-announces-decision-not-to-run-for-president-in-rose-garden-speech
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 21, 2015, 05:05:26 pm
Im just surprised there were people who thought he was...
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 22, 2015, 11:15:26 am
You really think Jeb is going to trash talk his own brother?

No, of course not. Which is why he's forced in that position to defend his family, and in doing so forcing himself to ally with a largely unpopular administration. I would be better for Jeb to simply not mention George W. at all.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on October 22, 2015, 11:37:03 am
It's kinda hard not to bring him up after his, uh... let's call them minor blunders.

We're still trying to fix them.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 22, 2015, 10:24:25 pm
BEN.
GAZZY.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 23, 2015, 04:32:14 pm
 Trump says **** your money, encrouages others to say the same  (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/257873-trump-distances-himself-from-nine-super-pacs)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 23, 2015, 04:52:25 pm
Lincoln Chafee drops out.  His margin of error support base is probably crushed.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/lincoln-chafee-2016-election/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 23, 2015, 06:34:21 pm
No.  Stop this.  For every thing you've heard from Trump that seemed sensible, he's said 20 other completely stupid things that would sink any actual politician.  He won't get the nomination, the GOP establishment would do everything in their power to prevent that.  More 538 because I like them.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-doomed-andor-invincible/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 23, 2015, 07:28:08 pm
Well, it sure as **** won't be Ben "Yes, I Performed Brain Surgery and Say These Things" Carson.

Furthermore, wtf are people like Chris Christie and Mike ****ing Hukabee still doing in the ****ing race? Get. Out.

For god sakes, even Webb and Chaffe knew when to throw in the towel.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 23, 2015, 07:33:15 pm
SAND SAND SAND
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 23, 2015, 07:48:31 pm
If I had to bet on someone for the Republican primary it would be Rubio.

The dynamics in the primaries are different.  For the Democrats Clinton is the very clear frontrunner and Sanders is the only challenger with any kind of traction.  For the Republicans it's a much larger field so you can stay afloat with a smaller polling percentage.  The two frontrunners, especially Carson, are more in the mold of Bachmann and Herman Cain in 2012: Crazy people who throw red meat to the base and have their moment in the sun, but implode once the actual primaries get closer.  The only Republicans to drop out so far were Perry and Walker.  They didn't drop just because of low numbers, otherwise several others would be gone by now too.  They dropped because they went big with staffing and spending, then didn't get results.  The lower tier candidates can stay in a lot longer and bide their time because they aren't failing expectations.

Speaking of top tier candidates with financial issues:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-23/jeb-bush-orders-across-the-board-pay-cuts-for-struggling-campaign

Remember kids, always dump bad news on Friday afternoons!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 23, 2015, 08:20:42 pm
Rubio is a billionaire whipping boy, I think Trump has legs.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 24, 2015, 11:17:46 am
I had to do a presentation on one of my classes, and I was lucky enough to get my hands on Trump. Everyone, professor included, thought I was going to tear the man apart, but I took a different angle. I talked a lot about trump wanting to build a giant wall, because that was the popular thing to talk about at the time, and how unfeasible it is. And that Trump, being in the business of constructing properties, should know how unfeasible it is. He's also a show runner and a professional entertainer of sorts. He knows how to grab and hold attention. What's the conclusion?

To me, the immigration issue for Trump looks like a massive scapegoat. It's a large obnoxious solution to an equally obnoxious problem, and it's hardly a solution at all. It will never happen, especially if Trump expects Mexico to pay for it (let alone maintenance and manning it). But it's a great magnet for media attention because it's an easy way for his opponents to attack in a million different ways. Meanwhile, more complicated ot tougher issues slip through the cracks. Why do things like research or interviews when you could write another quip about how many Mexicans fit on a single airplane? There's nothing modern media loves more than a massive bull's-eye.

In the past few years, Obama has found it very difficult to get anything past congress and I can't help but feel like the next administration will face the exact same issue. It's debatable on whether Trump will do anything good in this country, but with this massive scapegoat, whether he realizes it's a scapegoat or not, he may at the very least be able to do something, which is more than I can say for the rest of the field. The more media attention there is on a topic, the more voter attention, and the more voter attention, the more vehemently congress will fight it. If Trump can use diversionary tactics like this throughout his hypothetical presidency, that would pave the way to enact some actual changes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 24, 2015, 08:43:07 pm
Honestly, who's better on the GOP field than Trump?

I wouldn't vote for him over HRC, but I mean he's far and away the best GOP candidate.

Seriously, Carson is insane. INSANE!





SAND SAND SAND doe
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 24, 2015, 11:56:37 pm
The thing is that Trump might be crazy and a tad power hungry, but when he's actually in office, he's used to being a boss who throws money at talent and expects results. If you want to talk about positions and what his administration would actually do, look at his administration. Look to the people he'd hire, the people working his campaign behind the scenes. Trump himself is a showman.

Would I vote for him? Probably not. Would I vote for the collective thinktank he can easily put on his payroll? probably.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 25, 2015, 09:50:03 am
The simple fact of the matter is that more or less anyone is fit to be President. While you may get glimmers here and there of who the actual person behind the name is, for the most part you can expect the pressures and obligations of the job to bubble up to the top. You are the administrator of the system, not the dictator. You can add some of your own flavor, but you don't decide on all of the ingredients. The job itself and the power of the individual is overblown to a caricature of what the position actually is.

Trump wouldn't be able to build his wall regardless because he'd have ten different agencies telling him why he can't. And no matter how much he bitches and moans about it, he won't get it because he or any President wouldn't have the power to make it happen.

I like to look at the President as the human element that gets plugged into the machine. It's the only office we have where one natural-born citizen over the age of 35 that has lived here for over 14 years gets to behold the entire process in action. And it can be anyone that meets those simple qualifications. They watch the machine and guide it as best they can.

Trump would probably be divisive in a social sense, but in terms of policy I doubt he'd be able to do anything very crazy given how the two major parties view him and his ideas. He'd effectively become a one-man third party if he got to office, which admittedly wouldn't be terrible. Sanders would probably yield a similar result, though he'd skew much more toward the Democrats. And most of the other candidates would simply be a mouthpiece for their respective party.

In my view, I'd like to see a system where the Presidency could not be held by the parties with the most or second-most sway in Congress. If we want to have parties we need to have a balance of party power in addition to our regular separation of powers between government bodies. This forces more than two parties in the systems and prevents the rabid fight we see every few years for control of all the houses at the expense of good policy and the public.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 25, 2015, 02:26:28 pm
If you're going to be paying attention to Trump, it may be worth looking at the interactions with that main super PAC before he said he said screw all the super PAC's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-inside-story-of-donald-trumps-connections-to-a-big-money-super-pac/2015/10/18/532b61d4-72b5-11e5-8248-98e0f5a2e830_story.html
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 25, 2015, 04:25:22 pm
He's basically the rich man's sand.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on October 26, 2015, 12:36:20 pm
Pat, ravish me in the sand.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 26, 2015, 06:40:53 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeqkK1lIk4o
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 26, 2015, 07:13:56 pm
Pat is basically an ostrich.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 26, 2015, 07:17:55 pm
If you're going to be paying attention to Trump, it may be worth looking at the interactions with that main super PAC before he said he said screw all the super PAC's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-inside-story-of-donald-trumps-connections-to-a-big-money-super-pac/2015/10/18/532b61d4-72b5-11e5-8248-98e0f5a2e830_story.html

Counterpoint, most recent article, five days after that one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/23/donald-trump-tells-super-pacs-supporting-his-candidacy-to-return-all-money-to-donors/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 26, 2015, 08:23:43 pm
That's not a counterpoint, that's the story I was responding to in the first place.  I was saying that before he told the nine PAC's to go pound sand, he had close ties to one specifically.

It's a classic campaign move of creating an issue from the dynamics of the race.  If you're the underdog, you insist that your opponent should agree to more debates.  A recent counter to that is that if you're the clear leader you insist on every candidate being included in the debate, and the serious challenger gets drowned out by the crazies.  Complain about out of state endorsements and contributions as outsider interference when you couldn't get any yourself.  And if you don't need contributions because of the all the free press you generate by playing the media like a fiddle, bash the fundraising of everyone else.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on October 26, 2015, 10:30:17 pm
I fail to see how any of these tactics are underhanded. If it works, it works. Candidates can't dictate the rules of the game, but only how well they play.

You seemed to imply that trump maintained PAC ties after disavowing them, which would be an obvious issue. Making preparation in case you need funding is a logical measure, and so is dissolving those preparations once you confirm they are no longer necessary.

Condemning those who do need to rely on money from others is a perfectly reasonable approach. If Trump considered taking PAC money in the past, that only proves he's looked at the argument from both sides and decided the obligation to a PAC was not worth it. He'd have less ground to stand on if he dismissed PACs out of hand without considering the upside.

Look at this the same way you'd look at a debate between, say, a Christian and an Atheist. If either side dismisses the other out of hand, without really considering the other, neither is capable of presenting a valid argument. This is why so many people look up to men like Richard Dawkins, because they do the research and consider all sides before making their conclusions and forming their arguments. If Trump planned on relying on personal money from the beginning, dismissing PACs out of hand, this would make him unqualified to speak out against them.

I can't believe I'm actually defending Donald Trump for President.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 26, 2015, 11:01:56 pm
I didn't mean to imply that they were underhanded, just that they were tactics.  What I'm trying to say is that Trump doesn't appear to me to be a champion for campaign finance reform, he's just using it as an opportunity to smack around his opponents.  As evidenced by the close ties his campaign had to one PAC before he reversed course.  A candidate taking a principled stand against against PAC's would look more like Sanders.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on October 27, 2015, 10:39:16 am
*pours the sand*

Don't stop baby. Don't stop.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 27, 2015, 07:38:59 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdsJnnnwayw

Brandon for you I have all the sand in the sea.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 28, 2015, 02:41:49 pm
Oh boy another debate!  JV debate at 6 eastern, actual debate at 8.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 28, 2015, 10:42:47 pm
That sure was a debate I tell ya what.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 28, 2015, 11:31:15 pm
Yeesh.

Trump had these moments of clarity, like when he slams the lobbying system, that make me want him as the gop candidate.

They're all insane, though. It's maddening
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on October 29, 2015, 08:44:18 am
I watched the Republican debate. They spent like a third of the debate trying to downplay the civility and policy-heavy content of the Democratic debates compared to their previous ones.

Then they did the 'the liberal media is conspiring against us with these questions' bit, Ted Cruz especially.

They were more civil this time, though, so I guess they learned their lesson. And they attacked the Democrats more, so they're realizing the threat that their huge field is starting to become to their own party.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 29, 2015, 03:08:00 pm
Or they decided to beat on the moderators instead of each other and ran with it.  I don't know who that Santelli guy was, but he made Jim Kramer look level headed.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 29, 2015, 06:56:10 pm
Republitards are dead. Demodorks are dying.

BRING ON THE SAND!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up46s_gb7PY

Also some Junkie for you.

http://krpoliticaljunkie.com/episode-100/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on October 30, 2015, 11:33:20 am
Can someone link me to that youtube video that's just a bunch of crazy random frenzied statements about Ron Paul
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 30, 2015, 11:44:51 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJElsNaC6yQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 30, 2015, 04:39:57 pm
That takes me back.

What's with the video quality though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEzhxP-pdos
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 06, 2015, 09:54:24 pm
Gather round, kids!  It's time for a lesson from world renowned Egyptologist Dr. Ben Carson!

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/05/ben-carson-believes-joseph-built-egypts-pyramids-to-store-grain-and-it-just-may-get-him-some-votes/

(Credit to Buzzfeed, they do actually have some decent opposition research guys.  I think they keep them in a broom closet until there's an election.)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 06, 2015, 10:02:42 pm
It will get him some votes.

But not enough to win an election.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 06, 2015, 10:23:29 pm
I kinda wish I had found a better link, that was the first I found that wasn't from a crap site or had autoplay.  But I disagree with the headline.  I thought Carson was the only person who bought into this, but apparently there's a few scraps floating around on the internet.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ben-carson-pyramid-theory-roots

But yeah, It's just Carson and some internet crazies.

http://news.yahoo.com/carson-pyramids-egypt-built-biblical-figure-joseph-173754341--election.html#
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on November 06, 2015, 11:18:55 pm
Ben Carson has tainted the age old saying of it isn't brain surgery.

Obviously that's no barrier for intelligence
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on November 07, 2015, 07:28:45 am
Reading those Ben Carson quotes in the article gave me an actual headache.

Quote
“I have many arguments, I guess you could call them ‘discussions,’ with so-called scientists who think that I should not believe in God because there is scientific evidence of the way life evolved.

“I remember once, a few years ago, there were about eight or nine panelists. They were all Nobel Prize-winners. And the question came up: How did life originate? And after all their machinations, they finally came to the conclusion that life emanated as a result of a bunch of promiscuous biochemicals getting together. That was the best that they could come up with.”

Carson then criticizes scientists some more.

“I recently had a discussion with a well-known physicist. He was talking about the Big Bang Theory and how all this obviously culminated into this wonderful, extraordinarily organized solar system that we now have, which you can set your watch by, where scientists can predict 70 years away when a comet is coming. That’s an incredible amount of organization to have originated from just a large explosion.”

Carson then tells the story of how he supposedly stumped the physicist by asking him how he could reconcile such an “organized” universe with the laws of thermodynamics, specifically entropy, which says that systems tend to move  toward disorder.

“Well of course he has no answer for that. They never have an answer for any of these things,” he concludes, broadening his story into a universal. “And see that’s the wonderful thing about having a relationship with God. God has already told us what happened, so we don’t have to come up with fanciful theories so that we can take the place of God. We don’t have to do that.”

Ughh.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on November 07, 2015, 07:43:10 am
He's a front-runner for the most powerful person on the planet. And it's a democracy.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 07, 2015, 10:54:38 am
Unlike Trump though, he's much more in the model of candidates like Cain and Bachmann last time who had a moment in the spotlight and then fell back.  I would say Carson has peaked, but this year has taught me that I don't actually know anything about politics, so who knows.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 07, 2015, 07:23:02 pm
The Carson Collapse will begin in six days.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 10, 2015, 03:56:46 pm
Debate time!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/live-coverage/fox-business-network-wall-street-journal-gop-debates?intcmp=whatshot

JV debate is nowish, main event after that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 10, 2015, 10:00:18 pm
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2015/nov/07/ben-carson-house-homage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=share_btn_tw
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 10, 2015, 10:37:45 pm
Hey wow... not going near him after the debate.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 15, 2015, 11:09:50 am
Oh yeah, there was a debate last night.  I didn't watch it yet, I had better things to do on a Saturday night.  How strange having a debate on the weekend when people are much more likely to be busy than during the week.  It's almost as if the party is trying to protect the front runner by preventing people from seeing the other candidates.  But surely that can't be it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 15, 2015, 11:57:22 am
There was a debate last night? :U

Conspiracy? NOOOOOO!

Gooooo Sand! Thank god ChiToes is a foreigner and can't vote in our elections.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 15, 2015, 12:33:15 pm
Again, thank god he can't vote in our elections.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on November 15, 2015, 03:11:35 pm
I, meanwhile, am not amused at the apparent lack of any observation on your part, Chitoes.

I'm really not sure how you could have gotten your statement from any current video of Bernie Sanders.

Like, legitimately confused.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 15, 2015, 03:44:33 pm
Responsibility for what?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 15, 2015, 03:45:51 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/841eTYb.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 15, 2015, 03:48:56 pm
It's a quality sandwich, man. Say what you want, it's good.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Gauphastus on November 15, 2015, 03:56:16 pm
no it isnt that was the saltiest soggiest mess ever
i had one and then never again
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 15, 2015, 03:58:57 pm
i had one and then never again

Pretty much my feeling on the Indieref Bar.

(http://i.imgur.com/cZno7Q4.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 15, 2015, 04:57:29 pm
no it isnt that was the saltiest soggiest mess ever
i had one and then never again

YOU PROBABLY GOT ONE AT A CANADIAN KFC.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 15, 2015, 05:04:32 pm
I wouldn't call it a sandwich, it's more of a weird fast food chicken cordon bleu.

Anyway here's the debate.  Or at least the start of it.  CBS broke it into pieces so they could get multiple views I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQFjTJW7NCM
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 15, 2015, 06:42:17 pm
Hah! That was a good one. :D
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 16, 2015, 07:52:41 pm
I don't go to Facebook.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 16, 2015, 08:07:03 pm
Tis a silly place.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 17, 2015, 01:54:57 am
(http://i.imgur.com/BGpnCbh.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on November 17, 2015, 02:33:47 am
Can we get back to Sandwich talk? I'm starting to find politics interesting.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 17, 2015, 08:34:00 am
If the candidates were sandwiches which ones would they be?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 17, 2015, 08:36:55 am
Can we get back to Sandwich talk? I'm starting to find politics interesting.

Back to the pattern of: Trump and Carson are insane and the other fifty Republican nominees are just a finely graded spectrum of run of the mill conservatives from Old Fart to Actual Dinosaur, Clinton refuses to be pinned down on anything because she's hoping she can win by default and Sanders is too old/white/communist/old/double down/not enuff campaign emones/socialist to win?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on November 17, 2015, 06:45:48 pm
Much to the surprise of those who forgot he was running or never knew it in the first place, Bobby Jindal has dropped out of the race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/17/jindal-suspends-presidential-campaign/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 18, 2015, 05:55:05 am
Yes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 20, 2015, 08:38:22 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQcmzGIKrzg

Sadly I don't have the time to watch this right now before work, but I've been hearing this is pretty solid.

Will be watching it when I get home tonight.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 20, 2015, 07:53:03 pm
Mickey Mouse 2016!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on November 20, 2015, 11:21:33 pm
All seriousness, has there been a game which mentions and/or features gun control in some way? Like a GTA style game where once you get busted and start building a record you're forced to go through back channels to acquire guns? The only example I can think of was making fun of gun control in Hitman: Absolution because that game's America was fueled by the Bush Jr. administration.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 21, 2015, 03:02:00 am
Holy **** I just found out that Bernie Sanders' brother Larry is a politician here in the Uk and ran as the Green party candidate for the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency in the last election. That's one district over from where I live.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/30/bernie-larry-sanders-brothers-us-uk-politics
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on November 21, 2015, 07:05:11 am
FEEL THE SAND
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 21, 2015, 09:10:20 am
All seriousness, has there been a game which mentions and/or features gun control in some way? Like a GTA style game where once you get busted and start building a record you're forced to go through back channels to acquire guns? The only example I can think of was making fun of gun control in Hitman: Absolution because that game's America was fueled by the Bush Jr. administration.

I don't think so. It sounds slightly interesting but not fun.

Maybe an indie will make it. :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on November 21, 2015, 10:35:18 am
On second thought, it has to be like Papers, Please and you decide who gets to have what guns and then watch the world burn.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 21, 2015, 10:41:10 am
That sounds a lot better!

But it may also still be boring, as you'd probably never sell a gun to a murderer or crazy person in your entire career statistically speaking.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on November 21, 2015, 10:45:03 am
...unless your gun store happened to have a reputation for categorizing bazookas as self defense weapons.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 21, 2015, 01:41:40 pm
Well I guess the video game would have to take some liberties. You can't go for total realism.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on November 21, 2015, 11:09:23 pm
You never go full realism.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 22, 2015, 03:08:40 am
If you plant an acorn in this game, and come back in 10 years (real time) a tree will be growing in that exact spot. Every tree will be different. If you chop into it it will ooze sap. if it's a maple tree you can put the sap on pancakes and give them to the girl you like as a romance subplot option. Your child will inherit your interest in trees and make unique discoveries about plant biology never before understood, even OUTSIDE the game in real life.

Molyneux 2016.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on November 22, 2015, 10:03:12 am
I think Sam just went full-realism.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on November 22, 2015, 12:52:02 pm
If Molyneux were president he would promise a comprehensive, government-run and competent healthcare system, wait two terms, and then send every US citizen a voucher for chicken soup, Sprite, and VapoRub.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on November 22, 2015, 01:10:30 pm
That would still make him the best president for a long time.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on November 22, 2015, 01:21:40 pm
FEEL THE SAND

but I hate sand
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on November 23, 2015, 10:19:05 am
Psychic, living, evil sand.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 01, 2015, 03:06:01 pm
FEEL THE SAND

but I hate sand

Stop being emo Anakin!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 03, 2015, 10:13:03 pm
Interesting internal memo from the National Republican Senate Committee on how they would deal with Trump being the nominee:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/private-memo-lays-out-how-the-gop-would-deal-with-trump-as-its-nominee/2015/12/02/78514cba-9909-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

Before you think or hear other people say that this is a sign that Trump really is going to win and the establishment is acknowledging it, note that the memo is from back in September.  And I'd take them at their word when they say they have plans for many contingencies.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 06, 2015, 09:11:13 pm
The love of Sand can make a man do strange things.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/shutesbury_man_completes_500-p.html
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on December 07, 2015, 07:44:05 pm
Trumbo, you will never fail to amaze. There are entire species of flies recovering from extinction with the number of mouths hanging agape from your daily commentary.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 07, 2015, 08:12:50 pm
Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html)

I wish I was as good as Trump. He's so good.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 07, 2015, 10:08:30 pm
When I find people defending this on facebook tomorrow, I will let you know.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 08, 2015, 02:01:09 am
Haha, that last soundbite.

"He can build a coalition of other people to take them on"

...

"Hey, kraut, come help us kill all the terrorists you pansy kraut idiot. Join our coalition you limey moron. You too Frenchie, you cheese eating idiot."

Edit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-wants-to-ban-the-internet-will-ask-bill-gates-to-close-it-up-a6764396.html

I think we're hitting peak Trump. Our only hope now is to increase exploratory drilling in the hopes we can find some as yet undiscovered pockets of hot air in his ass.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 08, 2015, 04:06:02 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/experts-trumps-muslim-entry-ban-idea-ridiculous-unconsitutional/2015/12/07/d44a970a-9d47-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

"His plan to bar U.S. citizens drew particular ire from legal experts, some of whom fumbled for words as they tried to explain its illegality, since none had considered the matter before."

Or in other words,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptXkLglKkA

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 08, 2015, 04:06:36 pm
Quote from: twitter
In Britain, due to Muslim pressure groups, our Prime Minister is no longer allowed to **** pigs. #TrumpFacts
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 08, 2015, 05:23:04 pm
The sad thing is that, despite everything he's said, I'd still rather have Trump in the white house than Hillary.

Trump does not compromise. There is no way he will manage to put forth even moderate versions of any of these radical crazy person ideas. Hillary, on the other hand, is a feminist. She has far better chances of being able to screw up everything.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on December 08, 2015, 08:07:53 pm
I want to live in the reality you live in.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 08, 2015, 08:32:22 pm
Someone you disagree with on the issues but who is capable of doing the job, vs someone who is absolutely unqualified for the position and seems to be trying to prove that with every passing day.

But Trump isn't going to be the Republicans' nominee, so it's not a choice you'll have to make.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 08, 2015, 08:50:54 pm
I want to live in the reality you live in.

It's nice here, if you can get past all the padding.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 09, 2015, 12:44:44 am
The sad thing is that, despite everything he's said, I'd still rather have Trump in the white house than Hillary.

Then you're dumber than Trump is.

Seriously. Read back what you just wrote and then go and sit in a corner and think about what you've done you dummy.

Trump does not compromise. There is no way he will manage to put forth even moderate versions of any of these radical crazy person ideas. Hillary, on the other hand, is a feminist. She has far better chances of being able to screw up everything.

So you're not a feminist I suppose? You don't believe in things like women having the right to vote, or being paid the same as men? Because that's what feminism is.

No, I don't care what some 14 year old on tumblr said. No, not that fat lesbian that lives on a commune in San Francisco either. Wake up dude, pretty much every reasonable person in this day and age is a feminist. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 09, 2015, 02:20:56 am
Wake up dude, pretty much every reasonable person in this day and age is a feminist.

There's a difference between a belief in equality and feminism. Most feminists might say all they ask for is equality, and in any feminist positions which actually accomplish this, I can readily agree. But feminism tends to get pretty extreme, sometimes becoming quite vindictive toward men (or even fellow women, if they're attractive enough). I wouldn't expect a reasonable person to say that men are trained from birth to commit rape, yet that's a common feminist belief.

A good example are proposed restrictions on advertising which features female sexuality. They seem to have no issue with oversexualized male advertisement, but female models apparently objectify women. The real fact of the matter is that it comes down to statistics. Marketing is based on surveys and studies and numbers and the prominent use of sexual female models is really because women respond more positively on average to female models than males responding to male models. Besides, not only is modeling a successful industry, it's also well paid, and isn't feminism supposed to want more and better paid jobs for women, not fewer and worse? Wait, I forgot. That's because Feminism isn't meant to help successful women. It's designed to hurt them in order to help the feminists.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on December 09, 2015, 03:08:10 am
He's right that Clinton is a lot more likely to get unConstitutional stuff through the Supreme Court than Trump is. He'd rather have a lame duck president than one that's cutting away at the Bill of Rights.


Wake up dude, pretty much every reasonable person in this day and age is a feminist. 

(http://i.imgur.com/7iMmPhK.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 09, 2015, 04:08:46 am
Wake up dude, pretty much every reasonable person in this day and age is a feminist.

There's a difference between a belief in equality and feminism. Most feminists might say all they ask for is equality, and in any feminist positions which actually accomplish this, I can readily agree. But feminism tends to get pretty extreme, sometimes becoming quite vindictive toward men (or even fellow women, if they're attractive enough). I wouldn't expect a reasonable person to say that men are trained from birth to commit rape, yet that's a common feminist belief.

A good example are proposed restrictions on advertising which features female sexuality. They seem to have no issue with oversexualized male advertisement, but female models apparently objectify women. The real fact of the matter is that it comes down to statistics. Marketing is based on surveys and studies and numbers and the prominent use of sexual female models is really because women respond more positively on average to female models than males responding to male models. Besides, not only is modeling a successful industry, it's also well paid, and isn't feminism supposed to want more and better paid jobs for women, not fewer and worse? Wait, I forgot. That's because Feminism isn't meant to help successful women. It's designed to hurt them in order to help the feminists.

Look do not generalize the feminist movement like that. Your making a lot of claims of a opposing side without actually having there say in the matter. I have seen a lot of straw mens of feminist and it is getting tirering. The people I know that call them self feminist do not fit at all in with your description.

Yet a lot of people that I come across that attack feminism often are very misogynistic. And that I find very worrying. I find it very worrying that this also seem to be some acceptable norm on the internet. That women should be treated as lesser people. And anyone defending women's right is ether a feminazi or a misguided white knight.

That being said. There bad people on who call them self feminist to. People that not only seem to use the feminist platform for just personal gains, but also hurt the fight for equality as a whole. And hurt the feminist movement it self. But we should not judge a book by it cover. If you say your a mans activist then I will not assume your are misogynistic without first hearing what you have to say on the matter.

Just hear the other side out. Do not generalise. Be open and keep the discussion open and polite.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 09, 2015, 04:10:42 am
Trump does not compromise.

This is one of his worst traits. Compromise is very important and what is sorely lacking right now in American (and other) politics.

Also what Yokto said. I give the so-called crazy feminists a lot of crap, but I do so mostly because they make it harder for the rational actors seeking a better world to be heard.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 09, 2015, 05:36:41 am
I'm continuing this in the Politics thread (http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=386.msg895710#msg895710) since it's not specifically pertinent to the election and is distracting from valuable sal****er Trump****ching.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 09, 2015, 06:12:44 am
salt water trump ____ ching

Gonna need an assist with this one.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 09, 2015, 08:45:11 am
Trumpt watching
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 09, 2015, 08:46:45 am
l-lewd
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 09, 2015, 05:32:24 pm
Well done, Dnd!
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/feminism%20word%20of%20the%20day.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 09, 2015, 10:45:24 pm
I agree that Cruz would also be horrible.  Which is worse, someone who breaks the government by not understanding the job, or someone who is willing to break the government on purpose?  Cruz was one of the lead people behind the shutdown in 2013.

When I find people defending this on facebook tomorrow, I will let you know.

The argument appears to be that Trump can ban all muslims because Jimmy Carter blocked travel from Iran during the hostage crisis.  Because a hostile nation and an entire religion are exactly the same thing.

And if you want to go even further, you can bring up the old gem that Islam isn't actually a religion, but a political system.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 10, 2015, 02:25:30 pm
I'm gonna need some citation on the Cruz stuff.  Strikes me more as pandering to that side of things than being a true believer in it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 10, 2015, 06:36:06 pm
Rafael?

Is Cruz Hispanic?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 10, 2015, 06:59:08 pm
And it was good.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Cyst on December 12, 2015, 03:54:50 pm
Is it too early/late for me to say: I predict Trump will win. ??
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 12, 2015, 03:56:25 pm
Primary, or the whole thing?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on December 12, 2015, 04:16:17 pm
hes not even running!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 12, 2015, 05:17:39 pm
Oh, and a better question: Are you saying that you support Trump, or just that you think he'll win?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 12, 2015, 08:35:22 pm
Trump makes it onto the ballot but loses to Sanders after Hillary gets assassinated. Trump sees a boost in polling though after stating that she deserved it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 12, 2015, 11:53:44 pm
It really would take an assassination for Sand to win at this point.

Pat, put down the gun.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 13, 2015, 09:07:31 am
Why do you say that DnD?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on December 13, 2015, 09:13:41 am
Cause he's out on that edge
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 13, 2015, 09:25:44 am
Please explain
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on December 13, 2015, 09:43:04 am
He's being edgy
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on December 13, 2015, 11:15:27 am
He's totally radical.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 13, 2015, 11:44:48 am
That is not really a explanation. At least not a good one :P
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on December 13, 2015, 02:39:30 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YNc2o30IIg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Cyst on December 13, 2015, 07:19:34 pm
Primary, or the whole thing?
The whole damn thing. Calling it, just like I called the Boston Bombing while everyone was saying it was just a "steam pipe".
Oh, and a better question: Are you saying that you support Trump, or just that you think he'll win?
I am an adamant anarcho-transhumanist. I'd never support Trump, but I see trends, historically and actively, that lead me to believe he *will* become PotUS 2016. I hope for everyone that he doesn't, but still.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 13, 2015, 07:56:07 pm
just like I called the Boston Bombing while everyone was saying it was just a "steam pipe"

(http://i.imgur.com/UcF6zSZ.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 13, 2015, 08:59:59 pm
Probably the most damaging thing to Trump's campaign would be his father. A large part of Trump's current support seem to accept his brand of casual racism, but his father was an active KKK member who refused to rent or sell homes to black people. If someone starts launching attack ads comparing Donald to Frederick, I feel like it would do considerable damage. 2016 isn't on lock quite yet.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 13, 2015, 09:36:05 pm
Doubtful. Attacking Donald Trump's father would be a waste of money and effort, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried.

It's a token attack that would appeal to people that already aren't voting for Trump. There are plenty of real reasons to not vote for Trump and they come out of the man's mouth every time he speaks. No child should be chained down by the sins of their parents.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 13, 2015, 09:39:32 pm
Under normal circumstances bringing up Papa Trump could be damaging.  But under normal circumstances the things Trump has said and done himself would sink a campaign a hundred times over, so I doubt the effectiveness of that tactic.

I still don't think he gets the nomination, but it's mid December, he's still here, and I'm getting increasingly concerned.  Help me Nate Silver, you're my only hope!

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 13, 2015, 09:44:00 pm
What you're saying is that we should only be worried if we tune back in in May and Trump is still in the race?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 13, 2015, 09:52:29 pm
I'm saying that, according to Silver, a large chunk of the primary electorate haven't made up their minds yet.  And if they aren't following the race closely they may only know Trump or one or two other candidates because he's sucking up all the coverage.  When it gets closer to primary time in their state, more voters will take a closer look.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 13, 2015, 09:54:01 pm
There are other people running?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 14, 2015, 12:54:39 am
They had a round of local government elections in France right after the Paris attacks and in the first "round" (not sure how exactly the French system works) their far-right nationalist party apparently did really well, but then in the vote that actually counts they were completely slaughtered. So I think the electorate maybe just knows when a vote matters and when it doesn't and like to **** with people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 14, 2015, 01:31:41 am
You will likely see the more idealogical extremes get more votes in the primaries. I would not be that suprised if Trump actually wins the primaries. But when up against the democrats I think he will fail. If it goes that far.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 14, 2015, 08:58:16 am
https://boingboing.net/2015/12/09/trump-threatens-independent-ru.html

So apparently, if Trump fails to secure the GOP nomination, he plans on running as an independent, splitting his party's vote and basically guaranteeing Clinton '16. Something tells me Trump's won the primaries, given his reputation for refusing to back down on threats. Any normal politician wouldn't have the funding for a move like this, but Trump isn't a politician.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 14, 2015, 09:12:24 am
But he signed the pledge saying he wouldn't.

:O

Or does that not count anymore because it was more than two weeks ago?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 14, 2015, 09:26:25 am
It's pretty extensive, but Trump has created his own loophole. And I think Trump knows he'd lose as an independent. With those low odds, any lateral thinker will tell you the only way to win in a system that won't work in your favor is to find a new system. Trump isn't a polititian and I somehow doubt after this he'd shoot for a nomination in 2020. He isn't afraid of burning bridges with either party. He wouldn't run as an independent to win, but to undermine the validity of the entire election, which is why he'd have no qualms breaking the pledge. If he can't win, no one wins.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 14, 2015, 09:46:09 am
/s
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 14, 2015, 09:55:35 am
That's just one of the many, many things I dislike about Trump.  He's not even pretending to be there for anything but himself.  If Trump goes independent, the democrats win, plain and simple.  All it takes is pulling away a few percentage points.  For an actual republican, that would be unacceptable.  But that's not what he is.  He's a spoiled child who is saying that if he doesn't get his way in a game, he's going to break all the toys out of spite.

Same with Ben Carson.  Trump's just there to feed his ego, Carson's just there to sell books and get a radio show.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 14, 2015, 10:23:07 am
That's just one of the many, many things I dislike about Trump.  He's not even pretending to be there for anything but himself.  If Trump goes independent, the democrats win, plain and simple.  All it takes is pulling away a few percentage points.  For an actual republican, that would be unacceptable.  But that's not what he is.  He's a spoiled child who is saying that if he doesn't get his way in a game, he's going to break all the toys out of spite.

You're right, it's not a Republican move. Republicans tend to be pro-establishment.

I don't think we're talking about a spoiled brat looking to break all the toys. I think we're looking at a man with business acumen who sees a white house who doesn't know the art of the deal and aims to teach business to politics, one way or the other. This is ultimately a goal he can achieve through the race, whether or not he actually becomes President. The reason why he's willing to throw the race is because becoming President is really secondary, I think, and not what he's set out to do.

It's also worth noting he strongly believes, and the polls agree in this, that he's the only candidate capable of going toe to toe with Clinton. If the Dems win when Trump fails to secure the GOP, it's not like running independently would make Republicans lose the presidency even more. A loss is a loss. And if Trump did act in support of another nominee, everyone knows it would be hollow and meaningless.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 14, 2015, 11:47:09 am
Don't be a hater!  ;D

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/14/silicon-valley-elites-speak-highly-of-donald-trump-but-only-in-private/ (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/14/silicon-valley-elites-speak-highly-of-donald-trump-but-only-in-private/)

Oh so some people who genuinely think building Rapture would be a good idea support Trump.

ok.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on December 14, 2015, 01:07:56 pm
Do people not remember that this is the guy that wanted to bring back ****ING TARIFFS.

NO, HE DOES NOT HAVE BUSINESS ACUMEN. THE FACT THAT HE PROPOSED TARIFFS AS A LEGITIMATE ECONOMIC TACTIC MEANS THAT, IN FACT, HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING. AT ALL.

Brought to you in allcaps because you guys apparently have very thick skulls, if you didn't already know this and support Trump in any fashion. Please look up your candidates and what they have done and said, people. That goes for everyone and anyone.

I can understand the logic, on a surface level- we have economic troubles, who better to solve them than a businessman, an entrepreneur even?

A company, however, as I hope you know, operates on a different scale and scope than a nation. Too, one might consider the fact that he had an easier time of building a company than most- the infamous "small loan of one million dollars" clip is overplayed, but still relevant here.

I have to stop typing right now because the idea that people are supporting this man is literally hurting my head. I'm going to go calm down for a bit. This post may be added onto.

Whoever wins the election... It's going to be interesting, at least. Unless Hillary wins. She's boring.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on December 14, 2015, 01:51:23 pm
Nobody thinks he's actually going to be a good president, people would just rather have a crazy person than another Bush or Clinton (and that's not crazy).

Hopefully the damage Trump does is irreversible and America has to reboot its entire political system. Maybe it will even be a democracy this time.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on December 14, 2015, 02:33:23 pm
Do people not remember that this is the guy that wanted to bring back ****ING TARIFFS.


Oooh wee, that argument came and went a while ago



/lurk's idea is interesting.

Though, I don't know anyone who doesn't plan on voting, so maybe Bernie's revolution is incoming and the millennials show up? Perhaps our total interconnectivity has finally sparked the idea to actually just vote, too? That's what I secretly am hoping for
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 14, 2015, 02:49:40 pm
Part of it is probably what lurk said, and they haven't looked around to see that there are options other than Bush, Clinton, and his Trumpness.  There are also people who think Trump would be a good president, and they are crazy.

As far as your friends and peers, it's important to remember that they're probably not representative of the people who are going to vote.  The same definitely goes for the internet.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 14, 2015, 03:28:17 pm
Personally I would vote for this Sanders guy. He sounds like a Social Democrat.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 14, 2015, 03:44:05 pm
Well, Sanders has said that he wants to move the US towards the model of Scandinavian governments.  Or as he calls himself, a Democratic Socialist.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 14, 2015, 04:10:51 pm
If the Dems really wanted to secure that youth vote, you'd think they'd be anti-social.

 8)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on December 14, 2015, 04:35:26 pm
Hopefully the damage Trump does is irreversible and America has to reboot its entire political system. Maybe it will even be a democracy this time.

(http://b.1339.cf/npjkrbh.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 14, 2015, 04:56:02 pm
Well, Sanders has said that he wants to move the US towards the model of Scandinavian governments.  Or as he calls himself, a Democratic Socialist.

Well the Scandinavian model is build much by Social Democrats. I am not sure how much you all know about Social Democrats. It was a big thing in USA to once (And in fact USA inspired a lot of Scandinavia Social Democrats). But after the red scare socialism turned in to a dirty word.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 14, 2015, 09:05:50 pm
The Red Scare was a very bad time in our history and still has us all messed up.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 14, 2015, 10:51:48 pm
What's that?  Do I hear you sympathizing with the commies, pinko?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Cyst on December 14, 2015, 11:32:23 pm
Hopefully the damage Trump does is irreversible and America has to reboot its entire political system. Maybe it will even be a democracy this time.
Same, to be honest.

Mainly, I doubt that most Sanders supporters would vote Clinton, and vice-verse.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 14, 2015, 11:59:52 pm
Or, and I know this is a strange concept, we could hope and try to make things work better instead of rooting for it to burn to the ground first.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 15, 2015, 12:05:01 am
Hopefully the damage Trump does is irreversible and America has to reboot its entire political system. Maybe it will even be a democracy this time.
Same, to be honest.

Mainly, I doubt that most Sanders supporters would vote Clinton, and vice-verse.

Right, Sanders supporters would either vote Trump or not vote at all rather than vote for the candidate that aligns closest to their top choice.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Cyst on December 15, 2015, 12:43:24 am
I put my money on most Sanders supporters voting third party at that point, tbh. Like, I could see this entire race rebalancing the election pattern if Hillary and Bush were the actual bipartisan candidates. That's just like, my opinion, tho, man.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 15, 2015, 04:01:17 am
Hopefully the damage Trump does is irreversible and America has to reboot its entire political system. Maybe it will even be a democracy this time.
Same, to be honest.

Mainly, I doubt that most Sanders supporters would vote Clinton, and vice-verse.

I am not so sure about that. I may not be a big Clinton fan. But I would choice the lesser evil. And I really think that Sanders him self would be behind you picking the lesser of two evils.

Of course the whole situation could spiral all out of control. Where we get 4th candidate or something breaking up the unity of both major parties. But who knows.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 15, 2015, 08:13:46 am
Having that many major candidates would be something the US hasn't seen since before the Civil War.  It would be interesting, but very messy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on December 15, 2015, 01:10:28 pm
Sanders will obviously win, you guys are failing to count all the votes from the 15 year old demographic.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on December 15, 2015, 01:19:13 pm
If he became president he would be the oldest man to become president.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on December 15, 2015, 02:08:29 pm
If he became president he would be the oldest man to become president.

Tell you he seems a lot younger then most of the other candidates ;)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on December 15, 2015, 02:21:15 pm
Well Hillary is about that age in lizard-person years.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 15, 2015, 02:41:49 pm
Republican debate tonight on CNN.  JV debate is in 20 minutes, main debate is at 8:30 ish eastern.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/republican-debate-live-updates/index.html

Start drinking immediately.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 15, 2015, 03:28:53 pm
When anyone objectionable is speaking or on screen, take a drink.

If Trump is shown on screen, heard in audio form or alluded to in shadow theatre, finish your drink.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 15, 2015, 06:30:11 pm
Apparently so far tonight, the game is to drink whenever on e of the candidates says 'penetrate'.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 15, 2015, 06:37:25 pm
"the bad guys"

and

"precision carpet bombing"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 15, 2015, 06:42:38 pm
Did the CNN stream just start breaking for anyone else? It's skipping all over the place for me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 15, 2015, 06:49:32 pm
"THATCHER"

All the Englands better chug some mead.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 15, 2015, 06:54:55 pm
I ended up missing ten minutes or so fixing the stream, got ir tunning smoothly. I'm assuming I missed nothing important.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 15, 2015, 06:55:47 pm
Chris Christie got to talk.

Didn't even realize he was there. :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 15, 2015, 07:12:11 pm
He said a few things earlier I actually liked, though honestly now I can't remember what it was.

I do like how the female candidate's strategy is to spend the night attacking the other female candidate, who isn't even present. A few times they've mentioned unifying the party against Obama/Dems, but that's kind of not the point of a debate between Republicans in the first place.

New drinking game, every time Jeb says 'the shows'.

Well, Trump just came out saying he'll stick with the GOP results 100% and not run independent. I mean, he kind of has to say that in the middle of a primary debate, but still, it's something I hadn't expected to come out.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 15, 2015, 08:16:48 pm
NINE







































ELEVEN
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 15, 2015, 09:55:49 pm
I think he was the first one in the debate to say that domestic concerns are more important than usurping foreign regimes or some such like that, though by the second half pretty much the whole group said the same in one way or another.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 15, 2015, 10:13:40 pm
Rand Paul is such a aspie.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 16, 2015, 02:34:26 am
Pat just because he likes Minecraft doesn't mean he's on the spectrum.

Because Minecraft doesn't run on the Spectrum ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 16, 2015, 10:55:56 am
(http://i.imgur.com/lUFhytr.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 18, 2015, 08:48:38 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/16JNBLS.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on December 19, 2015, 03:09:42 pm
Haha, WHAT status quo?

**** this GAY earth, I'm voting for rand paul.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 19, 2015, 05:29:37 pm
I'm watching the debate I guess. :U

hahaha the first question was to Sanders about the information breach. The cameras panned right to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Also Bernie apologized! Neat.

(http://i.imgur.com/1bTaT3X.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 19, 2015, 11:37:43 pm
I'll have to find a video of it somewhere.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 20, 2015, 02:59:07 am
(http://i.imgur.com/bqGj92O.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on December 20, 2015, 08:18:48 am
Trump-Beartato 2016
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on December 20, 2015, 09:34:03 am
And I wanna send some props to Danny.

Good work, sport! :D
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on December 21, 2015, 01:16:51 pm
FAR-TOO-SPECIFIC-TO-BE-RELEVANT-FOR-MORE-THAN-A-SHORT-TIME CURRENT EVENT REFERENCE COMICS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZm1_jtY1SQ

May the 4th be with you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 21, 2015, 02:21:38 pm
I read "Rush 2112" as "Bush 2012"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on December 21, 2015, 06:11:13 pm
Lindsey Graham dropped out.  Did anyone notice?  We'll at least get a good Colbert segment out of it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lindsey-graham-tries-to-stop-trump-the-only-way-he-can-by-quitting/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 23, 2015, 07:28:20 am
Haha. Lindsey isn't a boy's name.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 03, 2016, 06:58:51 pm
I almost forgot, George Pataki attempted to get some headlines in the only way he could:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/george-pataki-drops-out-republican-presidential-race/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 14, 2016, 07:57:53 pm
BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 14, 2016, 09:43:21 pm
Guys Bernie is doing well.

I have a cautious amount of optimism. It's a nice, unsettling feeling.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 14, 2016, 10:21:56 pm
I missed the debate tonight, I'll have to catch it tomorrow.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 14, 2016, 10:46:54 pm
BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB

SAND
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 17, 2016, 12:56:08 pm
The Democrats have a debate tonight, but it's supposed to be a secret so don't tell anybody.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on January 17, 2016, 01:34:33 pm
a secret democratic debate eh?

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 17, 2016, 04:31:10 pm
Didn't even know.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 17, 2016, 07:01:23 pm
O'malley went big into Clinton, was nice
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 17, 2016, 09:44:37 pm
Everyone loves Bernie!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 17, 2016, 10:06:19 pm
http://trumplings.com/

QUALITY.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 18, 2016, 12:07:49 am
So I guess this four year old article has been resurfacing lately.

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-drops-2016-presidential-race-103050046.html
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 23, 2016, 09:41:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqCJfUKlls

Please make it stop.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 24, 2016, 03:37:06 am
(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/inSs6Rr.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 24, 2016, 03:12:56 pm
I can't think of a more perfect response.

And now let's see who can find Pat in the crowd!
(http://imgur.com/84CHg1I.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 25, 2016, 03:34:59 am
(http://i.imgur.com/M3ttjpT.jpg)

Feels like the lower income tax rate is nothin' at all. Nothin' at all. Nothin' at all.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 25, 2016, 09:15:47 am
That 'I have a Bernie boner sign' leads me to question the holder's political legitimacy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 25, 2016, 10:43:43 am
Hey I put a lot of time and glitter glue onto that sign.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 25, 2016, 05:03:49 pm
Apparently there's a townhall on cnn in an hour for the Democrats.  I guess Hillary decided she needed more air time after all and this was easier than tweaking the rules and putting together another debate.  Feel the Bern!  Embrace the Inevitable with Hillary!  Embrace it, Dammit!!  Briefly remember that Martin O. Malley exists!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 25, 2016, 06:27:27 pm
Yes and it's decent.

It really, really, really sucks that Hillary will get the last word and thus be able to defend herself without having to be called out. Which is terrible.

However Bern went first and I would like to think he would get a lot of views from that.

Idk, I see it as a hit piece by the DNC and HRC, or at least a last second chance to reverse her polling trend.

Edit: I swear if this mother ****er loses Iowa, I just don't ****ing get it

Edit2: What the **** question is "What would you say to republican voters if you won president?" Bitch is a law student for **** sakes and ask the stupidest ****ing question of all ****ing time!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 28, 2016, 08:34:19 pm
Tonight was amazing.

Trump is a genius.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 28, 2016, 09:01:13 pm
I agree.

Quote from: Reuters
Trump was by far the most-searched-for candidate on Google during the first half of the debate, at one point outpacing the second-most-searched-for candidate, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, by nearly four-to-one, according to Google Trends data.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 28, 2016, 09:53:09 pm
It hurts.  Trump is terrifying, his supporters are even more terrifying for falling for it, and the GOP is going down in flames.  Even if you don't like the Republican party, and I assume that's most of you, the implosion of one party in a two party system is going to be a chaotic mess.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-rubio-or-bust-for-republicans-who-want-to-win/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 28, 2016, 10:10:22 pm
Eh, I like that he at least does what HE wants.

Best of the GOP for sure
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 28, 2016, 10:58:24 pm
Yeah, no.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on January 29, 2016, 05:50:34 am
If a vote for Trump is a vote for chaotic anarchy, is it any surprise that he's so popular?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 29, 2016, 08:30:25 am
Eh, I like that he at least does what HE wants.

The point of the President is to do what the people in your country want, or at the very least what's good for them (whatever you think that is). Everything about the way Trump behaves implies he doesn't care about anyone but himself. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 29, 2016, 10:18:44 am
Yeah but they don't do that anyway.

I fail to see a practical difference between Jeb Rubio Christie as they're all basically going to do what big business interest want, not the American people

Ted Cruz will do what god wants, not the people.

Trump will do what he thinks is good for him, and I think he believes he thinks America doing well is good for him. How he'll do that is up to him I guess but he sure won't be discussing it with donors or God.

None of them care about anyone but themselves except Sandman. When that qualifier is removed, Trump leads to GOP field imo.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on January 29, 2016, 10:40:58 am
It's gonna be a wild ride for the next few years, whatever happens.

I'm ready.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 29, 2016, 01:21:50 pm
Calgon take me away!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 29, 2016, 06:32:15 pm
Erops, have you not been listening to the stuff coming out of Trump's mouth for the last months?  I have issues of varying degrees with the rest of the GOP field too, but they pale in comparison.  If any other candidate "joked" about about taking protesters' coats and throwing them out in the cold or shooting people in the street, their campaign would be over in 24 hours.  And that's just in the last week.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 29, 2016, 09:15:30 pm
Eh, it's not like any other candidate wouldn't throw the protesters out in the cold.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 29, 2016, 09:27:07 pm
A normal candidate would pause while interrupting protesters are removed, maybe take the opportunity to make a joke about whoever he's running against, and move on.  A normal candidate doesn't gleefully yell to confiscate their coats.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265172-trump-tells-security-to-confiscate-protesters-coats

I am telling you with certainty that this, or the "joke" about shooting people in the street, or any of his blatantly stupid and impossible proposals would end any normal campaign.  I really don't see how you can just shrug and say he's the same as anyone else.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 29, 2016, 09:41:16 pm
If Jeb Rubio Cruz could get away with what Trumps doing they would. The fact they've played their hands as establishment do right politicians is their problem.

Trump acts different than them because he can get away with what they've spent years dancing around. They still believe in what he says that's why GOP voters pick him
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 30, 2016, 02:56:33 am
So what you're saying is if someone can get away with doing something obviously immoral without repercussions then that's good because they're just doing what they want and anyone would do the same in their position?

So someone that robs a liquor store and gets sent to jail is bad, but the hedge fund manager that embezzles and offshores millions and then gets off scott free because he has a team of expensive lawyers is the best of his profession because he can get away with being self-serving?

Because that's a pretty good analogy for what's happening here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 30, 2016, 04:54:49 am
I mean, think about what the protesters are doing. An event held for supporters is held for the audience as much as for the candidacy. If a protester feels like a movie or play or some other type of performance is an affront to their morals, they stand around outside with signs and get ignored as they should be. If the opening scrawl starts up in the premiere for episode VII and some dude jumps in front of the projector waving his arms and shouting, "Jar-Jar", you're damn straight he'd get thrown out in the cold, if he's not trampled to death along the way.

Interrupting a candidate in the middle of a supporter event is not just an obnoxious waste of the candidate's time, but of the audience's as well. It's for supporters, not people on the fence. A couple of fools shouting another candidate's name, no matter who they support or who they're antagonizing, will not change a single person's mind. All it does is waste time for tens of thousands of people, hundreds of thousands. Free speech in this country has always been limited to protect the rights of others. An interruption of this nature does nothing beneficial and only wastes other people's time, and in many cases time is money. There are many who would say it's about damn time someone wasn't allowed to get away clean with such a display of selfishness.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 30, 2016, 05:34:29 am
At no point did anyone argue that it was improper to eject protesters.

The issue is that Trump is in a position of power, with thousands of people apparently fanatically clinging to his every word. To then stand up in front of those people and even as a joke say that someone should have their property confiscated* and then be thrown out into the cold without a coat is just irresponsible. Ditto saying "I could go out and shoot someone". These are not the actions of a mature adult. Even a comparative dunce like Dubya knew better than to say things like that in public. Even the idea that Trump could be president of the USA is making George W. Bush look like a fantastic statesman by comparison.


*What sort of reaction would have got if he'd said "take their gun away"?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 30, 2016, 06:52:32 am
I don't think what he's saying is good. I think that he is speaking his mind and that speaks to the GOP base, and he gets to speak his mind and have it sound authentic to voters because he has never had the reputation as a politician who cares about appearences. If the others spouted off they'd be seen as stooping, low, etc. He's not because he never had the expectation he would.

Jeb Rubio Cruz would kill for that kind of exception, but they don't get it, and hence they're losing the base because while they dance around and dog whistle their intentions (which are the same as Trump), Trump just says it and exposes it to the world.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on January 30, 2016, 12:02:48 pm
Erops, I think people know that and they know your view on the matter. We're not confused as to what view you hold about Trump speaking his mind and the way he does it.

What we are confused about, I think, is why on Earth you think it is a good thing.

Being outwardly stubborn, petty, selfish, and racist are generally not things that should endear you to a prospective coworker, let alone a candidate to help lead one of the most powerful nations in the world. They shouldn't really be any better if the person tells you about them, either.

Perhaps you only think that he is headstrong, detail-oriented, self-loving, and outspoken about immigration issues?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on January 30, 2016, 12:18:03 pm
I guess I think it's good because I don't see those facets as a negative against him when the rest of his party votes in step with what he says, it's a knock on the whole GOP that they allow him to do this, that's not a good thing. Thus, the whole thing is moot to me when compared to the rest of the GOP field, since they are all culpable, he's just more outspoken. and not tied to anyone, thats his advantage and i think it's a good thing

Quote
outwardly stubborn, petty, selfish, and racist

I mean, being inwardly stubborn, petty, selfish, and racist isn't that much different at the end of the day.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 30, 2016, 12:46:14 pm
Okay, but the argument that all of the GOP candidates are the same as Trump just isn't true.  No one else is saying we should ban all Muslims.  There's a huge difference between calling for vetting refugees, or even a ban on accepting refugees, and banning travel for any muslim from anywhere.  No one else is saying we're going to make Mexico pay for the hugest most luxurious wall along their border because it's nonsensical pandering.  Sure, any candidate would love to speak their mind freely instead of sticking to talking points that they hope will win over their base, but no one, not even Cruz, seems to have the disgust for everyone who doesn't agree with how great they are.

I do agree with you that Trump's campaign, is a knock, a monumental condemnation, of the GOP base and whoever else is supporting him.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 30, 2016, 03:00:44 pm
Quote
outwardly stubborn, petty, selfish, and racist

I mean, being inwardly stubborn, petty, selfish, and racist isn't that much different at the end of the day.

It is different because when you have thousands of people hanging onto your every word and eating up all your bull**** like it's God's jizz your words have the power to shape the beliefs and actions of those people. For all we know Obama secretly huffs ground up endangered tiger glands because he believes they give him sexual powers*. If this were true that would be bad, because hunting tigers to extinction is unethical. If he also took time out at the state of the union to extol the virtues of Tiger Glands and how every virile American should aspire to huffing Stripe Dust and a good chunk of the Democrat voter base started doing a massive run on the stuff, pushing up prices and increasing poacher activity across Asia then that would be a whole lot worse.

Politicians have a responsibility to reign in the behaviour of the people they whip up at their rallies.


*That's only a half truth
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 30, 2016, 05:16:41 pm
You seem to be convinced that every Trump supporter is an 8 year old watching Nickelodeon and then running into walls shouting that his name is Patchy the pirate.

Personally, I tend to think he's not as extreme with racism as a lot of people think. Even attackers trust Trump's brashness and so assume everything he says is genuine and heartfelt rather than calculated. I watched an interview where he was being pressured about ISIS plans and Trump essentially told them off because ISIS is watching the goddamn news and he can't threaten them with any action if they know it's a threat; it defeats the purpose. There's no bluff to call.

I feel like a few of his other stances, like the mexican wall and muslim ban, are proposals he does not genuinely expect to come to fruition. But they're threats. They draw attention to issues and spark discussion and inspire the people who are able to come up with better plans to do so. It's a call to action. But of course, if Trump comes out and says it's just talk, the desired effect is ruined.

In the same interview, he mentioned his book, The Art of the Deal, and that no one in politics seems to know what it is and that's what he's bringing to the table. Haggling. Start at a high point and let someone else make a better offer.

Look back to when Trump was talking about the muslim ban and saying it would fall in place until 'we figure things out' and that he wishes he didn't have to enact such a policy in the first place, but again, 'there's a problem that needs to be solved'. The goal is to find a better answer before enacting the ban in the first place. But again, if he said the muslim ban was just a threat and he didn't plan on actually doing it, then nothing would get done.

I do not believe that Trump is quite as racist as most would claim. I believe he is more calculated than many give him credit for. I also do not believe that his followers are impressionable children being handed kool-aid and told to drink.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on January 30, 2016, 05:29:39 pm
You give trump too much credit

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 30, 2016, 05:39:31 pm
Maybe. But whether it's a threat or not, it 1. won't happen, logistically and 2. is still a call to action. I'd like to think he's bluffing, but in actuality, the impact is the same whether it's a bluff or not. It's still a call to action and a demand for a better solution.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 30, 2016, 06:06:02 pm
Remember, Trump wants to **** his daughter

(http://i.imgur.com/cGT1RrK.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 30, 2016, 08:48:12 pm
Only wants to?

Trump gets what trump wants.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on January 30, 2016, 10:27:23 pm
Oh man this debate. Is this even happening?

Where am I? Have I fallen into the Berenstain universe.

Just promise me you won't stop.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on January 30, 2016, 10:39:29 pm
I've heard that line of thinking elsewhere, that Trump doesn't actually believe the stuff he says, it's just an act, he probably wouldn't be that bad.  And that's probably true to some degree, I think he is just throwing out red meat to people.  That still leaves you with an unqualified candidate who conned his way into office, where you don't know his actual positions on anything and can only pick through his past comments that have been all over the map.  Of course he's playing a character, he's been a reality tv actor for however many years.  But everything I've seen from him, in politics, reality tv, and business, shows a genuinely terrible person.

Saying that the "ban all muslims" talk was haggling is like making your first bid on a used car an offer to steal the car and break the owner's legs on the way out.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on January 31, 2016, 01:39:26 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u75XQdTxZRc
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 01, 2016, 07:36:25 am
Big day.

Sanders pls
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 01, 2016, 09:43:22 am
I wonder if there's any interest in moving to a normal primary in Iowa.  Because the caucus system feels really archaic and unnecessarily complicated.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Kenotai on February 01, 2016, 10:00:45 am
Big day.

Sanders pls
More like "Iowan democrats pls"
I hate the waiting for results part of an election.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on February 01, 2016, 10:11:09 am
When are results expected?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 01, 2016, 11:10:29 am
It'll be late tonight.  They start at 7 central and will apparently take a few hours.  It sounds like there's potential for a lot of first time caucusers to show up for both parties, which could make things take longer.  Europeans should probably just check the results tomorrow morning, unless they're nocturnal.

This looks like a decent place to watch results come in:

http://data.desmoinesregister.com/iowa-caucus/results/index.php
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on February 01, 2016, 11:18:26 am
Neat, I got nothing to be up for tomorrow so I'll watch it live.

In other news, the date of the Irish national election is to be announced this Thursday. It's not fixed, but it's presumed to be around late February.

Yeah that's right, other countries have elections too, nerds.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 01, 2016, 02:06:40 pm
It's not fixed

All elections are fixed.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 01, 2016, 02:08:21 pm
It's not fixed

All elections are fixed.

So what's the point in voting then?

democracy is a lie!(according to dnd)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 01, 2016, 02:39:56 pm
But it's a broken system and thus has to be fixed!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 01, 2016, 02:55:56 pm
 what's the point in trying to change anything,it's not like one vote  made any difference
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 01, 2016, 04:15:02 pm
I don't really see what you're going for, here. You do realize the double entendre with 'fix', right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 01, 2016, 04:24:54 pm
your so clever that I never conceived it was   double entendre

well done you
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 01, 2016, 04:58:10 pm
Guy stop trying to be funny that's Pat's job.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 01, 2016, 05:57:59 pm
Anyway.

13% in, HRC winning.

I'm already dying.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 01, 2016, 06:37:00 pm
Knock knock.

(http://i.imgur.com/q8brfHw.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 01, 2016, 07:26:59 pm
I'm seeing Hillary 50%, Sanders 49%.  Coming that close to Hillary can be considered a moral victory, I think.

Cruz has first place with some sources calling it already, 28 or 29%.  Trump at 24 and Rubio at 23 and gaining.  Trump coming in second should already be a big blow to his ego, coming in third would be fantastic.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 01, 2016, 07:43:29 pm
so close.

im dying. my heart
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 01, 2016, 07:48:21 pm
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ BERNIE TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ BERNIE TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ BERNIE TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ BERNIE TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ BERNIE TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 01, 2016, 08:19:43 pm
****
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 01, 2016, 09:30:38 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztgY-Xsk5RE

:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 01, 2016, 10:56:23 pm
Personally I would not agree with a coin toss being used to decide politics. And on top of that coins are not fair! I call Foul! Foul I tell you! And the way that coin was tossed actually makes it even less fair! Rigged! Rigged!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYnJv68T3MM
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 02, 2016, 02:03:39 am
Cruz has first place with some sources calling it already, 28 or 29%.  Trump at 24 and Rubio at 23 and gaining.  Trump coming in second should already be a big blow to his ego, coming in third would be fantastic.

INK you're a moron for thinking third place is bad. Third place is terrific. I'll tell you. Uuge luxurious bronze medal. You don't have to step as high to get onto the podium. Just my opinion but some people have been saying you're a stupid moron.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 02, 2016, 05:40:52 am
Just like how a tie is basically a win?

Right?  ..... right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Lookatroopa on February 02, 2016, 06:11:36 am
doesnt a tie in the election mean double presidents or something
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on February 02, 2016, 06:23:14 am
double presidents

I'd watch that sitcom.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 02, 2016, 06:33:09 am
Boy it sure is a good thing that climate-change denying evangelical healthcare slashing Trump lost the republican primary :^)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 02, 2016, 07:53:29 am
And on top of that coins are not fair!

This was my first reaction as well. They should have used a die or a random number generator or something. Not a coin thrown by Aunt Mabel in the gymnasium.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 02, 2016, 08:10:44 am
double presidents

I'd watch that sitcom.

Episode 4 - "Puddin' on the Rice": Bernie promises to behave when Don invites Vladimir for an important state dinner, but chaos ensues when a jealous Hillary spikes the presidential punch.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 02, 2016, 08:20:12 am
Sam, it's like you were born to do this.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 02, 2016, 08:36:56 am
We just need a producer then we are ready to go!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 02, 2016, 10:00:41 am
Sam, it's like you were born to do this.

Quote from: season 1 script
Don sits on the Oval Office couch watching his luxurious ultra-widescreen gold plated LCD tv

Bernie enters with Killer Mike *studio audience cheers*

Bernie: "Don, I'd like you to meet my good friend Mike"
Don: (Not looking up from TV) "Hey."

Don looks up at Mike and does a shocked double-take, springing up defensively to stand between Mike and the tv. *Canned laughter*

Bernie: "Don, I asked you not to act that way around my friends"
Don: "Act what way?" *Canned laughter*
Bernie: "What way? Come on! All the racism?" *Canned laughter*
Don: "I'm not racist Bernie, I'm the least racist person you'll ever meet. I'm good friends with a lot of black people you don't know, who are even blacker than the ones you do." *Canned laughter*
Mike: "Hey that's cool. You wanna go eat waffles at the diner and talk about the Oscars?"
Don: "Yeah, sure, that sounds terrific!"
Bernie: "Wait... really?!?" *canned laughter*
Don: "Bazinga you ignorant, stupid moron" *canned laughter and screaming*
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 02, 2016, 12:13:34 pm
I weep.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on February 02, 2016, 02:16:58 pm
Bernie dies in the second season and they have to recast him and hope no one notices, York/Sergeant style.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 02, 2016, 05:56:23 pm
WHO.

ARE.

YOU.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on February 02, 2016, 06:04:09 pm
(https://eleroth.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hadvar.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 02, 2016, 11:48:42 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/zma2MZR.jpg)


Edit: The meme pile doesn't stop from getting higher

http://i.imgur.com/TSYo5FI.webm
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 03, 2016, 05:22:24 am
hahahahhahah the maymays!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 03, 2016, 09:13:31 am
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/03/donald-trump-twitter-says-cruz-stole-iowa-calls-caucus-results-be-nullified

AMAZING.

(http://i.imgur.com/ujgkMkw.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 03, 2016, 01:36:09 pm
hahahahhaa
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 04, 2016, 03:36:27 pm
Cruz was more desperate for a win in Iowa than I expected.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 04, 2016, 03:39:08 pm
A recap since the Iowa caucuses: O'Malley, Huckabee, Santorum, and RAND PAUL have all dropped out.  Expect more candidates from the establishment wing for the republicans to drop after New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Apparently there was another televised town hall for the democrats yesterday?  And a debate tonight?  There's been a definite shift since they were burying debates on the weekend Star Wars came out.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 04, 2016, 04:35:45 pm
Watching the debate pre-game on MSNBC.

GLORY.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 05, 2016, 07:06:51 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgBT0eec_4

Here is last night's debate if you missed it. It was actually pretty good and worth watching.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 06, 2016, 03:13:35 pm
Another debate on abc at 8 eastern?  His Trumpness should be in attendance again, so there's that to look forward to/dread.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 06, 2016, 03:46:43 pm
Cruz won Iowa and Rubio got all the bump from it and Trump is still in the lead.

POOR TED CRUZ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 06, 2016, 03:56:40 pm
Rubio, more like rube!
Trump, more like chump!
Cruz, more like lose(r)!
Carson, more like arsin' around!
the other dozen GOP candidates!

American friendos. What's the real chance of Bernie actually winning? The Iowa couscous was really close but does that mean anything? Can we really feel the bern of hot sand?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 06, 2016, 03:59:20 pm
Yes he can win.

I think he might.

Alabama closed within 10% in the latest poll, which bodes well for the rest of the south, jury is still out. NV and SC will be the one's to really watch.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 06, 2016, 04:59:28 pm
Low odds.

Maybe ten percent? The next few weeks will be fun.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 06, 2016, 06:03:14 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uafScAiaC44
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 06, 2016, 07:14:54 pm
Just showing how much of a joke it all is.

Jeb! Classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNRNHgi1RzU

This one is my favorite
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 06, 2016, 07:39:58 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/1J3gq5L.jpg)


The traffic jam.

We saw it happen live and completely lost it. Really set the tone for the debate.

Closing comments now. Blah blah blah. Neat! Look, we really need to discuss something first though. Before we continue with any of this...

It's important.

We need to dispel this myth that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he is doing.

(http://i.imgur.com/2MLXnvz.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/oymqhJx.jpg)

These last two debates have had some noteworthy moments. Pretty cool! Someone light a candle in memory of Marco Rubio.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 07, 2016, 02:15:33 am
Why did Carson just stand there? Watching the video I thought until Trump came out that it was one of those edits like Gandalf and Saruman constantly opening and shutting a door. What possessed him to just stand in a corridor like a ****ing lemon? Is Carson even a real person? Is he on the spectrum? So many questions.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 07, 2016, 06:28:56 am
I think he was told to come out but never really heard his name. Watched it a few times myself and there was a surge in noise when he was being called, so it's understandable. The crew told him to go out because they knew the cue, but then another name was called and he DID hear it which probably made him think twice, so he just stood there.

Then Trump showed up, probably because he's smart and knows he'll get more news coverage by just hanging out there. Poor Jeb!.

The best part of the night for me was when Trump went after the crowd, calling them all donors and shills amidst a storm of boos. It was awesome.

(http://i.imgur.com/pGv2MJr.gif)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn4tP7ogWIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJaW32ZTyKE

SAND
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 07, 2016, 08:27:01 am
Omg the John Travolta one kills me
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 07, 2016, 11:11:06 am
http://i.imgur.com/mmaucle.webm
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 07, 2016, 12:45:53 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFn4oBJrJU8

(http://i.imgur.com/mpIHnU9.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 07, 2016, 01:59:11 pm
Please make it stop.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 07, 2016, 04:51:30 pm
Red ants in wiener.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 07, 2016, 05:25:02 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/ag45Cc0.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/ag45Cc0.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/ag45Cc0.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/ag45Cc0.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/ag45Cc0.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 08, 2016, 02:55:13 am
Pat, you'll find out.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 08, 2016, 10:43:22 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6jXvMYi0LE
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 08, 2016, 11:13:15 am
Remember, if you're a woman you have to vote for Hillary or you're going to Hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 08, 2016, 12:01:55 pm
Well, as I say every day: thank god I am not a woman.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 09, 2016, 03:55:50 pm
Nah, blame it on an overzealous staffer like the campaigns usually do.

Also why are you reading Breitbart?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 09, 2016, 05:09:10 pm
****in cnn

'basically his next door neighbor'

'moral victory'


tails she wins, heads he loses
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 09, 2016, 05:12:54 pm
They called it for Trump and Sanders as soon as the polls closed.  All that's left is to figure out the pecking order for the rest of the republicans.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 09, 2016, 05:13:48 pm
SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 09, 2016, 05:39:15 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/T67NQsm.gif)

STOLEN FROM INKLING
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 09, 2016, 05:46:30 pm
yeah he's cruising, i just hope he keeps the momentum and really has a good spread

that's the kind of momentum that takes this from possibly, to maybe.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 09, 2016, 05:58:28 pm
Be prepared for him to lose South Carolina.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 09, 2016, 06:11:44 pm
He's gonna win it, Ink.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 09, 2016, 10:00:13 pm
So long as you know that it's highly opinionated and one sided, that's fine.  And maybe don't be so quick to jump to the 1984 talk.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 09, 2016, 11:54:14 pm
Also why are you reading Breitbart?

Has it been declared wrongthink by the authoritarian truth?

Yes the shadowy cabal of fascists, business magnates and lizard people I represent on the forum have decided it's too real and it might give the sheep the ammunition they need to escape from our insanely convoluted plan to make a book about facism written in the 1940s become 100% real.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 09, 2016, 11:58:28 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/vDNstgb.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 10, 2016, 04:29:09 am
Also why are you reading Breitbart?

For the videogame reviews, obviously. Where else could he go?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 10, 2016, 04:35:38 am
Be prepared for him to lose South Carolina.

There is one key to winning votes in South Carolina. Bernie just has to learn some moves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s58iTzznkp0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on February 10, 2016, 05:59:57 am
book about facism

(https://i.imgur.com/YNG5fwr.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on February 10, 2016, 07:48:17 am
http://www.therightperspective.org/2016/01/09/possible-assassination-attempt-on-bernie-sanders/ (http://www.therightperspective.org/2016/01/09/possible-assassination-attempt-on-bernie-sanders/)

Maybe this source isn't super reliable but the police reports it links to are pretty reliable.

ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON SAND

HILLARY YOU RASCAL
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 10, 2016, 07:49:14 am
(http://i.imgur.com/VXMetlY.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/VXMetlY.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/VXMetlY.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/VXMetlY.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/VXMetlY.gif)

Also that story is a month old.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 10, 2016, 09:18:28 am
SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi5jjXTPtyY
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Gungnir on February 10, 2016, 11:13:08 am
Be prepared for him to lose South Carolina.

There is one key to winning votes in South Carolina. Bernie just has to learn some moves


The state dance is the Shag, thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l5pczCZw04
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 10, 2016, 02:16:36 pm
I only know Collegiate Shag.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 10, 2016, 02:50:18 pm
Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina have both dropped out.  I had to wait for Salon to confirm it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 10, 2016, 03:32:21 pm
Because you're not the boss of me.

And because I'm a liar.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 10, 2016, 04:57:21 pm
and herman cain lives on

told ya ink, he'll stick it through SC and then bail is my guess
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 10, 2016, 05:09:16 pm
If you're my boss then you really need to start paying me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 10, 2016, 05:45:06 pm
OH **** YOU JUST GOT TAKEN DOWN, CHITOES!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 11, 2016, 05:55:45 am
I don't know what Pat is smoking, but I think I'll pass... I just heard the world is about to end on Valentine's Day.  :-[

You'd better pass that ****, nobody likes a hogger.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 11, 2016, 06:46:12 am
Sharing is caring.

I made one for each of you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 11, 2016, 07:16:44 am
Yes maybe this is the year the combined loneliness of single necklards on Valentines day will cause a psychic feedback loop and obliterate us all.

Our only hope is the biggest, most audacious catfish of all time.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 11, 2016, 07:57:21 pm
i missed debate. want best line pls
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 11, 2016, 08:58:15 pm
"You're not President yet."

SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND

SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND

SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND

ERRRYBODY!!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 11, 2016, 09:57:37 pm
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-need-to-treat-donald-trump-as-the-front-runner/

Or in other words, it may soon be time to panic.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 11, 2016, 09:59:25 pm
If I can't vote for Sanders, I'll vote for Trump.

They're both anti-establishment and there's no way the establishment that remains will let either of them do everything they want to do. So in the end it'll break even either way.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on February 11, 2016, 10:58:47 pm
I LOVE SAND, IT'S COARSE AND IT GETS EVERYWHERE
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 12, 2016, 01:13:10 am
If I can't vote for Sanders, I'll vote for Trump.

They're both anti-establishment and there's no way the establishment that remains will let either of them do everything they want to do. So in the end it'll break even either way.

Oh God Pat, no! Have some consideration for the rest of the world. :<

Think of all the poor Cubans that are gonna get nuked if Turmp (sic) wins.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on February 12, 2016, 01:23:11 am
Pat has no concerns for the rest of the world, this is the guy who wants to drop nukes on an entire half-continent geological region in the hope that it'll sort everything out :P
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 12, 2016, 07:33:59 am
Also, I firmly believe that the support staff and other "permanent", non-electable officials in our government will temper even the craziest of Presidents such that they may be acting goofy, but never outright dangerously.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 12, 2016, 11:01:49 am
How the **** is Trump a revolutionary now?

I guess being insanely regressive is a form of revolution? In the sense he is revolving the whole system around until it's back where it was in the late 1800s when the Robber Barons were working thousands of Chinese people to death and Boss Tweed owned half of New York city.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 12, 2016, 12:47:14 pm
"loosen the grip the current oligarc"s have on the system enough"

when he is one himself I doubt it
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 12, 2016, 01:37:58 pm
Learn to read my post before you respond to it
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 12, 2016, 03:35:33 pm
Call me a wild eyed optimist, but I'd rather vote for fixing the system than burning it to the ground and starting over.

Trump's an ******* to everyone who doesn't suck up to him.  He's completely unqualified for the job.  His foreign policy proposals consist of war crimes and alienating most of the planet.  Even if he doesn't believe any of the stuff he's saying and this is bluffing his way into office or some weird version of bargaining, this is not behavior that should be tolerated, much less supported.

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.  Giving the people in power the finger doesn't mean that you're a better option.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 12, 2016, 04:41:57 pm
BERN IT DOWN.

BERN IT SAND.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 12, 2016, 04:54:38 pm
Trump's an ******* to everyone who doesn't suck up to him.  He's completely unqualified for the job.  His foreign policy proposals consist of war crimes and alienating most of the planet.  Even if he doesn't believe any of the stuff he's saying and this is bluffing his way into office or some weird version of bargaining, this is not behavior that should be tolerated, much less supported.

If you don't like that sort of candidate, you're not going to be voting for anyone in 2016.


Not after Bernie gets assassinated, anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 12, 2016, 05:34:44 pm
Dude will be JFK'd and MLK'd and RFK'd

You can't go against the MIC and expect to come out alive
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 12, 2016, 06:27:31 pm
ChiToes you need to stop being a dork.

I agree with everything Bernie says. So should you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 12, 2016, 07:00:09 pm
Chitoes, I agree with you that Trump is an egoist.  He has wealth and power, he wants the praise of people not on the payroll.  But I deeply disagree with you that it would lead to good results with him as President.  I have tried to understand where he's coming from, and this article from 2014 is as good as any I've seen.  It's also just about the only buzzfeed article I've ever recommended.  They do have some decent political reporters hidden behind lists of 27 Bewildered Pugs That are Every 90's Kid.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/36-hours-on-the-fake-campaign-trail-with-donald-trump#.ikNXNwNA0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 13, 2016, 03:14:56 am
Trump's an ******* to everyone who doesn't suck up to him.  He's completely unqualified for the job.  His foreign policy proposals consist of war crimes and alienating most of the planet.  Even if he doesn't believe any of the stuff he's saying and this is bluffing his way into office or some weird version of bargaining, this is not behavior that should be tolerated, much less supported.

If you don't like that sort of candidate, you're not going to be voting for anyone in 2016.


Not after Bernie gets assassinated, anyway.

If anyone's gonna be assassinated it will be Trump.

If he wins the nomination wait for a "disgruntled young Muslim" to shoot him and then take his own life after a brief chase with the police. Then one of the GOP establishment candidates stands up all like "See, mouthing off about Muslims was a bad idea, but we seriously need to do something about them lets start building camps".

HAHA thought I wasn't on board the conspiracy train did you??? Pat get my lizard detecting satellite dish.

(http://i.imgur.com/awqn5U8.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on February 13, 2016, 03:59:10 am
The CIA are already setting up for Trump and Bernie to be found together dead of apparent erotic asphyxiation in a motel room
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 13, 2016, 05:31:13 am
I love Bernie but still disagree with him on a few things.

I think people misunderstand Trump.  I think they don't see the forest for the trees... or rather they are so caught up in narratives that they don't try to understand the guy.  Use a bit of empathy, profile the guy, get in his head and discern his motivations.  He is not trying to become president for wealth or power... those things he takes for granted.  He is an egoist.  He wants to be president because he wants to be the best.  If he gets into office, he will be mad driven to be the best President in history.  The motivation might be shallow, but the consequence could be grand.  This is especially true because he is not immune to reasoning, new information and listening (like politicians generally are).  Where is the wild eyed optimism for Trump?  ;)

I find it sad that so few people nowadays try to understand where others are coming from, or try to understand what others are trying to communicate... and instead just dismiss others and ignore their potential input.

People motivated by there own ego generally do not make great leaders. They make dangerous leaders. Very dangerous ones. They can potentially achieve greatness but more often there grand machinations collapses when they face reality. And the bigger there ego are the harder they will fall.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 13, 2016, 09:43:39 am
ChiToes: I disagree with Bernie that climate change causes terrorism because I don't want to agree with him. Climate change will cause super-terrorism, which is not terrorism, which makes Bernie wrong.

YEAH OKAY CHITOES WHATEVER.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: sgore on February 13, 2016, 10:14:01 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 13, 2016, 11:58:07 am
Any chance you remember a former forum user named Leng?

He had something like that going on. It was funny and then not funny. :(

Hopefully he's better now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 13, 2016, 03:23:23 pm
BREAKING NEWS!

Alright boys and girls! If you thought this American election season was already crazy, grab your Kasich brand safety belt and strap in. We've got a vacancy in the US Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia has died. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop)

For the uninitiated, Scalia was one of nine members of the United States Supreme Court, the third branch of the US government. Members of the Court are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

One of the major aspects of this Presidential election (as others have mentioned in this topic) is that the next President will most-likely be appointing several new members to the court as the older members retire or die. These appointments don't happen often and they are for life (or until they decide to retire). There should be some fireworks in the coming weeks and months over this. Maybe even tonight during the debate! Who knows?

But our crazy election just had a grenade thrown into it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 13, 2016, 03:28:00 pm
In all ~250 years of American democracy, apparently nobody realised that was a ****ing stupid way to run things.


Makes the House of Lords look sensible.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on February 13, 2016, 03:55:52 pm
Curiosity- Is there a law prohibiting a justice from being voted into the Oval Office?

I don't think it would ever happen, but is there a law against it?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 13, 2016, 04:36:00 pm
Simultaneously? I don't think that is allowed, it'd almost certainly violate separation of powers. What you want to look into is the Inelligibility Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineligibility_Clause) from the Constitution. If it were to come up, they'd probably cite this.

I love this line from the GOP right now. "Obama must allow the next President to make this decision", or "Obama must stop subverting the will of the people and allow them to decide this appointment via the election", and on and on. And they're saying all of this nonsense while praising Scalia for how closely he adhered to the Constitution as an "originalist"... so let me get this straight.

You love Scalia because he respected the Constitution and followed it as it was written. But **** that part in the Constitution where the President is allowed to appoint people to the Supreme Court. ::)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 13, 2016, 05:45:19 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 13, 2016, 06:00:38 pm
Debate is now, on cbs.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 13, 2016, 06:07:26 pm
Didn't Taft want to be on the Supreme Court the whole time anyway? And he wasn't too keen on being President?

I feel like I heard that somewhere.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 13, 2016, 07:07:55 pm
I am okay with this, we need a hot Justice.

Also for serious? **** this crowd. I wish the debates had no crowds.

Annnnnd Cruz just threw down at Rubio en Español.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 13, 2016, 07:30:17 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/IaOnlP4.gif)

Oh man.

(http://i.imgur.com/zebZvDH.gif)

This debate is a ****show.

GO TRUMP!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 13, 2016, 09:40:48 pm
man i wish i was around for it now
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 14, 2016, 06:31:40 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI

The most tremendous 4th grade language.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 14, 2016, 03:26:55 pm
Didn't Taft want to be on the Supreme Court the whole time anyway? And he wasn't too keen on being President?

I feel like I heard that somewhere.

He knew where the power was at. The power is not to create laws or Execute laws. The power is in how to interpreter those laws ;)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 14, 2016, 03:43:16 pm
Quote
The most tremendous 4th grade language.

If he is doing that intentionally, doesn't that make him smart?

Is tricking dumb people smart?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 14, 2016, 10:00:16 pm
Quote
The most tremendous 4th grade language.

If he is doing that intentionally, doesn't that make him smart?

Is tricking dumb people smart?

Yes.

Does it require much intelligence to perform? No, not really. But it is the smart move, since 'dumb people' can be used to describe a vast majority of the voting block. I'd argue that the more informed and involved you are in politics, the more effort it would take for a politician (or anyone, for that matter) to shape your opinion. It is easier and more efficient to talk in such a way that anyone can understand you, assuming you believe the content of your message is strong enough on its own that you don't need to disguise it.

Let's be honest: Americans in general do not have a strong education or reading level, which probably goes hand in hand. If Trump is speaking on a low level, doesn't that mean he's not excluding people from his audience by disguising his message from them? Ordinarily, politicians use carefully crafted phrases to include disclaimers that let them fall back later if they're proven wrong, or to use doublespeak and hide the true purpose of their words. Higher level speech is often both a shield and a distraction which clouds the reality from voters. If Trump is speaking simply, that also means he's speaking relatively plainly, or honestly. The very reason voters trust Trump is because they can understand him; because someone who makes so many definitive statements is seen as more relatable and reliable than the doublespeak standard we're used to seeing in politics. In short, he's speaking their language and no one else is.

I also wonder what sources were used to compile this comparison of reading levels. Did it use only interviews, or pre-written speeches, rallies and other public appearances as well? While bearing in mind that most interview answers are still pre-practiced responses, I have to imagine that the grade levels would be far closer if it used only interviews, as Trump's public speaking opportunities are usually far more candid and informal than those of the other candidates.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 14, 2016, 10:19:46 pm
I don't know if I believe the premise that Americans like Trump because they are dumb and he's talking to their level.

Americans are pretty intelligent, know how to read, and can comprehend all kinds of complex ideas. Just like any other modern post-industrial society.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 14, 2016, 10:33:34 pm
In my experience, you know, living here, people generally have zero interest in politics unless it directly affects them, i.e. costs them money. Even during Obama's elections and presidency, the only time I ever heard anyone else begin a conversation on politics has been economy-based. Nothing about war, or race, or same sex marriage, or gun control, anything of that sort. Just Obamacare and how much it costs.

This time around is different. Every so often I hear mention of Bernie, always relating to free education. The rest of the time it's all about the last (probably) regrettable soundbyte that came out of Trump's mouth. Trump is a conversation starter in a way that no other candidate's been for eight years (looking at you, Dubyah), and he does so with such consistency and lack of apology that he gets people talking about and interested in politics even if they never have before. Whether you support him or not, you can't deny his ability to sell tickets and fill seats. I strongly believe that if he wasn't so blunt and plainspoken, this election would be much the same as any other in the modern era. trump is getting the 'average American' to care in a way that most candidates never could, and I'm pretty sure the reason is not what he says, but how he says it. McCain had a lot of similar racially fueled platforms when he ran against Obama, but he couldn't fill seats like Trump could, so we know that's not what's getting people's attention.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 14, 2016, 10:46:03 pm
BUT OBAMA IS GOING AROUND CONGRESS WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS. HE IS DOING THINGS DESPITE BEST EFFORTS. WHAT A ASS IMPERIALIST MUSLIM KING.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 14, 2016, 11:15:25 pm
All of this noise before we even get a name for Obama's choice, before Scalia has had a funeral, is very disappointing.  But I think we would be seeing a similar situation if the roles were reversed.

And dnd, I think you've mixed up speaking plainly in order to reach a larger audience and speaking down to people because you've figured out how to sell yourself to a particular demographic after being on reality tv for so long.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 14, 2016, 11:43:58 pm
you think if he was a better person people would have cared more? I hope so. it's pretty sad
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 15, 2016, 12:38:12 am
And dnd, I think you've mixed up speaking plainly in order to reach a larger audience and speaking down to people because you've figured out how to sell yourself to a particular demographic after being on reality tv for so long.

Is there that much of a difference? 'Speaking plainly' so the recipient can understand and 'dumbing down' so the recipient understands you has the same effect. The difference is based not on the speaker but the listener, who will call it 'dumbing down' if it's not necessary. The target audience for simplistic grammar would avoid calling it 'dumbing down', because that would be an insult to themselves.

Essentially, potentially demeaning language is determined by the audience, not the speaker. For example, if Dora The Explorer was marketed to people in their mid-40's instead of 40 months, that would clearly be talking down. Hell, it's talking down for most seven year old kids. But it's not talking down for the four year old, because that's the level the show needs to stoop to to ensure that the target audience fully grasps what's happening. If a 40 year old happens to watch Dora, for whatever reason, does that mean the show's writers have now been 'talking down' to their audience? If parents watch a show with their children, does that mean the show is insulting the parents if it doesn't include bits the kids have a hard time following?

If Trump needs to speak in simple terms and use strong hawker's rhetoric with punchy sentence endings in order to find and inform his audience, let him. The numbers indicate it's working in his favor, which means it's not talking down in the same way that Blue's Clues wasn't talking down when they asked toddlers where the giant paw print was on the screen and then stared into your soul for a full ten seconds before moving on as if nothing happened. IT'S ON THE F***ING CHAIR, STEVE!

Was the guy's name Steve? I feel like it was Steve.

Anyways, what matters is that there's a balance that has to be struck. The lower you go to be inclusive, the more you offend the outliers at the high end of the curve. Based on the evidence I'm seeing in those around me, where people who formerly avoided politics like a plague are following the trump trail wholeheartedly and people who would never talk politics before are now actively researching and engaging, The level Trump's picked seems to be effective.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 15, 2016, 08:09:56 am
Your examples are informative.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 15, 2016, 08:49:21 am
I think maybe the original guy was Dave and his replacement was Steve? I'd google it but I don't want those guys anywhere near my browser history.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Gungnir on February 15, 2016, 10:13:44 am
Trump talk good to normal 'muricans.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 15, 2016, 10:57:48 am
Benghazi/11
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 15, 2016, 11:00:45 am
could you repeat that using small words in simple sentences that end in a buzzword?

Ok first of all the thing is, this forum has a problem. People are on here who support Trump and they're going to see this country in ruins. I've had people telling me on steam all day "I'm worried about this forum". I tell them I've got it under control. People who used to hate me are saying "good job". If you can't see that then I guess you're just not a patriot. But if you've maybe changed your mind about the way I do things then that's terrific.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 15, 2016, 01:03:01 pm
I put our posts through a readability analysis website and mine came out fourth grade level (I hit the Trump number!!) and yours was 10th grade (almost 11th).
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 15, 2016, 01:16:51 pm
The idea of reading grades is completely retarded if you're applying to to people who are (notionally) adults.

And all of you wris****ches should know that there are better reasons to bully Trump than the way he talks.



tldr ur nerds
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 15, 2016, 01:19:42 pm
I'm not bullying Trump I'm aspiring.

Soon, you see, I will kill Trump and when I eat his hair I will *become* Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on February 15, 2016, 01:22:25 pm
How to get Trump out of the running, have Obama endorse him. It will form a singularity and Sanders can move on to victory.

-Lego


Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 15, 2016, 01:42:12 pm
You're Rand Paul.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 15, 2016, 02:03:40 pm
ChiToes is Rick Santorum
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 15, 2016, 02:26:10 pm
Whatever Rick
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 15, 2016, 02:27:10 pm
I don't always like to agree with Chitoes but that was a pretty Hillary move Ultimatum.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 15, 2016, 02:29:44 pm
quiet Donald!

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 15, 2016, 02:34:20 pm
I'm Marion Barry.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 15, 2016, 02:39:24 pm
Who gets to be Vermin Supreme?  Neo?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 15, 2016, 02:51:36 pm
Quiet Rick.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 15, 2016, 02:53:47 pm
I am Yokto!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 15, 2016, 03:15:52 pm
Quiet, Mike Gravel.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 15, 2016, 03:25:44 pm
Hillary Clinton Sugarcoating Her Disastrous Record (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-sugarcoating-her-disastrous-record/)

Hey check this first one out! Ralph wrote it! :D

The "Hillary Clinton Victory Fund" (http://liberallygeeky.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-hillary-clinton-victory-fund.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 15, 2016, 05:13:28 pm
Is there that much of a difference?

This post got an average grade level of 10.1. Apparently, Blue's Clues and Dora the Explorer were targeting an older audience than I thought.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 15, 2016, 05:33:23 pm
I think that would cause a not insignificant number of tea party people to have a heart attack or stroke.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 15, 2016, 05:59:20 pm
i would kill to be on that bench.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 15, 2016, 10:30:39 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/1ntlovv.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on February 16, 2016, 01:14:26 am
Seems pretty cheap for a one-drop. But then, Blue is a tricksy colour.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 17, 2016, 04:24:49 am
so fun fact:

http://www.jebbush.com

Guess who didn't keep up with their domain hosting payments.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 17, 2016, 07:02:36 am
America

(http://i.imgur.com/rZPDXPj.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 17, 2016, 09:14:09 am
(http://i.imgur.com/eBpC3gv.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 17, 2016, 07:56:43 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/aXR3Yq2.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 18, 2016, 02:54:07 pm
The Pope v. The Trump: because this election cycle was boring until now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0VR2C8
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 18, 2016, 05:35:49 pm
<3
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 18, 2016, 09:00:12 pm
That last tweet about Trump calling himself humble I can only assume is sarcasm. Does he refer to himself as humble regularly? If so, that would be a new one for me. He usually says the exact opposite in my experience. It reads to me like he never actually liked the current pope.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 19, 2016, 06:24:10 am
He is pretty humble, all things considered.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 19, 2016, 02:55:08 pm
Found a video of Trump's town hall from cnn last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0HfKU1xuA

His answer when asked specifically how he would replace Obamacare at about 16:30 shows how little substance the guy has.  He stumbles through two GOP 101 talking points but spends most of the answer bragging on himself on unrelated issues.  He has next to no actual policy proposals, it's all just bluster, tough talk about winning, and crazy soundbites that the media is hooked on like crack.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 19, 2016, 03:54:46 pm
Ink you sound like you're getting worked up.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 19, 2016, 05:02:40 pm
they ALL have little substance

Nevada bracing for a sandstorm tomorrow
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 20, 2016, 02:40:48 am
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hillarys-top-donor-buys-onion-starts-publishing-propaganda-immediately

Oh boy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 20, 2016, 07:34:51 am
lol

BUY IT AND MOVE IT!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 20, 2016, 10:32:18 am
Bern it all down.


Trump it all down.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 20, 2016, 10:33:15 am
Mmmmm.  Whether The Onion is in the tank now for Hillary or not, that was some amazingly bad timing.  Their articles about her campaign's war march from state to state have been fantastic.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 20, 2016, 02:56:43 pm
booooooooooooooooo
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 20, 2016, 03:07:06 pm
Why it's not like it's a government institution?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 20, 2016, 08:28:02 pm
Isn't free speech I'm regard to public institutions?

If someone walks into a movie theater and starts praising ISIS, the movie theater can surely escort him out if they want. Hell if the guy starts advertising for another theater they can be bounced
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 20, 2016, 09:24:17 pm
Just to clarify your example, erops. A private business/location/whatever can enforce its own speech or what-have-you so long as that speech does not infringe on the rights of someone else.

Add in a dash of freedom of religion/expression and you've got a powder keg of jerkwads that don't want to bake cakes for gay people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 20, 2016, 10:10:57 pm
RIP Jeb! Bush Campaign

www.jebbush.com
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 20, 2016, 10:23:51 pm
Yep, if that wasn't clear enough, Jeb! is out.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jeb-bushs-path-to-defeat-began-a-year-ago/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 20, 2016, 11:20:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGV6QjtdulY

DODGE!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 21, 2016, 02:42:37 am
Twitter has begun banning Conservatives for being conservative.  That is a real issue.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Add in a dash of freedom of religion/expression and you've got a powder keg of jerkwads that don't want to bake cakes for gay people.

While I am broadly in favour of businesses not discriminating I think people should actually be allowed to not make whatever cakes they want. Saying homophobic Christians are obliged to make gay cakes for paying customers also implies the following:

Gay bakeries have to make cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans
Vegetarian bakers are obliged to make cakes that say "eat more beef"
Democrat bakers have to make cakes that say "Trump for President"
Republican bakers have to make cakes that say "Bernie 2016"
Jewish bakers have to make swastika cakes for neonazi skinheads.

Educating people and trying to change their views as individuals is more effective than forcing businesses to do things which conflict with their beliefs.

Now, refusing to make *any* cake for someone because they're gay, black, jewish, a nazi, etc. That's discriminatory. But essentially forcing people to take money to help propagate a message they disagree with is just plain coercion and it's not right. 

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 21, 2016, 04:23:01 am
I never said 'free speech'.  If Twitter is enforcing editorial control over its content, then they become responsible for any defamation and other civilly actionable content on their site.  Twitter cannot both claim no legal responsibility for the content and claim editorial control.  They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Not remembering that word is really annoying me.  What is that term for hosting companies and services not being directly liable for the legal transgressions related to the data of their users?

I think the term you're looking for is an accountability clause (the company has none), though it's not specific to a ToS.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 21, 2016, 04:43:08 am
Yep, if that wasn't clear enough, Jeb! is out.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jeb-bushs-path-to-defeat-began-a-year-ago/

Surely it began sixteen years ago?

Optimistically, it began about twenty-seven years ago.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 21, 2016, 07:47:58 am
Now, refusing to make *any* cake for someone because they're gay, black, jewish, a nazi, etc. That's discriminatory. But essentially forcing people to take money to help propagate a message they disagree with is just plain coercion and it's not right.

The gays have no right to push their agenda on the religious. More at eleven.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 21, 2016, 08:01:55 am
On the whole Safe Harbour situation when it comes to Internet Media. As there is no requirement of Editorial control there should not be any such practices willy nilly by the content hosters. The exception being that the content host may set up there own rules which the uses need to abide. And they may need to help law enforcement when there actually is legal grounds.

In the end like I have said before. Free speech does not mean that someone else have give you a soapbox to stand on. It specifically is meant to protect the individual rights to express them self in a public forum. Not a private one.  If you feel a service is not treating you with respect then you are free to use a other one.

Of course there is a trouble with some media like YouTube and Twitter being so dominate. But that a issue with media being monopolised and we need other ways to actually combat that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on February 21, 2016, 08:31:19 am
Well, Pat, as a non-straight dude, they really don't.

Nobody in this country has any right to push anything on anyone that doesn't want it. Moral righteousness is not part of the equation. That's just how it works.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 21, 2016, 11:54:53 am
Have you tried just sharing links so that we're all working from the same information?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 21, 2016, 11:56:14 am
Well, Pat, as a non-straight dude, they really don't.

Yeah they do. Jesus is the way.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 21, 2016, 12:46:29 pm
Twitter has begun banning Conservatives for being conservative.  That is a real issue.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Have you tried googling "twitter banning conservatives"?  I use the word googling because google doesn't like it because it serves to make their brand generic and undermines their trademark. ;)

Bad form. If you have a source then you should post a link to it (or give a proper reference in APA style or MLA style for example) :P

(If you like I can go in to why Googling is not the right answer in more detail.)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 21, 2016, 12:54:31 pm
Twitter has begun banning Conservatives for being conservative.  That is a real issue.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Have you tried googling "twitter banning conservatives"?  I use the word googling because google doesn't like it because it serves to make their brand generic and undermines their trademark. ;)

Bad form. If you have a source then you should post a link to it (or give a proper reference in APA style or MLA style for example) :P

(If you like I can go in to why Googling is not the right answer in more detail.)

Do you have any evidence for this?
For what?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 21, 2016, 01:00:54 pm
No quote pyramids!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 21, 2016, 01:13:10 pm
Bad form.  You stated something as true and didn't provide evidence.  Don't expect me to play the citation game when you want to and not play it when you don't.  That is bad form.  I thought that I made that perfectly clear.

I think it bad form. I did not think that I would need to go in to why you want to do proper references or do the curtsey of at least give a URL link to the source. But as you want to have a source for proper etiquette. Here is a wiki article about why we do proper citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

I personally think that the biggest reason is to save time for the one you want to communicate to. It is just classy to do so.

But there is more. Lets go in to specifics. Google use personalize search results which you can read about here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Personalized_Search

That means in extreme cases you can get very misleading search results. A phenomena know as filter bumbles might happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

Which means that is both you interest and the interest of the reader that you provide the source of your information personally rather then relay on potentially misleading 3rd parties. Especially if you and your reader have very separate views on things.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 21, 2016, 01:14:43 pm
I was under the impression that it's general forum etiquette to provide information on an issue that you are bringing up.


And Pat just wants to shove penis cakes down the throats of hard working, God fearing Americans.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 21, 2016, 01:17:44 pm
No quote pyramids!

They were made by ancient alien bloggers.

Our experts do not agree,you fabricated those ruins!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 21, 2016, 02:51:12 pm
I agree with everything Yokto said but I'll add this.

Chitoes, you make a big show of being like, really rational and obeying all sorts of "rules" of debating and you're always pouncing on people for logical fallacies and whatever else.

In this case, you have made an assertion that twitter was banning conservatives for being conservative. You made the claim, which means the burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to provide evidence.

When the prosecution at a trial make a claim about the defendant and the judge asks for proof it's rare for the prosecution to fire back with "Oh the proof is out there for anyone to find your honour I suggest you go and root around the crime scene yourself"

Take your own medicine and post your evidence or I'm just going to go on assuming it's just a bunch of inflated right wing bull****.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on February 21, 2016, 03:29:44 pm
"educate urself, stop sea-lioning me"

do you know what you sound like right now?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on February 21, 2016, 03:36:06 pm
man mentioning something in a forum and just saying "look it up yourself" is like an internet discussion board cardinal sin
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 21, 2016, 03:43:18 pm
Dude. Dude. It's ok. You won!

(http://i.imgur.com/Eauf9SV.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 21, 2016, 03:52:36 pm
Dude I was making the certificate when you made your post and I didn't see it until just now and it doesn't dismiss anything.

Looks like one right wing person had their account banned/suspended. I'm not sure that entirely equates to "twitter is banning conservatives for being conservative" but I'll take your word for it. Having been a moderator, I'll say the decision to ban people largely boils down to gut feeling. It's hardly ever entirely clear if someone's behaviour is over the line or in good faith (going by forum rules as written we should have banned a lot of people over the years but didn't [except Pat that one time, what a hoot]). There's no due process on the internet so they're gonna get things wrong a lot. Twitter's safety police seems like a steaming load, but frankly, who gives a **** about twitter aside from celebrities, aspiring comedians, politicians, fast food chains and black people who want to make memes?

It's not like there aren't plenty of social networks around where right wing people can go hog wild (facebook???)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 21, 2016, 04:20:01 pm
And Pat just wants to shove penis cakes down the throats of hard working, God fearing Americans.

True.

Also this thread lol
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 21, 2016, 04:58:20 pm
Also this thread lol

It's great.

Reminds me of old Andrew Ryan. Fun times.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 21, 2016, 05:00:54 pm
what did he do?

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 21, 2016, 05:01:30 pm
He was a class act.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 21, 2016, 05:08:12 pm
I get that,now explain how,pretty please?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 21, 2016, 05:13:35 pm
I miss him.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 21, 2016, 05:30:51 pm
I get that,now explain how,pretty please?

I fed him a putter.

Then he left the forum like a fool!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 21, 2016, 05:32:18 pm
Pat how could you!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 21, 2016, 09:16:41 pm
Wait.... Right wing media reads Orwell's?  :o

(also I will read article fully before really commenting on it)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 22, 2016, 12:24:31 am
Did you actually read the Guardian article?

Quote
It’s almost as if the values the cultural libertarians articulate aren’t intended to be applied universally at all. They just seem to want free speech for themselves and their mates.

Quote
In this context, the people described by Breitbart – including O’Neill – are better thought of as reactionaries of a liberal bent. They bellow reductive caricatures of Enlightenment values in order to ring-fence their own privileges, and to delegitimise the claims of identity politics in advance.



Also this thread lol

It's great.

Reminds me of old Andrew Ryan. Fun times.

A gentleman and a saint.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 22, 2016, 03:41:52 am
Did you actually read the Guardian article?

Don't be silly, nobody reads the Gsurdian.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 22, 2016, 05:22:47 am
Nah, you're thinking of the Independent. Can't even sell actual newspapes any more.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 22, 2016, 07:38:20 am
Based on the article about Robert Stacy McCain banning. Well it is clear in the article that he has a lot of issues he burns for. And it sounds more from the article that it would be his anti-feminist stance that he was banned for. Not his conservative values. (Not all conservatism are Anti-Feminist. Nor are all Liberals or Left wing politicians pro-feminism.)

In the end it is not clear in the article why he was banned. So I can not say if there is a crusade against conservatives on tweeter.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on February 22, 2016, 08:13:46 am
Nah, you're thinking of the Independent. Can't even sell actual newspapes any more.
I don't think the Guardian's ever managed to sell a newspaper.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 22, 2016, 08:37:22 am
I've bought it a few times. If you want evidence for that I suggest you find it yourself, I ain't wasting my time on it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 22, 2016, 08:51:19 am
I googled it. First link was the information I was looking for.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 22, 2016, 11:11:17 am
Hey I have an idea, let's go back to talking about the elections.  Maybe we can move twitter ban talk to the politics thread if we want to continue it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-questions-rubios-eligibility-219586

I don't know why I'm still momentarily surprised by this crap.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 22, 2016, 11:29:45 am
You know who else might not have been born in the US?

Hillary Clinton. Personally I hope it isn't true but a *lot* of people have been phoning me asking about it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 23, 2016, 09:20:30 pm
Well that's a wrap. Trump has all the momentum he needs.

(http://i.imgur.com/ZVi206T.gif)

I think now is the time for this prestigious body to vote to raise the "happening meter" to level two.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 23, 2016, 09:28:05 pm
PANIC
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 23, 2016, 10:10:52 pm
Trump winning Nevada was predicted and expected.  But he's coming in at 45% right now.  That's massive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 24, 2016, 03:05:15 am
America what did you doooo!?!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 24, 2016, 03:55:28 am
Oh no we can't let TRUMP be in the election get one of those nicer Republicans like uh


uh
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 24, 2016, 07:13:50 am
And so Lurk has summed up the entire situation perfectly.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 24, 2016, 09:04:24 am
Trump: "I love the poorly educated"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/02/republican-campaign?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/therepublicancampaigndonaldtrumptakesnevada
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on February 24, 2016, 01:50:33 pm
Trump vs Clinton.

Well, I can't say we don't deserve this.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 24, 2016, 02:02:59 pm
Trump vs. Sanders you mean.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 24, 2016, 02:44:21 pm
Yeah. This is not over yet. Trump seem strong now on the Republican side. But Sanders still got a shot it seems on the Democrats side. But anything can happen I guess.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 24, 2016, 02:47:37 pm
Trump vs Sanders vs Hillary
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 24, 2016, 02:47:54 pm
Not if Hillary keeps winning those "coin flips".
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 24, 2016, 04:19:20 pm
Not if Hillary keeps winning those "coin flips".

Now come on lurk you know how probability works. Maybe we just happen to live in a universe where Hillary wins all coin flips. SOMEONE has to live in that universe.

Maybe it's a repercussion of living in one of the incredibly rare universes where George W Bush became president and stopped Saddam from destroying the UK with those WMDs.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 24, 2016, 07:39:54 pm
And then there's this:

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 24, 2016, 08:07:56 pm
Did The Onion change its name to Time?

(http://i.imgur.com/ST7fYQX.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/ez3SNee.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 24, 2016, 08:22:13 pm
I know, right?  I can't tell what's real anymore.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 25, 2016, 06:14:01 pm
DEBATE NIGHT!  Tequila shots for everybody!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 25, 2016, 07:25:26 pm
Trump is speaking some sense tonight and monopolizing a lot of the attention again. Cruz and Rubio are attacking Trump all they can in hopes of getting any kind of foothold. This is their last chance. Kasich is doing his own thing. Carson showed up.

(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/enAgqLb.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 26, 2016, 07:53:20 am
(http://i.imgur.com/BWloDo9.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/ST7fYQX.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on February 26, 2016, 08:01:39 am
So it's election day over here. Just voted. My number one was a woman who's only known to a lot of people for proposing to her wife on TV on the day we passed the same sex marriage referendum.

My dad referred to her as "that crazy woman" when I told her I was voting for her, and his only reasoning for saying that was her proposing to a woman on TV. ::)

People seem way friendlier on election day. So many knowing smiles and nods from complete strangers on the way to the polling station.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 26, 2016, 08:19:50 am
Lesbians are always faking love in order to get to a higher office.

It's like their thing.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 26, 2016, 08:34:26 am
Yeah man, sick of the cabinet and both the upper and lower houses constantly being stuffed with lesbians. When is the straight man going to get a break???  >:(

(http://i.imgur.com/qwnJUEQ.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 26, 2016, 09:30:59 am
NEWS FLASH: GAY PEOPLE WON, SO I CAN MAKE FUN OF THEM AS MUCH AS I MAKE FUN OF EVERYONE ELSE.

(http://i.imgur.com/wwJgG6n.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on February 26, 2016, 12:49:28 pm
and they get the right to make fun of you whenever they want

it's only fair

(http://i.imgur.com/goy88am.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 26, 2016, 02:53:50 pm
Yes, post more women firing guns in slow motion.  Pat hates that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-christie-to-eat-his-harsh-words-about-trump/2016/02/26/e19c2d5c-dcd4-11e5-8210-f0bd8de915f6_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/26/rubio-debuts-anti-trump-stand-up-at-first-post-debate-rally/

(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/2016%20dumpster%20fire.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 27, 2016, 07:40:44 am
and they get the right to make fun of you whenever they want

No.

I am the decider. I make the jokes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 27, 2016, 10:23:06 am
Oh man I've been watching election news all day today.

Rubio is going hardcore on "fling ****" mode. He's not as good as Trump and he comes off as a little bitch.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 27, 2016, 12:13:25 pm
Well, it's not a skill set that an actual politician uses very often.  Trump eats and breathes it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 27, 2016, 12:35:37 pm
I want Trump to eat and breathe the food and oxygen from the White House.

(http://i.imgur.com/czDr8hc.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 27, 2016, 02:35:28 pm
Hey here's a good one from reddit!

HRC Email Release Megathread (https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/47xkz1/hrc_email_release_megathread/)

Quote from: /u/Frederic_Bastiat
Mods are deleting it everywhere else but:

Google and Youtube Blocking during Benghazi? https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08639FEB26/DOC_0C05796913/C05796913.pdf

Talks of American nuclear plans: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05797868/C05797868.pdf

Japan Nuclear Update: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08634FEB26/DOC_0C05789526/C05789526.pdf

Thomas Nides - Current Morgan Stanley Exec https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05797678/C05797678.pdf http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/tom-nides-hillary-clinton-2016-elections-115415

Scheduling of Whereabouts - Compromising safety of staff https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05796988/C05796988.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05798179/C05798179.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05794738/C05794738.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05794726/C05794726.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05793500/C05793500.pdf

DOD Positioning: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05798118/C05798118.pdf

Military Planning: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08638FEB26/DOC_0C05792714/C05792714.pdf

Questionable discussions: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05794197/C05794197.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05795583/C05795583.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05794766/C05794766.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05795343/C05795343.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05794224/C05794224.pdf

Clinton Foundation related: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-foundation-haiti/programs/caracol-industrial-park https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB26/DOC_0C05795723/C05795723.pdf

Bergdahl Related: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08638FEB26/DOC_0C05794012/C05794012.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08638FEB26/DOC_0C05793938/C05793938.pdf

Syria Related: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05794753/C05794753.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08638FEB26/DOC_0C05791788/C05791788.pdf

Libya Related: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08639FEB26/DOC_0C05792437/C05792437.pdf

Iraq Related: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08640FEB26/DOC_0C05793352/C05793352.pdf

Uganda related: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08639FEB26/DOC_0C05795227/C05795227.pdf

Cambodia Related: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08639FEB26/DOC_0C05792342/C05792342.pdf

Completely Redacted: https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08639FEB26/DOC_0C05796257/C05796257.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08639FEB26/DOC_0C05792382/C05792382.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08639FEB26/DOC_0C05792530/C05792530.pdf https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb26thWeb/O-2015-08635FEB26/DOC_0C05786659/C05786659.pdf

Credit to /u/Ihatethestuffyoulike for the list.

Edit: Remember, all these emails and a thousand others were all planted by the vast right wing conspiracy!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 27, 2016, 10:31:26 pm
The ****ing south is going to ruin us.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 27, 2016, 11:21:39 pm
Tell me more about African American voters in the south, please.

http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-credits-nevada-victory-inescapable-pitch-b-52396
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 28, 2016, 06:33:07 am
It's okay, Clinton is continuing the long tradition of white people tricking black people into helping white people before white people take what the black people have.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on February 28, 2016, 07:48:23 am
I don't think that's specific to blacks. I think white people do that to every other race
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 28, 2016, 08:04:07 am
Whatever you say, Stalin.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 28, 2016, 05:02:00 pm
I don't think that's specific to blacks. I think white people do that to every other race

Also to other white people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 28, 2016, 08:11:53 pm
No it's only black people. They are the chosen ones.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 28, 2016, 10:52:55 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrG4TEcSuRg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 29, 2016, 03:30:46 am
I don't think that's specific to blacks. I think white people do that to every other race

Also to other white people.

And non-white people do it too.

Yeah but who gives a ****, my life is terrific.

https://www.facebook.com/LastWeekTonight/videos/851020811693596/?fref=nf
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on February 29, 2016, 10:26:02 am
So tomorrow is our state (MN) Caucus and I am undecided. I can go one way because I voted for that party last election or I can go the other way because I'm leaning towards one of their candidates for this election. I am within my right, by law, to do that. Funny thing is though, my final vote will depend on who actually ends up running in the end. Both caucus's are heavily contested here. Minnesota does not require me to be a registered member of any political party so I can choose to go either way, so long as I am doing it in good faith.

It is weird, this is a voluntary thing run by the parties, it is not a state run vote at all. We get 1-hour to vote (between 7-8 pm). There are some laws in place regarding running them, but overall it is up to the groups to play be the rules. They are not at the usual polling places and the locations are in crappy parking areas and some are far away from the neighborhoods. The Republican one is 3
miles away, the Democratic one is seven blocks away. My usual polling places is 10 blocks away.

Eh, we'll see what happens tomorrow I guess.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 29, 2016, 10:29:33 am
Caucuses are messy and outdated at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on February 29, 2016, 10:41:23 am
True, but they are still a major player in the process. I like how they can challenge anybody at one and the whole group, then and there, can vote them in or out. "I'm not a witch, I'm not a witch!"

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 29, 2016, 11:20:38 am
And here's a better version of Sam's link.  Maybe I'll watch it soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 29, 2016, 12:17:11 pm
Thanks Ink, couldn't find it on Youtube.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on February 29, 2016, 12:22:29 pm
I can go one way because I voted for that party last election or I can go the other way because I'm leaning towards one of their candidates for this election.

-Lego

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP


Or maybe SAND SAND SAND.

Hopefully not BARK BARK BARK.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 29, 2016, 01:06:25 pm
Okay, watched the video and it was realy good.  It hit a lot of the points I've been bringing up elsewhere.  Don't like the Republicans?  That's fine.  But at least you know where they are on the issues.  This is serious, there's a lot more at stake here than stupid internet jokes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 29, 2016, 01:14:59 pm
I felt like a lot of what he was saying was weak or superficial.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 29, 2016, 01:54:52 pm
You're not wrong, the monkey with the banana, gotrump.com, and the Drumpf stuff was weak.  But the man has advocated for war crimes.  Even if it's off the cuff bluster that he doesn't believe, this is dangerous and unacceptable talk.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 29, 2016, 02:08:40 pm

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP


You mean DRUMPF DRUMPF DRUMPF
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: dndfreak on February 29, 2016, 02:40:49 pm
How is $17.50 per hat being sold at cost, pre-shipping? That's ridiculous.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 29, 2016, 02:52:54 pm
Hand crafted in Brooklyn, I guess.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 29, 2016, 03:02:27 pm
You're not wrong, the monkey with the banana, gotrump.com, and the Drumpf stuff was weak.  But the man has advocated for war crimes.  Even if it's off the cuff bluster that he doesn't believe, this is dangerous and unacceptable talk.

They're trying to play him at his own game I guess.

Pretty much every criticism Trump levels against his opponents is weak and superficial.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on February 29, 2016, 03:10:40 pm
Right, hence the constantly bringing up the short fingers thing.

"Let us taunt it! It may become so cross that it will make a mistake."
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 29, 2016, 04:28:56 pm
But the man has advocated for war crimes.  Even if it's off the cuff bluster that he doesn't believe, this is dangerous and unacceptable talk.

This talk of his didn't bother me that much. That's why a President has generals, lawyers, and political scientists on staff. Even the "kill their families" thing seems like something a fair number of people might suggest in such a position, and something that has probably been brought up and shot down behind closed doors before in the offices of many different heads of state.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 29, 2016, 04:36:42 pm
But it creates a feedback effect.

Politicians say outrageous stuff, people like it, they vote for the outrageous people, more outrageous stuff gets said, public opinion shifts, outrageous stuff becomes more and more acceptable. It happens pretty fast as well.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 29, 2016, 04:50:51 pm
Maybe! Probably not though.

I don't think the slope is that slippery. I think the establishment is scared. Which makes me feel better. When Trump wins, he won't be allowed to do stupid, insane stuff. Moreover, he won't try to do those things because things like that are bad for business.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 29, 2016, 06:02:13 pm
I love this line now that Trump didn't denounce a KKK leader.

They keep saying "well Trump knew his name before, why doesn't he remember him now?", and then they cite this time SIXTEEN YEARS AGO when he said the guy was a dork. The interview where this is all coming from is also funny as hell. The guy asked Trump the same question three times over the interview until Trump finally said something they thought they could latch onto. HAH OKAY

So you're telling me that now after years of not trying at all, the media are going to dig and do their due diligence in getting the facts about Trump to stop him. lolololololol

The media are trying so hard to take this guy down, it's hilarious. Keep trying. This week's attack is pretty WEAK. And someone pack Romney up and wheel him back home. He showed up again this week with a new problem with Trump because the last one he tried to put out there didn't work. GO HOME MITT. YOUR PARTY IS GOING TO DIE, SHILL.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on February 29, 2016, 09:21:03 pm
When Reagan said that it was clearly a joke and even then was a bad one and should have been left unspoken. At least that is my opinion. It was not like his statement was not controversial.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on February 29, 2016, 09:34:34 pm
THE WALL JUST GOT TEN FEET HIGHER, YOKTO.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 01, 2016, 12:52:30 pm
He. Would say that a error in Wikipedia. Collective punishment most likely dates back to prehistoric times. Before recorded history.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 01, 2016, 02:46:21 pm
I just voted.  Now to wait to see how bad this will be.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 01, 2016, 04:58:38 pm
Real talk. Is this possible to brace or will the narrative roll him over for other contests.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 01, 2016, 05:04:51 pm
Depends on the margins I guess?  Trump will be declaring victory whether he has it or not.

Dammit, the South.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 01, 2016, 05:34:27 pm
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/1b828434dae9eeca52080576870ff4b9.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 01, 2016, 05:37:44 pm
Sigh.

The South.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 01, 2016, 05:41:20 pm
This is the only image I have right now that is titled "the south", so here.

(http://i.imgur.com/U315cxL.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on March 01, 2016, 06:04:04 pm
Nope, forget it. I tried to get to the caucus. Whatever **** for brains idiot setup the one by the University of Minnesota should be drawn and quartered. There had to have been a thousand people there, everybody was cold so they piled in to the building and what little semblance of a line was lost instantly. What was me being about 50 people in became 800 people in because they randomly chose which way to start handling people. I left. Screw it.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 01, 2016, 07:07:43 pm
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/Southern%20Perfection.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 01, 2016, 07:24:08 pm
Nope, forget it. I tried to get to the caucus. Whatever **** for brains idiot setup the one by the University of Minnesota should be drawn and quartered. There had to have been a thousand people there, everybody was cold so they piled in to the building and what little semblance of a line was lost instantly. What was me being about 50 people in became 800 people in because they randomly chose which way to start handling people. I left. Screw it.

-Lego

How hard is it to coordinate a ****ing line? :|

(http://i.imgur.com/b6Z4fbg.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 01, 2016, 09:42:24 pm
Hillary is probably going to go with one of the Castro brothers from Texas.  It definitely won't be Bernie.  Christie for Trump is as good a guess as anyone else.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 01, 2016, 09:45:58 pm
I completely disagree about Christie. Dude is a loser and only ran this year because if he didn't, he'd be completely irrelevant whenever another election rolled around.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 01, 2016, 09:50:49 pm
Yeah two white bullies aint going to be the ticket.

It'll be a woman or a young minority or an old school repub, the end.

sandman won 4. idk. im sad. i wish more people voted. i wish the south wasn't holding back much needed change
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 01, 2016, 09:54:03 pm
Right, but who would fit that description and tag along with Trump?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 01, 2016, 09:56:08 pm
anyone he asks? they're all tools
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 01, 2016, 10:22:40 pm
Are you not paying attention to all of the republicans swinging for the fences against Trump?  There are going to be many who can't or won't take that back.  Not to mention the ones Trump has already insulted.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 01, 2016, 10:53:10 pm
Nah, when the option to be second in line to the most powerful position in the country comes knocking, ain't none of them turning it down, especially if the trend of Trump pulling record turnout and polling well v Clinton continues. These guys all have a price and will swallow whatever if it means more influence
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 02, 2016, 03:12:38 am
Looking at these results it looks like almost half of all of Hillary's electoral votes come from Superdelegates.

Great democractic process from the Democrats there.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 02, 2016, 08:13:00 am
lol yeah.

Also if you can find the voting turnout trends, I think every single state saw big increases in Republican turnout and big decreases in Democrat turnout. Pretty wild.

As for Trump's running mate, it'll be someone good to add more legitimacy. It won't be someone like Christie. I dunno, go ask Jeff Sessions.

(http://i.imgur.com/Vh49PGf.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 02, 2016, 10:04:46 am
Trump/Palin 2016: "**** Everything"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 02, 2016, 12:52:47 pm
Pictures of Kent Brockman (https://frinkiac.com/?q=democracy%20simply%20doesn%27t%20work)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 02, 2016, 02:27:03 pm
Carson is finally, sort of, slowly dropping out.  He's quitting in a manner fitting of his campaign, I guess.

An actual text I received from a friend today:  "What the heck is "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash?" Like, apparently that' a thing..."


I hate everything.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on March 02, 2016, 06:11:38 pm
Trump/Bernie ticket!

Please oh please!

So many rifle owners, so little opportunity to use them. Which do you shoot?

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 02, 2016, 07:01:39 pm
Say hi to the nice Secret Service agents for us.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 02, 2016, 07:04:06 pm
ALL OF THEM, LEGO!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 03, 2016, 02:44:50 am
I'm not sure Hillary would have a chance of losing to Trump.

I think the low Democrat turnouts at the primaries are down to the fact people don't actually mind if either of them win. Either you risk a socialist or you risk Hillary.

If it came down to Trump vs anyone all the ambivalent Dem voters will probably turn out in droves to stop the antichrist getting office.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 03, 2016, 05:06:02 am
Antichrist? You mean Hillary, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 03, 2016, 05:15:14 am
Bible says the Antichrist is charismatic. So definitely not.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 03, 2016, 10:12:38 am
So that Romney speech was about as desperate and petty as the GOP could get. The establishment loser, yeah, he's the guy to light the fire to oust trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Lookatroopa on March 03, 2016, 10:44:37 am
so i take it youre an american
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 03, 2016, 10:46:13 am
I was writing a response but Looka beat me to it in incredible fashion.


I bow before the master.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Lookatroopa on March 03, 2016, 01:26:25 pm
you seem like a nice fellow
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 03, 2016, 01:35:38 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/20ydFsU.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 03, 2016, 08:52:26 pm
This debate was such an obvious hit on Trump. I think they overplayed their hand and worse, he did okay.

CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP.

(http://i.imgur.com/rCCzSgp.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/0rCWQDY.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 04, 2016, 08:21:33 am
Let it all burn if it has to.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 04, 2016, 11:05:18 am
Your assumption is correct,he is American.

Now,I don't have to make many assumptions about you,as your unoriginal insult was copied from another post,clearly I  can make the correct assumption you are an idiot,not a troll,trolls at least can come up with their own insults.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 04, 2016, 11:31:43 am
Guys Trumps penis is not small, it is at least average sized.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 04, 2016, 11:37:36 am
so i take it you're an american
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 04, 2016, 11:38:32 am
Guys stop.

Not only are you resorting to direct insults but you're making the election thread really boring with these shenannygoats.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 04, 2016, 11:41:22 am
forgive me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Lookatroopa on March 04, 2016, 11:47:03 am
i can appreciate how youve actually bothered to put the apostrophe in your copy of my original post, it shows resolve

anyway, back on topic, USAnian politics are bad
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 04, 2016, 11:53:00 am
not bad,flawed and in need of an overhaul.

Then again most political systems are like that,and I do not suggest the nuclear option of burning it all down,that helps no one.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 04, 2016, 02:14:53 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/8ldf0IK.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 04, 2016, 09:20:40 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/qPmhhxT.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 04, 2016, 09:34:46 pm
Oh **** that's classic
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 05, 2016, 01:27:26 am
However this sorts out, the Republican party has been severely wounded.  I don't know if it splits apart, keeps mutating into the party of Trump, or both.  I wonder how this will fall out down to the ranks of Congress, state legislatures, local officials.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 05, 2016, 07:56:17 am
They played their game too hard. That first statement that ChiToes posted is exactly correct.

The GOP (and DNC for that matter) fancy themselves kingmakers. They tell us who to vote for, they tell us which is the best choice, and everything else is a formality. Well, that's not how it works.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 05, 2016, 09:48:07 am
However this sorts out, the Republican party has been severely wounded.  I don't know if it splits apart, keeps mutating into the party of Trump, or both.  I wonder how this will fall out down to the ranks of Congress, state legislatures, local officials.

...maybe the next mutation will be an even more insane Tea Party?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 05, 2016, 11:44:51 am
Even more insane, you mean?  I can't blame you for stroking out and a word, that's probably going to be happening a lot lately.

I've been out there among them.  I've heard a leader of local tea party group when it first started say that America began the slow march to a communist state when we enacted seat belt laws.  I've seen people foaming with rage over a .2% change to sales tax, because transportation funding in the state hadn't changed in 35 years and they couldn't keep the roads paved without tweaking the revenue stream.  I've heard people musing about how it might be nice if someone shot the President.  I'm sorry to say that I always deflected with humor instead of calling them out for that one.  I may enjoy politics, but I don't like face to face confrontation like that. (I've seen crazy from the other side too, but that's another story.)

What I'm saying is that this isn't just Trump.  I'm sure a lot of his support is from people who want to see someone stick it to the powers that be.  A lot of it is from people who don't really follow politics but see that successful guy from that tv show doing well, so they guess they'll support him.  But he's also getting support from people who want to kick those muslims and those mexicans out of our country yesterday.  There are people who love Trump for the violent, insulting, detached from reality rhetoric that I think has disqualified him a thousand times over.  The crazy wing of the party that higher ups in the GOP try to keep quietly in line has broken free.  Again, not saying that's the only people supporting Trump, but it's definitely a part.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 05, 2016, 11:55:42 am
Yeah,I mean even more insane,I imagine the next party mutation will produce a group that makes the Tea party look sane in comparison

And the worst part?I can see Donald leading them,where as before the Tea party didn't really have a leader,it was just the party crazies shouting from the sidelines,but this time they have a demagogue who is voicing their warped opinions

   
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 06, 2016, 08:23:48 am
(http://i.imgur.com/cTAp9xS.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 06, 2016, 09:24:36 am
(http://i.imgur.com/vF700at.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 06, 2016, 11:13:24 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxgAY6PgXq0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 06, 2016, 01:14:53 pm
http://www.theonion.com/article/ben-carson-slowly-floats-away-earth-52475
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 06, 2016, 01:15:55 pm
Goodnight, sweet prince
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 06, 2016, 07:19:04 pm
I never knew the Governator's middle name.  And when I double checked, I found out that he endorsed Kasich today.  Neat.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 06, 2016, 08:14:35 pm
lol really?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 06, 2016, 08:34:45 pm
Really really.  On snapchat.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/arnold-schwarzenegger-endorses-john-kasich-president-snapchat-n532931
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:01 pm
I like Ohio.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 07, 2016, 06:19:06 am
Oh also, Sanders is dumb. That thing he said last night about white people and ghettos is dumb.

Go Trump!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VMZSXzy7O0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 07, 2016, 07:19:23 am
What did Sanders say?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 07, 2016, 07:27:19 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ

"When you're white you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto. You don't know what it's like to be poor. You don't know what it's like to be hassled on the street."

His retarded liberal side is showing though. I blame the patriarchy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 07, 2016, 07:31:52 am
Nah, blame the electoral system. He needs those juicy black votes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 07, 2016, 08:11:46 am
(http://i.imgur.com/467OKUT.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 07, 2016, 09:07:37 am
Haha he was a poor white guy growing up, people be trippin
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 07, 2016, 09:09:21 am
Cash poor maybe, but he had pockets stuffed with privs.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 07, 2016, 09:12:41 am
Jew priv.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Mr. Wizard on March 07, 2016, 09:21:18 am
Stick a fork in him, he's done!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on March 07, 2016, 09:32:08 am
wow, he even said "it's current year"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 07, 2016, 11:49:12 am
Wow way to extrapolate a talking point

Dude make a a gaffe in a question about race by not prefacing his answer that it was in the context ofthe additional persecution faced for being black.


Sue him for the one point, disregard every other thing he says and believes, got it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 07, 2016, 12:12:19 pm
It seems to me that he misspoke or phrased things poorly late in a debate, not that he thinks there's no such thing as poor white people.  As a senator I guarantee that his office works with people having issues with services like the VA, Social Security, and Medicaid.  As a Democratic Socialist I'm sure he's aware of issues with the poor.  And as a senator from Vermont, the vast majority of the people reaching out to his office are going to be white.

How many of you watched the debate?  Because I did.  There were several times he started a response with "if I'm understanding the question correctly."  He's 74 years old.  Again, it seems much more likely to me that this was poor phrasing at the end of the most contentious debate the Democrats have had yet.

...why am I the one defending Bernie?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on March 07, 2016, 12:28:48 pm
It seems to me that he misspoke or phrased things poorly late in a debate, not that he thinks there's no such thing as poor white people.  As a senator I guarantee that his office works with people having issues with services like the VA, Social Security, and Medicaid.  As a Democratic Socialist I'm sure he's aware of issues with the poor.  And as a senator from Vermont, the vast majority of the people reaching out to his office are going to be white.

How many of you watched the debate?  Because I did.  There were several times he started a response with "if I'm understanding the question correctly."  He's 74 years old.  Again, it seems much more likely to me that this was poor phrasing at the end of the most contentious debate the Democrats have had yet.

...why am I the one defending Bernie?

well, when you start out saying that you support blacklives matter, which went off the deepend, anything after that will just sound like more looney ****.
then again, he might not know what blacklivesmatter has been up to and is just agreeing with the general outset of racism is bad.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 07, 2016, 12:44:45 pm
Yup as soon as Bernie gets in office he will make BLM members cabinet members and reparations will be given cause **** the whiteys
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 07, 2016, 12:45:12 pm
If it is a gaffe, then where is the retraction and apology?  Should Trump get the same consideration when he says something unconscionable, because his core message is "make America great again"?

He does.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 07, 2016, 12:56:21 pm
Were you personally erased by that "gaffe"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ez8QMHwaog
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 07, 2016, 01:06:27 pm
If it is a gaffe, then where is the retraction and apology?  Should Trump get the same consideration when he says something unconscionable, because his core message is "make America great again"?

He does.

Yeah, I was gonna say. A number of people in this thread were defending all sorts of outrageous nonsense Trump was saying as a "bargaining chip" or showing he wasn't politically correct to appeal to dingbats.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 07, 2016, 02:08:41 pm
"Make America Great Again"
-Donald Trump

(http://i.imgur.com/MzXsYx8.gif)

Vote Trump!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 07, 2016, 02:13:44 pm
Jokes on them I was only pretending.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: sgore on March 07, 2016, 02:32:48 pm
I don't know if anyone else is seeing the banner ad I'm seeing in this thread, but Obama is apparently causing an old woman's hair to swoosh around because of homeowners fees or something.

Will this hurt or help the democrats in 2016?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 07, 2016, 02:38:07 pm
https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/49enav/what_i_meant_to_say_sanders_said_according_to_an/d0r6ar4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 07, 2016, 04:18:44 pm
What a doofus for saying that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 07, 2016, 07:49:12 pm
Not been around, so re: last few pages.

Kasich would probably have been the best candidate for a more reasonable, center-conservative GOP. He's not as radical as Paul or a Tea Party enthusiast.
As things stand, the GOP is going to undergo some even more dramatic change. You'd think with the whole evangelical family values shift and later tea party movement would be enough, but no.

Unfortunately, this election turning into a circus of populism and cynicism almost seems like it was inevitable.

Leftists are flocking to a populist socialist while right wing groups and the angry poor whites are rallying around what is essentially a populist (dare I say it) fascist.

This is what happens when governments and their people experience a shattering break because of the disillusionment of the populace. Remember when Greece's economy first crashed? The next election put literal neo-nazis and soviet-style-communists in their legislature. It's like the Wiemar Republic all over again.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 07, 2016, 08:24:55 pm
The problem is that the term 'fascist' has become so pedestrian because of people using it to mean 'an authority figure I disagree with.'

So it sounds like the same hyperbole in the rants about Bush and Obama regardless of whether it is truthful.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 07, 2016, 09:03:37 pm
On a lighter note:

http://imgur.com/a/8p9DG
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 07, 2016, 09:17:26 pm
That album reminds me of late 19th century American politics.

Ah, the gilded age of beards.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 08, 2016, 02:39:07 am
Strap yourselves in c***s.

The 20th century Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein believed that the meaning of words was based on our consensus use of those words within the particular language game we're playing. If enough people point to a square and say "square" then that's what square means, and if they all pointed to a circle and said "square" then "square" would mean circle. The consequence of this is that words can only have meaningful content if they refer to something which is accessible to at least one other person. Subjective experiences are by their definition inaccessible to others, that's what subjective means. If you say your "pain" is "worse" than someone else's then your statement is bereft of useful meaning because you have absolutely no context or basis for comparison (you might be able to say "my experience is making me complain more than you" or something similar that's tied to an observable external signifier).

The upshot obviously is that Bernie is absolutely right. As a white person you don't know what it's like to be a poor black person. You don't even know what it's like to be another white person, and black people don't know what it's like to be other black people, and everyone lacks the language to explain because there's no way to refer to subjective experiences.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

There. I officially set the gold standard in this thread for stupid, pretentious nitpicking. Bernie has been vindicated by analytic philosophy and we can all go back to laughing at Jeb.   
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on March 08, 2016, 03:49:34 am
please clap
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 08, 2016, 05:24:58 am
im clapping
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 08:48:37 am
Ah you guys are all goofy. The President doesn't have that much power. It'll all be fine.

Vote Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on March 08, 2016, 09:26:53 am
going back on that facist thing.

people sure use the word bigot wrong a lot.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 08, 2016, 09:41:18 am
So two racists and a criminal walk into a presidential election....


The punchline is that you're ****ed.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on March 08, 2016, 12:51:44 pm
...whenever someone defines "feminism" or "atheism" and I then wonder if words should be defined by their dominant usage (consensus) or by the dictionary.

oh hey you guys are actually talking about something i care about for once

dictionary definitions come from dominant usage, believe it or not. in fact you'll tend to find that people who work at dictionary companies are more laissez-faire and good-humoured about language than you probably imagine.
Title: Re: Tesla's Adventures in Dictionary Factories
Post by: sgore on March 08, 2016, 01:03:01 pm
Tesla, are you suggesting you work for a dictionary company?

Tesla, forget everything else this thread is about.
It is about this now.
Tell us stories.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on March 08, 2016, 01:17:51 pm
i don't unfortunately i am just a LINGUISTICAL ENTHUSIAST
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 02:53:57 pm
Hahahahah!!

There was no mistake there. :3
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 08, 2016, 03:06:14 pm
An overzealous staffer is gonna swing for this.

I'm having difficulty thinking of how a political attack could possibly go worse.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 08, 2016, 03:11:34 pm
i don't unfortunately i am just a LINGUISTICAL ENTHUSIAST

aka a super mega pedant
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on March 08, 2016, 03:22:20 pm
i don't unfortunately i am just a LINGUISTICAL ENTHUSIAST

aka a super mega pedant

people who actually care about language (and not just seeming smart) aren't pedantic
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 08, 2016, 03:50:12 pm
im kidding tesla

sorry
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 04:58:17 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsrLAIb2cZc
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on March 08, 2016, 05:03:13 pm
im kidding tesla

sorry

:)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 06:03:32 pm
Trump party time! Everyone get in here we're going all the way to the White House!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9FImc2LOr8

(http://i.imgur.com/TVxdTzS.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/UkdaFJx.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/TVxdTzS.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9FImc2LOr8

(http://i.imgur.com/k0b1s2p.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/t1Kyho6.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/LlrL2PN.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/UkdaFJx.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/PyqO8Cq.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 08, 2016, 06:35:05 pm
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/illustration-donald-trump-hat-make-sequel-space-jam.jpg)

http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-county/2016/01/31
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 08, 2016, 06:41:03 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/CrskolP.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/CrskolP.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/CrskolP.gif)


TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP




Mexican-African-Scottish conga line ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN 2 DA WHITE HOUSE
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 06:56:43 pm
YEEEEEAAAAAAAAH!!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 08, 2016, 07:10:18 pm
Mexican-African-Scottish conga line ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN 2 DA WHITE HOUSE

"We're gonna build a wall all along the Atlantic Ocean - I mean a YUGE wall - with a big fat port, a fantastic port, and it's gonna be 30 feet high and we're gonna make Scotland pay for it."
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 07:17:59 pm
DREAMS CAN COME TRUE.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 08:36:55 pm
WE'RE CALLING MICHIGAN FOR SANDERS!

(http://i.imgur.com/QYTsKG6.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/3G76e3m.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/cygnQiQ.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/n2RUPMR.jpg)

Now sit down, one and all. Tonight I will tell you the story of Bernie Sanders and the coffee that was too hot.

SAND SAND SAND ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE!

LION TED CRUZ STRIKES AGAIN!! (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/rubio-camp-accuses-cruz-dirty-tricks-over-hawaii-dropout-email.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 08, 2016, 08:47:46 pm
And yet the south continues to **** up everything for everyone as per usual

**** em
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 08, 2016, 08:57:41 pm
For what it's worth, most of the South hates the rest of the South, too.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 08, 2016, 09:02:48 pm
The South doesn't know when to stop listening to the smooth talking Northern attorney.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 08, 2016, 11:38:16 pm
Mexican-African-Scottish conga line ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN 2 DA WHITE HOUSE

"We're gonna build a wall all along the Atlantic Ocean - I mean a YUGE wall - with a big fat port, a fantastic port, and it's gonna be 30 feet high and we're gonna make Scotland pay for it."

"I am not paying for that ****ING WALL" - Nicola Sturgeon. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on March 09, 2016, 08:05:46 am
For what it's worth, most of the South hates the rest of the South, too.
Damned Southerners! They ruined the South!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 09, 2016, 12:43:14 pm
Hay I will pay for all the walls. Just build them all and foot me the bill. Though make sure it really really big and goes aaaaalll the way around the country. I do not want anything cheep now. Heck just make it a huge dome around the whole nation. Just make sure is not crappy OK? Got it? Good.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 09, 2016, 02:13:15 pm
I'll let him know.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Cyst on March 09, 2016, 02:30:25 pm
Is it too early/late for me to say: I predict Trump will win. ??

Is it safe for me to say this yet?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 09, 2016, 02:36:48 pm
No, not yet.

Also you're a retard so your guesses don't count. Only media-accredited guessers are allowed to submit formal guesses.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Cyst on March 09, 2016, 04:24:50 pm
xcuz u am no retard u heccn meanguy

But seriously, no, I see Trump winning because of his populism and refusal to denounce anything, or racialize his appeal to "working class americans". He plays off of Muslim fear, easy win. Especially if Hillary gets Democratic nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 09, 2016, 04:37:04 pm
I mean, heck I'll vote for him too if Bernie doesn't get the nod.

Any opportunity we have to throw a grenade into the establishment should be taken. He's only President, it's not like he'd be able to break the system.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 09, 2016, 05:15:58 pm
Vote Trump, he'll stick it to the people in power!

Vote Trump, the people in power will stop him from doing all of that crazy stuff he says!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 09, 2016, 05:24:03 pm
Well, Voting trump is the voters sticking it to the people in power through proxy, really.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 09, 2016, 05:35:52 pm
He'll hire top men to do the jobs. That's cool.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 09, 2016, 07:04:21 pm
Can you please give a yes or no answer?

"Yes. I can. *explains answer with no yes or no*"

Who am i?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 09, 2016, 07:26:27 pm
y-yes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 09, 2016, 10:11:15 pm
This was advertised during the CNN/Univision debate.  Apparently it's from Univision.  I'm putting it here without comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD-Oy_XA9CU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL1iWUCWe0Y
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 10, 2016, 12:19:45 am
Ooooooooookaaaaaaaaay
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 10, 2016, 03:06:48 am
"Coolest President of the United States"

I'm still waiting for Theodore Roosevelt to give his address.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 10, 2016, 07:19:55 am
That commercial came on the moment after I left the chat last night. I contemplated coming back. :3
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 11, 2016, 07:56:06 pm
So, Chicago nearly blew up.  Thanks, Donald.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 11, 2016, 09:49:34 pm
So, Chicago nearly blew up.  Thanks, Donald.

High energy rally
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on March 12, 2016, 03:45:40 am
Reporter asks Donald about affirmative action so Trump's Campaign Manager had to assault her.

"Michelle Fields has filed a criminal complaint against Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager for Donald Trump."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B6K7iiV_zk

not sure why this even happened to be honest.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 12, 2016, 01:24:49 pm
This is so great. Every part of it.

(http://i.imgur.com/PZRUjpz.gif)

I especially loved the part where there was violence against women.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 12, 2016, 04:29:11 pm
How can someone who pretty much grown up in the establishment, A rich guy from a rich family be considered anti-establishment? It just stupid rhetoric. Thrump could not give a crap about the working class.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 12, 2016, 04:36:29 pm
He might be inclined to because the working class is voting for him.

Which is more than you can say about the other rich guys (and girls this time) from rich families you have to choose from.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 12, 2016, 04:50:22 pm
Heck no. Just because someone votes for you does not mean you will do what they want you to do. In fact if the vote for you regardless of what you do why the heck would you?

But yeah. Would not touch any of the republican candidates to be honest. Heck I rather raise Nixon from the dead and vote for him.

On the democrats side is actually easier. Sanders is the one I would vote for. He got a good track record. He actually has ideas that are aligned with my ideas. But then again I am not a American citizen so I guess that a moot point.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 12, 2016, 06:15:03 pm
Nixon was an excellent President. I'd vote him in as well.

How can someone who pretty much grown up in the establishment, A rich guy from a rich family be considered anti-establishment? It just stupid rhetoric.

Our country has developed a hardcore political class. I'm sure your country has probably experienced something similar. Trump is rich and well-connected, but he isn't part of the political class, which makes him an outsider. Now, is there much of a difference between the business class and the political class? Maybe? Maybe not? But Trump being a businessman instead of a politician is why he gets called "anti-establishment".

And I mean... he's ripping up the GOP plank by plank right now which is pretty anti-establishment.

But yeah go SAND!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 12, 2016, 06:33:40 pm
Meh... We do not really have any political dynasties in the same way here. Sure we have career politicians. But that's not really a bad thing I say. And they tend to have at least had a background outside of politics to before that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on March 12, 2016, 10:53:01 pm
In fact if the vote for you regardless of what you do why the heck would you?

People aren't voting for Trump because of his sexy hairdo, they're voting for him because they like what he says he'll do. They like that they've got someone who's proposing a more protectionist economy after years of getting fed the scraps of minor cultural issues and free trade agreements.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 12, 2016, 11:28:03 pm
Too bad his tax plan is nuts
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 12, 2016, 11:49:14 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06d4t1704N8

Trump nearly got attacked at a rally today.  Listen to the crowd.  For or against Trump, we're at a point where people want blood.  And I'm increasingly worried that they're going to get it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 13, 2016, 12:53:51 am
That'd be sad
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 13, 2016, 04:46:01 am
Trump is a really assassinatable sort of a man.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 13, 2016, 06:02:04 am
In fact if the vote for you regardless of what you do why the heck would you?

People aren't voting for Trump because of his sexy hairdo, they're voting for him because they like what he says he'll do. They like that they've got someone who's proposing a more protectionist economy after years of getting fed the scraps of minor cultural issues and free trade agreements.

Well based on what he says I would not vote for him. He is not saying stuff that really benefits the working class from what I have seen. And I do not expect anyone to vote for his Hairdo. :P

But I guess some people do think that protectionism is going to save the economy. Never done so in the past. But not everyone is well versed in economic history. (And is not like USA have not tried that a few times fairly recently to at least to a small extent.) And no I am not pro free trade ether. I am pro fair trade. There is a difference.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 13, 2016, 06:43:23 am
I've played some Europa Universalis so I think I have a handle on this free trade/tariffs thing

(http://i.imgur.com/5bRCcUW.png)

We need to export more slaves to Constantinople I think.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 13, 2016, 10:42:29 am
In the current climate, if someone was going to kill a politician it'd probably be a liberal retard that has fooled themselves into thinking murder is an acceptable response.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 13, 2016, 11:56:35 am
Depends who's currently on top I think.

If Bernie wins I could see some Bible-thumper taking a potshot because he thinks he's the antichrist.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 13, 2016, 12:19:54 pm
There always insane people out there on each side of the political spectrum. Even a lot of insane people who are not on the spectrum. Last political murder here in Sweden was carried out by a simply a insane person.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 13, 2016, 12:41:08 pm
I've played some Europa Universalis so I think I have a handle on this free trade/tariffs thing

pic

We need to export more slaves to Constantinople I think.

too complex for me,I'll stick to Crusaders kings II
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 13, 2016, 01:38:06 pm
If the bible thumpers didn't kill Obama they ain't killing Bernie.

Th e Mic will haha
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 13, 2016, 01:43:28 pm
Bernie is 70,if he become President he may well die in office
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 13, 2016, 01:47:56 pm
Not comfortable with the assassination banter.

Go to your safe space then.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 13, 2016, 01:51:52 pm
Hes scared the NSA will come on to us

Or the FBI

or the CIA
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on March 13, 2016, 02:04:10 pm
Bernie is 70,if he become President he may well die in office

If god kills him then maybe he was the anti-christ all along.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 13, 2016, 02:09:54 pm
you man God with a capital G

respect the guy upstairs would ya!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 13, 2016, 02:55:04 pm
Oy vey this gentile is taking the name of G*d in vain.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 13, 2016, 06:05:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BknCy1skLNM

Somehow Frank got in.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 13, 2016, 07:24:14 pm
I often forget how tiny he is.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 14, 2016, 04:06:37 am
Somehow Frank got in.

http://alexanderlozada.com/iasip/?IlRoZSBHYW5nIEZlZWwgYSBCZXJuaW5nIFNlbnNhdGlvbiI=
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 14, 2016, 02:02:19 pm
The issues at Trump rallies is a plot by the GOP. They are planting people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 14, 2016, 02:14:38 pm
Whether that's true or not the Trumpoids seem to LOVE it when protesters get pushed around and Trump gets to use it as an excuse for more cheap rhetoric.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 14, 2016, 04:06:13 pm
Now your posting incoherent nonsense

Try harder
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 14, 2016, 04:11:57 pm
Neither of you are funny. There, it's settled.

So the next big primary is Florida, right? What are the polls and pundits saying is gonna happen? Are the Floridians ready to feel the Bern?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 14, 2016, 04:20:04 pm
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/florida-ohio-republican-primary-preview/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/florida-ohio-democratic-primary-preview/

Hillary will take Florida.  Other states are up in the air, and after Michigan polling is suspect.  Tomorrow is make or break for Rubio and Kasich.  If they don't take Florida and Ohio respectively, they're done.  And it's looking much better for Kasich's dealbreaker state than Rubio's.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 14, 2016, 06:20:58 pm
I have gotten no less than a combination of 5 calls and texts from the Sanders campaign in the last week about voting in the primary.

They're gonna lose Florida, but they're also going to squeeze the state for every delegate that it's worth.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 14, 2016, 06:35:00 pm
Hooray proportional delegates.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 14, 2016, 06:52:50 pm
The most democratic part of the entire election. :Y
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 14, 2016, 09:22:06 pm
Now your posting incoherent nonsense

Try harder

Please don't reply to my posts with personal comments when you don't get the joke.

Ulti has me agreeing with you twice today, ChiToes. I think his thing may be backfiring on him.

In other news, I can't wait to see what happens with Rubio and how he spins/deals with what is coming.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 15, 2016, 01:20:38 pm
Big day.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 15, 2016, 01:32:43 pm
YUUUUUUUUUUUUGE DAY

first!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 15, 2016, 03:50:12 pm
Brace Yourself.  Gird your loins.  The Reckoning comes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 15, 2016, 05:02:35 pm
Trump is the GOP

Early **** is ****ty for Bernie hopefully it pull up
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 15, 2016, 05:52:36 pm
Well ****.

That sucks. This sucks. South Park is as relevant as ever as giant douche and **** sandwich continue our country towards oligarchy
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 15, 2016, 05:53:31 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/OCWQbMp.jpg)

The GOP right now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 15, 2016, 06:05:06 pm
In connected news I saw Bernie Sanders' brother Larry shopping in the deli round the corner from my house today.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 15, 2016, 06:40:17 pm
Hillary won Ohio..cant say I'm surprised.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 15, 2016, 07:04:43 pm
Seems fitting for a campaign to die on the Ides of March.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 15, 2016, 07:32:59 pm
A whole party, even.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 15, 2016, 07:53:01 pm
Ted "deregulate it" Cruz is a scary mother****er.

Trump please.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 15, 2016, 08:41:54 pm
They may not have the exact numbers yet.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 15, 2016, 09:37:19 pm
Those are the rules of the game.  The Democrats' set things up to favor the establishment.  I think Sanders knew the challenges he faced going into this, his supporters should understand that as well.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 15, 2016, 10:04:28 pm
Unfortunately, a supporter that understands that truth realizes that they are, to some extent, disenfranchised.

rabble rabble rabble
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 15, 2016, 10:25:04 pm
So long, Rubio.

(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/rufio%20stab.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 15, 2016, 10:32:38 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 16, 2016, 08:17:16 am
Those are the rules of the game.  The Democrats' set things up to favor the establishment.  I think Sanders knew the challenges he faced going into this, his supporters should understand that as well.

This is why I will vote for Trump. **** their system and **** them.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 16, 2016, 08:50:25 am
Obama seems to have nominated a okay person to the Supreme Court.

Mitch McConnell just came out and repeated all of FOX News' talking points and added:

"instead of addressing an issue where we can't agree"

I'd like to change that to:

"instead of addressing an issue where we won't agree"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 16, 2016, 06:06:46 pm
So in summary, a Donald Trump Presidency would be more fun than we would know what to do with?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on March 16, 2016, 07:54:32 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awnrdye9zTg

that guy looks like a GOB Bluth stunt double
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 16, 2016, 09:18:35 pm
“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-foreign-policy-adviser-220853#ixzz434QXEpGJ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 19, 2016, 10:18:20 am
Violence at Trump rallies.

My take:

I think Trump's rhetoric is definitely getting people riled up and some of them start things.
I think Trump's rivals and detractors are sending people in to start things so they can point out how awful Trump is.

My longer outlook:
I think Trump needs to act more Presidential like he has said he will be and he should make sure his audience also acts like the type that would stand by someone "presidential".
I think Trump's rivals and detractors are engaged in a foolish game if they think their pansy tactic of starting a fight and then crying to Mommy Media is going to work. It only gives Trump more airtime and attention, allowing him more time to exercise his mastery of media manipulation.

The GOP has also shown themselves to be complete frauds, possibly as big a fraud as the DNC. They are willing to tell people not to vote for someone and do anything they can to sink their own party at even an inkling of someone else having power over the movement. What exactly are they up there standing for? It's clearly not the GOP, the people, or the rules. And a lot of the DNC seem to be in lock step with them in getting rid of Trump. I think this is the real line that separates our politicians laid bare.

If they don't really care about Trump getting the nomination they are probably pretty normal people and not being paid to talk. If they are flailing about like the GOP and DNC right now? They're establishment ****s and being paid to represent someone else other than the people.

Vote Trump! He's not a bad choice, he's not a great choice. But he's better than Hillary or Cruz. And he certainly won't ruin America or the world. What you're seeing and hearing is a spectacularly corrupt system mobilizing on every front to stop someone that might mess up their shell game. Wake the **** up. The system has tendrils everywhere. They will mobilize anyone and everyone they can to stop this guy because he's going to do a cannonball into their pool and they don't like outsiders in their pool. That's literally it. That's the controversy. It's not about the doom of America, it's about the people with power losing having to share their power.

Your ears should prick up the moment every part of the media machine ever agrees on something.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 19, 2016, 01:48:10 pm
Man, I wish was being paid to be anti Trump.  Am I reading you right to think you're saying anyone anti trump is on the payroll, or are you just saying anyone in the media?  The idea of a President Trump genuinely fills me with dread.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 19, 2016, 03:18:46 pm
You dread it so much you'd vote for [OTHER CANDIDATE]?

Have you seriously looked at [OTHER CANDIDATE] or did you just overlook all of [HIS/HER] flaws because the media has been nothing but Trump?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 19, 2016, 03:54:24 pm
Well to be fair. Bernie has a track record of actually doing politics and getting results. He is a legit politician even if he is a bit of a outsider. But he has experience of working within the system.

Trump comes with no real experience but that also why some like him so much. (Well he has experience with donating money to political representatives)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 19, 2016, 04:32:03 pm
Chitoes, the idea that both Sanders and Trump are regarded as even close to equally bonkers is absurd.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, though. Also Yokto's.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 19, 2016, 09:20:16 pm
And Pat, I really agreed with Pat.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on March 19, 2016, 10:28:03 pm
Pat is so politically disenfranchised by his beliefs that we can safely ignore him anyway.

Too far?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 20, 2016, 09:32:36 am
No you're the first person to get it exactly right.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 21, 2016, 03:59:45 am
(http://i.imgur.com/8MQMPoQ.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 22, 2016, 08:45:39 pm
Guess we're burning it down
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 22, 2016, 08:50:06 pm
Does that mean Bernie's winning or losing?  Are we bringing pitchforks too?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 22, 2016, 09:12:22 pm
Bernie is starting a movement.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on March 22, 2016, 10:11:47 pm
Bernie seem to have had a impact on American politics however. At least on the democratic side. So it likely that he will run until the end.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 22, 2016, 10:39:25 pm
I hope he does! It'll be a good message for the future.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 22, 2016, 10:40:26 pm
Does that mean Bernie's winning or losing?  Are we bringing pitchforks too?

Losing. Bring the pitchforks
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 23, 2016, 07:40:15 am
Tesla and I had the idea that on April 1st Trump will hold a press conference and announce that his running for president was the biggest, most luxurious prank of all time.

If that actually happened I would do a complete 180 on Trump and he would have all my respect. Fair dos to anyone who would spend millions of their own money on a prank which sends the Republican political establishment into total chaos. It would be the best of both worlds! Republicans go into a tailspin but also no chance of Trump being Prez.

If we all wish it hard enough maybe it will become true.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2016, 07:48:38 am
I think the people willing him to become President are trying harder.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 23, 2016, 07:50:18 am
For your wish to come true you need to wish upon a star
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2016, 08:03:09 am
I wished upon Donald Trump in hopes that Donald Trump becomes President.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2016, 01:18:23 pm
Oh man, dude.

:D
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 23, 2016, 09:46:33 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF1JDNOLaYg

Fun video about the future President's plane.

You think they'll let him upgrade it with some of the Air Force One perks?


(http://i.imgur.com/I8NVhwJ.png)

Anyone else offended at this awful attempt to may-may?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 24, 2016, 05:37:35 am
I'm offended and appalled!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 25, 2016, 09:14:51 am
If you are actually interested in substantive discussion on the election, rather than the goofiness often thrown around here, check out the Political Junkie podcast.

Here is this week's episode: https://www.krpoliticaljunkie.com/episode-120/

They have a great interview about previous contested conventions as well.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 26, 2016, 11:52:20 am
Just caucused in Seattle. **** that noise
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 26, 2016, 11:53:15 am
*Homerlaughing.webm*
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on March 26, 2016, 01:35:34 pm
no wonder your gif isn't displaying,webm is not a supported extension here
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 26, 2016, 05:10:08 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/PqNDq0n.jpg?1)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 26, 2016, 05:53:30 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/2uen8nq.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/2uen8nq.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/2uen8nq.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/2uen8nq.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 26, 2016, 06:17:46 pm
Is that guy actually jerkin it?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 26, 2016, 06:51:17 pm
No, he's doing something with a flag or something gay like that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 26, 2016, 06:55:15 pm
Is it heresy against America to jerk off onto a flag?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on March 26, 2016, 06:59:09 pm
It's heresy if you don't
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 26, 2016, 07:45:56 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/ursSv0B.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on March 26, 2016, 09:48:18 pm
Is it heresy against America to jerk off onto a flag?

Yes, because the flag should wave in the wind and if you do that it will be too stiff.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 27, 2016, 08:53:13 am
Happy Easter Holiday! They probably won't report too much today. So here's your entire dosage of slop right now before we all go our separate ways. Play the video and start reading!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V66m52YFZBg


Aw these are just great!

Cognitive dissonance: Watch what happens when AIPAC attendees slam Trump's racist comments then learn they were said by Netanyahu (http://www.sott.net/article/315298-Cognitive-dissonance-Watch-what-happens-when-AIPAC-attendees-slam-Trumps-racist-comments-then-learn-they-were-said-by-Netanyahu)

Spilling the Beans on Katrina Pierson (http://befuddledbytheclowns.blogspot.com/2016/03/spilling-beans-on-katrina-pierson.html?m=0)

Is it true or not? Who cares? Candid and casual shots of Katrina Pierson!!

Here's some ****-tier webbage: http://trumpgeneral.com/ and http://cruzsexscandal.com/


(http://i.imgur.com/C6Ngf11.jpg)

Also young Ted Cruz was probably a pretty fun dude. I wish they'd stay that way instead of going full-douche.

VOTE. TRUMP. MAGA.

(http://i.imgur.com/pVEVxHO.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/HkLDy3w.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 27, 2016, 10:07:51 am
Sander seems to gradually be creeping up on Hillary though. Maybe it'll come down to superdelegates and/or it'll be a contested primary (on both sides since the GOP will do anything to keep Trump out)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 27, 2016, 10:16:20 am
Part of me wants to say we are witnessing a new paradigm for modern election where people won't just drop out and will stay in to prove their message has worth.

Sanders is definitely proving that point. He has pushed Hillary left, he has gotten his ideas out to the masses, and he's even raking in respectable numbers of delegates. Why just walk away and fade into the history of the election cycle? And on the GOP side you see the same thing. These candidates don't want to leave and unlike the past efforts of morons like Santorum, they actually have good reasons to stay and a large enough following to warrant their continued presence.

I like this. I hope it leads to more options on the final ticket.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 27, 2016, 10:40:57 am
Well candidates on both side of the spectrum will still be terrified of running as an independent for fear of handing the election to the other side (sensible ones anyway).
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on March 27, 2016, 12:29:54 pm
Superdelegates?

Hah.

**** Superdelegates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Had a conversation with a friend recently who claimed this undemocratic trash was necessary to prevent demagoguery, like Trump.

Garbage. Complete garbage. It's hard to express through text how much I despise this and things like it, but know that the uncensored, publically known tilt of this election makes me physically angry. **** the democratic party and **** this whole stupid country.

I'm thinking if Sanders isn't the Democratic candidate, I'll probably vote Trump. It's not as if I'll affect anything in California anyways. Who cares. I want Trump, if for nothing else because I believe he wouldn't be beholden to the things that have a stranglehold on other candidates.

He is a blustery snake, who seems to be willing to say more or less anything if it will get him into office.

But at least he isn't Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 27, 2016, 01:02:32 pm
Trump 2016: **** This Whole Stupid Country
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on March 27, 2016, 02:00:19 pm
Well, I'm in California, so my hypothetical vote for Trump amounts to about zilch.

I don't know that I'd vote for him if I were in a swing state.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 27, 2016, 04:31:47 pm
Had a conversation with a friend recently who claimed this undemocratic trash was necessary to prevent demagoguery, like Trump.

It sounds like your friend has no ****ing idea what constitutes "democratic" behavior.

He is a blustery snake, who seems to be willing to say more or less anything if it will get him into office.

Anyway I agree with you and hold a similar view. I want Sanders but have no real issue with Trump and I like the way he makes the people I dislike nervous.

But this quote of yours, I wanted to add something to it. I don't think he'll say anything to get himself into office, that'd be a normal politician. I think Trump will just say anything and doesn't necessarily care if it hurts him or helps him. And most of the time it helps him because the public doesn't have the same expectations of him since he isn't a "politician" in the normal sense. That is not to say that he clearly isn't purposefully saying things at specific times. But Trump knows how to elevate himself above the normal media BS and is able to manipulate that media BS to harm his opponents. He's not saying what he says to get elected, he's saying what he is saying to prove how inexorably lodged into the system his opponents are and to prove how that system is also bound to his political rivals.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 28, 2016, 09:48:10 pm

Roger Stone Drops Bombshell After Bombshell About Cruz Sex Scandal: If It's Not All True, "Sue Me Immediately"
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/28/trump_cnonfidant_roger_stone_drops_bombshell_after_bombshell_about_cruz_sex_scandal_if_its_not_true_sue_me_immediately.html)

(http://i.imgur.com/XhnQNr4.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on March 28, 2016, 11:24:33 pm
And I was hearing today that Hillary won't do any more debates until Sanders "softens his tone."  Hillary and co, you are aware of the open warfare next door, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 29, 2016, 04:04:52 am
Hillary won't do any more debates until Sanders "softens his tone."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCIBVOOgvlQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 29, 2016, 08:17:42 am
And I was hearing today that Hillary won't do any more debates until Sanders "softens his tone."  Hillary and co, you are aware of the open warfare next door, right?

She's also aware that Sanders has been pretty nice. She is doing what Trump is doing. There are only ways to lose by holding other debates, so she won't debate.

But if she was going to debate, she'd be ready to debate any time, any place. Swear it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 29, 2016, 08:32:32 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz5DPqU-p0

SECOND WORST EXPERIENCE OF HER LIFE.

Trump aide charged with misdemeanor battery vs. ex-Breitbart reporter (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/trump-aide-charged-with-misdemeanor-battery-on-ex-/nqtkY/)

And what do you know, she's 28 years old. She's part of my ****ty generation of overreacting faggots. There are so many better reasons to hate Trump than this looney toon case. Maybe, like, you know... if you get close to a Presidential candidate in a big crowd you might get pulled away. Just sayin...


**EDIT**
Also "the issues".
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on March 29, 2016, 08:49:03 am
(http://i.cubeupload.com/4x7Mnp.jpg)

I found Wally in the train station but I can't find him in your clip.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 29, 2016, 09:44:16 am
Lurk early-series "Where's Wally?" isn't a challenge. The density of that crowd is pathetic and most of them aren't even wearing decoy stripes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 30, 2016, 07:50:44 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfSwt489e4

Good video. Especially the summation at the end.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on March 30, 2016, 03:43:56 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/8ydn8KW.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 30, 2016, 05:36:13 pm
EVERYBODY GET UP
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on March 31, 2016, 09:19:51 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsBO2q7NHGM

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

(http://i.imgur.com/BQtYdiJ.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 04, 2016, 04:02:04 am
(http://i.imgur.com/WLKoOki.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 04, 2016, 05:56:56 pm
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/can-you-get-trump-to-1237/

lolol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrG4TEcSuRg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 05, 2016, 06:19:13 pm
This Republican Convention is going to be better than the superbowl.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 05, 2016, 09:40:00 pm
And quite possibly more violent.

On a lighter note:

http://www.zam.com/article/328/vaping-congressman-accused-of-using-campaign-funds-on-1300-worth-of-steam-games
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on April 05, 2016, 09:50:24 pm
Amazing
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on April 06, 2016, 04:32:53 am
Cruz won the  Wisconsin primary

better luck next time Donald
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 06, 2016, 07:14:22 am
Yeah I hope so. Thankfully I don't think he'll need much luck to beat Cruz.


But it's nice seeing voters select the man that is literally the worst choice in the entire election field right now out of misguided spite because they've been conditioned to protect the power base. If it's any consolation, Cruz is heading toward a beating in the upcoming states. He's such a piece of ****. God I can't wait for Trump to wrap this up. Once again I'm defending Trump because he was right. Cruz is "worse than a puppet" and "a Trojan horse" and your hate for Trump is no reason to put a villain like Cruz anywhere near the White House.

Give me Trump or give me Sanders. Don't give me sociopaths. However I hope Trump wins over Bernie. Make America great again!

Fun sidenote: you ever see Cruz at his campaign rallies? Watch him wave. He looks like the kind of guy that has practiced his "presidential wave" every night in his room for the last ten years. And the end result is still stiff and robotic but you can tell he thinks he's nailing it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI

WARNING: GENIUS AT WORK.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 06, 2016, 11:58:43 am
However I hope Trump wins over Bernie. Make America great again!

Not sure if b8 or sarcasm or serious.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on April 06, 2016, 12:17:51 pm
He's a jokster that pat
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 06, 2016, 12:57:59 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/krNyvW9.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on April 06, 2016, 01:25:37 pm
I'm voting for Hillary

(http://i.imgur.com/pCgYrzS.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 06, 2016, 05:36:32 pm
Hillary 2016:  The Sooner You Accept It, The Easier It Will Be
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 06, 2016, 09:42:56 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvZnovFKb4

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 07, 2016, 02:12:29 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eI6l8wvn2c

OH BILLY YOUR SO FINE YOUR SO FINE YOU BLOW MY MIND OH BILLY
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on April 07, 2016, 05:21:06 pm
Someone get that man a glass of water
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 07, 2016, 06:14:05 pm
I love those moments when they reach that tipping point of irritation and just go full real-talk.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 07, 2016, 07:41:34 pm
Have you been introduced to Trump yet?

You may enjoy him.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 07, 2016, 10:53:22 pm
That's like responding to the statement 'I love rain' with "have you heard of tornadoes and hurricanes?" 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 08, 2016, 08:28:35 am
hahah that's a good response. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECK9_Bk9IIs

(http://i.imgur.com/SA9VQyA.png)

Also, the reason I'm also okay with Trump is because I believe the GOP when they say he isn't a Republican and I'm okay with that. And I don't see him as being that dangerous because I don't see the Presidency as being that kind of all-powerful job.

SAND MAGA SAND MAGA SAND SAND SAND MAGA
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on April 08, 2016, 03:46:34 pm
NY Sand pls
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 10, 2016, 05:19:30 am
(http://i.imgur.com/xgD6UbF.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 10, 2016, 11:48:33 am
Brain Slug 2016
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 10, 2016, 06:29:37 pm
DonTru2016
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 10, 2016, 11:17:35 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/8WoM2z3.png)

BERN IT ALL DOWN
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 11, 2016, 07:17:44 am
Cover it in SAND and let history forget about it!!

ALSO! Dislike Trump? How about Cruz instead?

http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/trump-erupts-as-cruz-sweeps-colorado-without-votes/

Democracy lol
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 11, 2016, 09:52:08 am
The great thing about this story is that we can mock Trump for being a sore loser, and Cruz for continuing to claim "victories" meaning "not losing to Trump."

And it looks like the reason why nobody is satisfied is yet again first-past-the-post.

Which they apparently changed it to from preferential primary voting.

Why.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 11, 2016, 10:00:43 am
TED "OUTSIDER" CRUZ

HE HOLDS HIS BIBLE HIGH

THEN HE PUTS IT DOWN

THEN HE CALLS ALL HIS INSIDER FRIENDS TO RIG THE ELECTION FOR HIM
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 11, 2016, 10:05:28 am
We should put Kasich in a Cruz costume and then send that damn foreigner Cruz back to where he thinks damn foreigners belong.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 11, 2016, 10:51:40 am
Okay great, but as even WND admitted there, the Colorado GOP decided to choose their delegates this way back in August.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

It's one thing for people outside Colorado to be surprised and upset about this.  But a presidential campaign should know the selection rules for every state, and a frontrunner campaign should have a plan to be competitive.  To only raise a stink about it after the fact makes it look like Trump and his people were either genuinely caught off guard by this system, or thought it was more productive to raise hell after a loss than to put in the ground level effort to be competitive.  Neither looks good to me.

And the argument that Cruz somehow can't or shouldn't play state and local level, ground game politics because he's an outsider is garbage, too.  One, Cruz clerked for the Supreme Court, was the Solicitor General of Texas, and has argued cases before the Supreme Court.  It should not be a surprise that he has a campaign that is aware of the minutia in every state primary, caucus, or convention, and will fight for every delegate.  Two, I don't see how knowing and using the rules of the game and being unpopular with the establishment are mutually exclusive.

The primary system for both parties is needlessly complicated.  But if you want to be president, you have to work in the system as it is.  Trump has been very successful when his opposition was split between multiple candidates, but it may now become clear that it takes more to win than big rallies in friendly areas and angry phone calls to morning news shows.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 11, 2016, 01:55:13 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/LbJ03ig.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 12, 2016, 07:53:53 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDiZ5HW2wqU

GOP scrambling to make it look like Ted "Outsider" Cruz didn't play a rigged game and demolish his "outsider" persona entirely.

It's great. All over the news I see the GOP saying that same smug line that Romney used: "Well I did everything I was legally required to do." And they say it right before they admit that it is totally unfair and really not in the spirit of Democracy or their own damn platform which claims to be trying to bootstrap up the poor people. But hey he followed the rules. He followed the rules right after he gave that speech about his good spirit and desire to see everyone play fair. Because it's NO SURPRISE AT ALL that Trump hits the peak of the polls in early August 2015, and then on the 25th of August the rules get changed so that Colorado can't pick the outsiders that it usually picks.

HE HOLDS HIS BIBLE UP.

HE PUTS HIS BIBLE DOWN.

HE CHEATS IN THE ELECTION.

HE IS TED CRUZ.

But then again, hardcore party followers also have zero interest in living in the real world. Their vision starts and ends with the current election. They'll ignore Ted Cruz being an abject liar and a scumbag because they want to win. They'll ignore his role in shutting down the government. They'll ignore is lack of moral fiber because they want to believe that he's a God-fearing man, and if there's anything Republicans love to do, it is believe. Sure, I'll vote for the liar and the cheater because he wants to make the system fair again for me and my family. He just has to lie, cheat, and rig his way to a victory.

I don't give two craps if you dislike Trump. Trump is an ******* and a jerk and some of his qualification are questionable. I've seen so-called anti-Trump people praising Cruz left and right because he's beating the guy they don't like using tactics they'd bemoan on any other day. These people are the same idiots that want freedom and equality for all. But apparently they want Trump to lose more than they want fairness and equality. What a crock of ****. Our society is full of people in masks hiding what they really want and feel. They lie to themselves and each other almost as much as Ted Cruz lies on the campaign trail.

This whole mess is the world that these idiots have created. Enjoy it you disingenuous asses. It's like you've forgotten that last decade of history and in doing so are willing to give a REAL madman the keys. Trump is hated and he is honest about it and doesn't really care. Cruz is hated and he changes his skin because he knows he doesn't have anything to be honest about. At least I can see what I am getting with Trump, which is more than I can say about most politicians I've ever seen in my short time of being conscious to the world around me.

God damn I hope Sanders wins New York and Hillary gets indicted. But I have no issues and no misguided shame in voting for Trump if it comes to it. In his brash behavior and narcissism there is a kernel of honesty and virtue that too many people are willingly ignoring because there is comfort in the machine as it exists. And if that person is you, you deserve Ted Cruz.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 12, 2016, 08:23:07 am
They'll ignore his lack of moral fiber...

(http://imgur.com/3ieAF2r.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 12, 2016, 07:36:33 pm
Oh, and to clarify, I'm no fan of Cruz and I think state conventions are a horrible way to chose who gets the state's delegates.

I assume this is Lion Ted and the establishment's doing, too:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-campaign-fumbles-plea-for-washington-state-delegates-by-sending-it-to-d-c-residents/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 12, 2016, 08:41:34 pm
No, that's just normal stupidity.

Trump is definitely capable of that as much as the others.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 13, 2016, 09:34:41 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhPKFUjUcr0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smPjH2yW4VQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 13, 2016, 09:58:57 am
I respond with this, Pat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrVYD2Ac6nM
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on April 13, 2016, 10:06:41 am
my brain melted
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 13, 2016, 04:15:07 pm
HIGH ENERGY
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 13, 2016, 06:04:32 pm
my brain melted

One of the benefits of already having your brain melted and scrambled is that there is nothing trippy enough to phase you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 13, 2016, 07:42:02 pm
You haven't been high until you've been high on parliamentary procedure.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 13, 2016, 09:57:33 pm
We need more stories about one armed midget lumberjacks in politics.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 14, 2016, 09:48:28 am
Bernie did a mic drop on the Nightly Show.

He's just another young cool dude like us millennials.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 14, 2016, 11:26:37 am
http://imgur.com/gallery/COnkJ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 14, 2016, 11:44:34 am
That last one.

(http://i.imgur.com/FOvVCw3.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 14, 2016, 09:08:52 pm
(http://imgur.com/s2zd2X3.gif)

I'll just leave this here for use in the conventions/the next time Trump gets protested.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 15, 2016, 10:32:56 am
There are just so many perfect elements to this gif.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 15, 2016, 05:35:42 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/Vro2y95.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 16, 2016, 10:08:41 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTfTabMRRpw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3AbxWaTDEo


If you don't want to watch all that, this image about sums everything up:

(http://i.imgur.com/YLUNxnk.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 18, 2016, 09:59:39 pm
Trump "misspeaks" and instead of saying 9/11, he says 7-Eleven.

The news is consumed with this and talks about nothing else tomorrow, giving Trump even more airtime.

(http://i.imgur.com/PlXwmGx.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 18, 2016, 11:25:02 pm
No dammit I am not going to go get a slurpee at 7-11 tomorrow, your viral marketing won't sway me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 19, 2016, 01:41:07 am
Watch the same media dunkasses who would have defended any sort of ridiculously garbled nonsense coming out of Bush's mouth attack Trump for lack of erudition/respect/patriotism by confusing two numbers confused which commonly precede 11.


(Note this does not mean I'm defending Trump, he's a piece of ****. Thank you.)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 19, 2016, 07:29:11 am
He's going to be our President soon, so you better nut up and change your tune unless you want a new hole or two in England.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 19, 2016, 08:04:51 am
Nah he said he wasn't gonna build any more of his ****ty golf courses over here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 19, 2016, 09:15:38 am
Does that include Scotland? They still belong to you, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 19, 2016, 09:35:07 am
I think his remarks were addressed specifically at Scotland and yes, there was no Scoxit.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 19, 2016, 09:36:18 am
How does Lurk feel about this?

Has anyone told him?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 19, 2016, 09:43:23 am
Lurk is too upset by the Pokémon tax to be on the internet right now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 19, 2016, 09:46:49 am
Well I mean, it's a value added tax so I can understand why he's upset.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 20, 2016, 11:41:37 am
Quote from: Clinton Aide
“We kicked his ass tonight,”

“I hope this convinces Bernie to tone it down. If not, **** him.”

Uttered in the breath before they say that Sanders supporters should rally behind Clinton.

>implying his tone was ever a problem

(http://i.imgur.com/jgnvGsp.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 21, 2016, 05:11:11 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/AwIkrti.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 21, 2016, 07:35:36 pm
I couldn't have made up this story if I tried:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/trumps-foreign-policy-advisor-thinks-turkey-is-conspiring-with-native-americans-to-build-nukes/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 21, 2016, 07:41:44 pm
What the **** does a dam have to do with uranium?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 21, 2016, 09:41:41 pm
(http://imgur.com/GDbQnyP.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 22, 2016, 01:17:56 am
This goes all the way to the top! 0_0

(http://i.imgur.com/8M1Soy2.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 22, 2016, 03:32:35 pm
"My boss was only pretending to be an ass in order to defeat and humiliate the candidates you guys liked.  So we're good now and you're all on board, right?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/21/trump-is-playing-a-part-and-can-transform-for-victory-campaign-chief-tells-gop-leaders/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 22, 2016, 04:22:54 pm
Sublime.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on April 22, 2016, 05:03:22 pm
hey pat
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 22, 2016, 09:33:05 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sVxEWIRvY4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 24, 2016, 09:43:22 pm
How to spot losers: https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-campaign-releases-statement-upcoming-primaries/

Quote from: Lyin' Ted
“Having Donald Trump at the top of the ticket in November would be a sure disaster for Republicans. Not only would Trump get blown out by Clinton or Sanders, but having him as our nominee would set the party back a generation. To ensure that we nominate a Republican who can unify the Republican Party and win in November, our campaign will focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn clear the path for Gov. Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico, and we would hope that allies of both campaigns would follow our lead. In other states holding their elections for the remainder of the primary season, our campaign will continue to compete vigorously to win.”
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 24, 2016, 09:55:07 pm
I remember talk of splitting up states like this before, but I can't remember if it was this explicitly stated.

Also, you all get to suffer as I did.
(https://imgur.com/gnMm9Tl.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 25, 2016, 06:42:51 am
Bernie has a pair!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on April 25, 2016, 11:39:39 am

though I walk through the valley of  the uncanny I will fear no evil
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 25, 2016, 01:36:53 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/VMjV63n.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 26, 2016, 02:42:25 pm
Oh boy, it's another primary night.

(http://imgur.com/y7z9CbX.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 26, 2016, 04:16:16 pm
Not what I was going for but sure, we can go with that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on April 26, 2016, 05:29:16 pm
I'll be yearning for a berning till July at least.

I get more and more discouraged every primary, NY was such a disappointment.

But then again, all the voting shenanigans, idk, maybe someone will write this great wrong.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 26, 2016, 05:47:40 pm
And Trump takes all five tonight.

(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/1b828434dae9eeca52080576870ff4b9.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 26, 2016, 06:35:47 pm
Thank Republican Jesus that proportional voting is a thing in some states.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 26, 2016, 07:18:27 pm
HIGH ENERGY TONIGHT!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 27, 2016, 10:25:19 am
Trump just KILLED IT with his foreign policy speech. Very pleased with what I heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aftn-M8xZEA
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on April 27, 2016, 02:23:53 pm
I'm not so sure about increasing nuclear weapon stockpiles, which he briefly alludes to. Also yeah his weird almost eye-rolling reference to climate change.

(That said, it's hard to find problems with such vagueries as "we need to get the bad guys. I'll get them the fastest.")

EDIT - oh yeah and a flash of that cringey "USA single-handedly won WW2" rhetoric at the start, but that's beside the point.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 28, 2016, 07:42:02 am
We need to modernize the nuclear weapons system in the US. A lot of it still runs on 60s/70s era technology. Actually a lot of the country in general needs to modernize. The third-world crapholes like India, China, and the African continent don't have to worry as much because they can build a modern western wonderland on top of the whopping nothing they already have. Europe and the US have had civilization for such a long time that we need to tear **** down and move things around to modernize further. We must modernize our infrastructure and get people out there working.

Also, CRUZ JUST GOT BOEHN'D!! (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/john-beohner-ted-cruz-lucifer-222570)

Quote
“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner told an audience at Stanford on Wednesday night, according to the Stanford Daily. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 28, 2016, 10:37:52 am
Europe and the US have had civilization for such a long time

¬_¬


Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 28, 2016, 11:00:41 am
hahahaha

Okay you got me. I intentionally phrased it to get a rise out of you. But I still stand by the main point. We do (in the west) have a lot of aged infrastructure that other parts of the world simply do not. And it isn't necessarily the kind of stuff you can just tear down and rebuild as something better because it is already being overused as it is.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on April 28, 2016, 11:32:17 am
a quote so nice it was posted twice!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 29, 2016, 08:09:22 am
Agree. Somehow it is Trump's fault that his opponents had a riot after a Trump rally. :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 29, 2016, 09:04:49 am
The Satanic Temple Is Not Happy With Those Ted Cruz Comparisons With Lucifer (http://uproxx.com/news/satanic-temple-ted-cruz/)

(http://i.imgur.com/Qbq4MoE.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on April 29, 2016, 09:53:26 am
And The Lord of Darkness is not happy being represented by pseudo followers
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 29, 2016, 10:45:32 am
Pretty sure he doesn't give a crap and thinks this is all as funny as I do.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 29, 2016, 01:27:27 pm
The Satanic Temple Is Not Happy With Those Ted Cruz Comparisons With Lucifer (http://uproxx.com/news/satanic-temple-ted-cruz/)

Quote
The Temple and their leader Lucien Greaves

Of course that's his name.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 29, 2016, 02:57:35 pm
I wonder which Underworld movie is Mr. Lucien's favorite.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on April 29, 2016, 04:35:52 pm
That takes me back. (http://www.bay12games.com/lcs/)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 29, 2016, 04:38:38 pm
It's quite a jump from being a jerk and trying to bum rush an event to anything that could be called terrorism.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 29, 2016, 04:51:27 pm
Wouldn't an anti-Trump counter-protester be someone who is protesting against the anti-Trump protesters?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 29, 2016, 05:11:53 pm
Don't get me wrong, this kind of behavior is a serious problem and it's only going to get worse the closer we get to November.  But throwing around labels like terrorist isn't helping.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on April 29, 2016, 05:14:59 pm
Ugh. Why couldn't we be on the timeline where Bernie won the DNC primary?

I'm still holding out for the FBI to make their call and for Trump to make his swings after capturing the nomination
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on April 29, 2016, 11:21:49 pm
Solid reference
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 30, 2016, 11:26:48 am
throwing around labels like terrorist isn't helping

But is it inaccurate?

Of course it's inaccurate, which is why throwing that label around isn't helping. Protesters are terrorists? Hand me a pipe of whatever you're smoking.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 30, 2016, 11:39:36 am
Definitely not terrorists.

*******s that aren't helping their own cause? Yeah, maybe.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 30, 2016, 11:43:00 am
Definitely not terrorists.

*******s that aren't helping their own cause? Yeah, maybe.

On the nose.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on April 30, 2016, 12:38:38 pm
::)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on April 30, 2016, 01:00:32 pm
If you call someone a terrorist, it's not on me to prove you wrong, it's on you to prove it.

And yes, I am just like Dick Cheney. He is my role model.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on April 30, 2016, 02:52:10 pm
So if we accept that terrorism is the use of violence for ideological means, then I guess you could say this fits the definition as much as touching someone on the shoulder against their will counts as assault.  But again, I don't see how throwing around such a loaded word is helping.  We're in agreement that this is unacceptable behavior.  But reclassifying violent protest, even violent to the point of being criminal, as an act of terror is not a path we should take.

All I know is that if I'm Batman and Brandon is Dick Cheney, I think I win.  So long as he doesn't shoot me in the face.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 30, 2016, 09:52:19 pm
I mean I'll agree with ChiToes on some of this. There is clearly a double-standard on both sides, and the anti-Trump people, much like the regressive left have completely deluded themselves if they think their aggressive style of protest is helping anything. Where's the social contract? Where is the respect? Because these people have been raising a stink and being a general embarrassment since long before Trump appeared.

Ink is incredibly on-point though when he says that we agree this behavior is unacceptable. And a lot of this back and forth seems to be more about being right than trying to delve into the issue and examine where it came from and where it is going.


And on the topic of Trump... I know he's a businessman and I know he pays politicians and plays the game and frankly has done a lot of things I really hate. Cruz seems to think attacking him over these things is a worthy pursuit; however, I feel three things:

A) Cruz is calling Trump out for the same things that Cruz himself would do and has done, only he does it from the inside and is the recipient.
B) Cruz uses this portrayal of Trump to call him a "insider" while Cruz maintains that he himself is an "outsider", which strikes me as totally silly - Trump wasn't an insider politician, he was using insider politicians... of which Ted Cruz is one of them.
C) From the very start Trump never made any bones about his campaign donations and why he did them. The first damn debate, one of the first freaking questions he was asked was about his donations to the Clintons and other politicians and he owned up to it immediately, never tried to sugar coat it or lie, and stated the plain fact that this is how business gets done in the US and if you want to make a lot of money, you have to buy a Senator or Rep.

What I am saying is that one of the big reasons I like Donald Trump is that for all the hot air he spews and despite his role in doing things I deplore, I don't feel like he's lying to me. Ted Cruz can barely string an honest-sounding sentence together. When I look at Trump it's almost like Mitt Romney but without the smugness or the attempts to dress up the turd. Trump addresses pretty much any and all issues head on, irrespective of what kind of ratings it may garner. He's being himself, and "himself" seems like a real person. I can respect that and I can stand behind that. Because that is a fundamental aspect of what I think makes a good public servant. Everything starts and ends with being honest with yourself. Trump doesn't lie about who he is, he embraces it and will take anyone to task that tries to put him down for who he is. That is a trait that is sorely missing in our government. Our politicians don't even know who they are anymore.

Trump may not have details and substance, but I'm willing to wait for him to hire the best damn team money can buy to figure that out. It's not like any one of these politicians has plans concrete enough to base policy on at this point in the game anyway.

(http://i.imgur.com/n9g7luU.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on April 30, 2016, 10:59:59 pm
I'm real tired of people bashing Trump on his appearance.

I'm tired of people bashing politicians based on their appearance in general, but with Trump it seems to be more acute.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on April 30, 2016, 11:14:43 pm
Except Carly Fiorina. I mean look at that face!

lol okay but for real. Carly Fiorina... watch her when she does interviews. Her head starts waggling around in a schwifty fashion. Someone needs to coach her to not do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQhNF3L2Rec

I can't not see it now and she does it EVERY ****ING TIME.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 01, 2016, 12:00:28 am
I agree that hitting Trump on his appearance is dumb.  There are so many other things to attack about him.  But it's such a massive target, it's hard for people to resist.  Trump, whether it's who he really is or not, portrays himself as Ego and Vanity personified.  Everything he touches is a success, everything he does is the best and most luxurious, just ask him.  But everything about his appearance is so blatantly fake.  And he's so thin skinned about it:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/07/469209254/decades-later-spy-magazine-founders-continue-to-torment-trump

And that ties back to why I can't buy Trump as honest.  Yes, he'll be blunt about things when actual politicians would dodge the issue.  But he's so obviously putting on an act.  Look, every politician panders.  But Trump does it so badly and yet it still works.  Does this really look like an honest display of patriotism, or does it look like the **** eating grin of someone who knows how stupid groping a flag is, but knows that it's working?

(https://i.imgur.com/gNoGo3H.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 01, 2016, 12:18:15 am
Wouldn't be the first time a bad actor ended up being a decent President.

I don't think he has any idea what he's doing, he's just trying to win. That's it. That's the game. If he wins he can get caught up on what he needs to know. Part of the reason I am willing to give him a chance is because I have no idea what he's going to do. I really really like that he is clearly not a conservative or a liberal. He takes what he wants from both and goes. I don't want either ideological faction in our government to gain too much power. An executive that couldn't give two craps about towing the party line sounds like a dream. The Legislative Branch will be forced to either stop bickering and work, or reveal that they are really the same entity when they band together to screw over the Executive Branch. They can't win.

But let's look at some things he has said.

He said he is willing to negotiate, compromise, and walk. I love this. Compromise is not a four letter word and our current politicians should be ashamed of themselves for pretending that it is. He wants to extend a hand of cooperation to Russia and China. This is fantastic. We're better together and the world is better when we're together. And on this point I think there is something really potentially great. Trump is willing to ignore the existing paradigms. Yeah, Russia is our rival but the Cold War is over and why should we still be so antagonistic toward one another? We can still be pricks at one another. Trump says he wants to "pay back" what he owes to the American public. He is admitting that his successes have happened in part because of the country that we have built. When plenty of other rich people and corporations are dodging taxes and shipping out jobs that were and are made possible by America's citizens, Trump is admitting that he is nothing without the people. He believes in a social contract and being a citizen.

It's 3am and I'm rambling on. But whatever. Will he be a great President? Probably not. Will be a bad President? Probably not. Go Trump!

I DON'T WANT ANOTHER ****ING LAWYER IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 01, 2016, 12:27:08 am
And you hit the key issue here, I think.  It's something we've gone over before, though I can't remember if it was in this thread.  Why you like him and why I don't.

Part of the reason I am willing to give him a chance is because I have no idea what he's going to do.

The same unpredictability that is a selling point for you terrifies me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 01, 2016, 10:54:51 am
The same unpredictability that is a selling point for you terrifies me.

Isn't that neat? I think that's just pretty interesting. And despite that huge chasm in opinion, we can still talk and debate and have fun. What a novel idea!

Also, I think it's cool that I am alive in a time where I can vote to install a complete wildcard into the highest office of the most powerful country ever in history. To elect a person that the broken machine hates so much that they haven't even bothered to put on one of their masks before they try to tear him down. How many people past and future will ever be able to say that? (by the way this isn't really a valid reason why I want to vote, it's just neat)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 01, 2016, 11:09:07 am
The same unpredictability that is a selling point for you terrifies me.

Isn't that neat? I think that's just pretty interesting. And despite that huge chasm in opinion, we can still talk and debate and have fun. What a novel idea!

Also, I think it's cool that I am alive in a time where I can vote to install a complete wildcard into the highest office of the most powerful country ever in history. To elect a person that [the current regime openly opposes]. How many people past and future will ever be able to say that?

The population of every country on Earth that has ever elected a dictator? Southeast Asia? South America? Most of Africa?

EDIT: My bad, didn't see "most powerful." I guess my only example might be Hitler then. Germany was arguably the most powerful military at WW2's outbreak, yeah?

And wasn't Reagan considered a 'wild card who tell it like it be?' I don't know much about his public perception during his time.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 01, 2016, 11:41:19 am
To me "most powerful" conveys more than just raw military power. Germany didn't have a stranglehold on world affairs and control of the oceans, air, and space when Hitler was elected. And their economy certainly wasn't what I'd call a good one. Ours may have some issues but it's not Germany during the 20s and 30s. Anyway that's neither here nor there.

I don't know what the perception of Reagan was back then. I think Carter was the one picking up most of that kind of press in light of his missteps.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 01, 2016, 04:39:34 pm
Well in non-military power the USA is still behind Germany apparently >_>

http://softpower30.portland-communications.com/ranking

Not quite sure how these results are calculated or what they mean but its interesting so I'll have to take a look at it when it's not past midnight.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 01, 2016, 06:55:13 pm
Looks like the US' overall score is dragged down by whatever the "government" score is.

Well good thing the UK and Germany are all part of the same machine.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 02, 2016, 03:01:17 am
Pat the Uk and Germany both get a massive boost to their score because of Eurovision. The most culturally important event in history.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 02, 2016, 06:54:18 am
Pat the Uk and Germany both get a massive boost to their score because of Eurovision. The most culturally important event in history.

I cannot deny this and retain my credibility.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 02, 2016, 07:21:46 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FsVeMz1F5c
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 02, 2016, 07:30:14 am
(http://i.imgur.com/TUwBZ22.png)

>culture
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 02, 2016, 10:31:05 am
When is eurovision this year?  Didn't a bearded lady win a year or two ago?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 02, 2016, 01:51:50 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph_9QOIuFsw

Yikes that doesn't look good.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 02, 2016, 05:33:44 pm
lol for who
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 02, 2016, 05:49:58 pm
America.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on May 03, 2016, 02:02:43 am
When is eurovision this year?  Didn't a bearded lady win a year or two ago?

The finale is May 14th.

Yes they won two years ago for Austria, Sweden won last year.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on May 03, 2016, 06:05:58 am
So America should replicate Eurovision as a replacement for the electoral college?

Six and half a dozen, really.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 03, 2016, 06:43:53 am
lol for who

Cruz. The guy is a donk, but a candidate can't be seen blowing in the wind like that.

Both sides will play it as a win for them; however, I've seen the media spinning it bad for Cruz and I tend to agree that it is a net loss for him. There is more to the video than just that, it goes on for I think ten minutes total. But that was all I could find 15 minutes after the story originally broke. He has a Goldman Sachs line on Cruz that is just devastating. lol
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 03, 2016, 02:28:16 pm
Hey, let's check in with the most honest man in politics as he pivots to behaving more presidential in his race for president.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cruzs-dad-was-with-lee-harvey-oswald/

Sorry, am I in the election thread or the tinfoil thread?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 03, 2016, 04:50:37 pm
Yeah, yeah.  And then there's Trump's language about how Papa Cruz shouldn't be "allowed" to speak in a certain way.  Any time a presidential candidate says speech or opinions shouldn't be allowed, it should raise major alarms.  Who, exactly, does he think should stop that kind of speech?  I don't like the way Papa Cruz was mixing politics and religion, but it's an enormous difference between disagreeing with something for whatever reason, and saying it shouldn't be allowed.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 03, 2016, 05:20:13 pm
lol what a stupid/weird thing for Trump to say, but Cruz didn't exactly come back with an honest retort either.

We'll see how it goes. I still believe this guy is working the media system and isn't exactly crazy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 03, 2016, 05:56:07 pm
Cruz suspended his campaign.

(http://i.imgur.com/20Ycyj8.gif)

Now I can go back to supporting Sanders.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 03, 2016, 07:58:36 pm
"Ted Cruz ends campaign by accidentally hitting, elbowing his wife in the face"

https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/727661010341990400
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 03, 2016, 08:07:00 pm
Oh jesus Ink lmao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v_tZeX-mKE
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 03, 2016, 08:11:50 pm
wow.

this is kind of crazy

Lester wins premier,okc beats the spurs, and now this
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 04, 2016, 03:44:25 am
*Leicester (Sorry about ridiculous English place name spelling but to be fair you have Arkansas and Mississippi, among others)

So Cruz naming Fiorina as running mate was just a desperate last ditch attempt to avert the inevitable?

Otherwise, the yearning for a berning continues to grow.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on May 04, 2016, 06:36:06 am
(http://i.imgur.com/Ozd9GiT.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 04, 2016, 06:39:45 am
@__@

Signal received.

Executing protocols.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 04, 2016, 08:41:33 am
@__@

Signal received.

Executing protocols.

They're simply exchanging long protein strings. If you can think of a better way to do it...?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 04, 2016, 08:52:29 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOjJUgADNaI

lol at everything right now
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 04, 2016, 09:06:25 am
Well, stick a fork in it. It's done.

Special K is out.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 04, 2016, 03:45:01 pm
I normally don't post this song until November.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yBg7i9iSms
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 04, 2016, 03:55:03 pm
Hey it's too early for that.

Don't make me post that video of those girls singing before that one Trump rally.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 05, 2016, 04:30:04 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/xyf362L.jpg)

Beware...
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on May 05, 2016, 04:53:25 pm
I like it a lot. Proud of you, Pat.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 05, 2016, 07:03:10 pm
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/728303624040894464

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/728309799667044352

Happy Hispanic Drinking Day!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 05, 2016, 10:06:54 pm
HIGH ENERGY
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 05, 2016, 10:34:09 pm
https://gfycat.com/SpectacularDimCentipede

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouObpi5_DFU
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 06, 2016, 12:59:44 am
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/728303624040894464

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/728309799667044352

Happy Hispanic Drinking Day!

He loves them so much he refers to them simply as "Hispanics"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 06, 2016, 10:04:40 am
He loves them so much he refers to them simply as "Hispanics"

Does this matter? I mean at this point can't we say that this is just how the guy speaks? He doesn't uses the most polished words sometimes but he's not speaking from a place of malice. Though he has to be aware of the absurdity of it all. :D
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 06, 2016, 11:02:50 am
Well, yeah, I'd argue it does matter a bit.

Lumping people together on a relatively arbitrary basis as a big group is dumb whether your attitude is positive or negative. I'm certainly not in the camp of "wah wah hate speech eliminate words because they make people racist", but I think the fact he chooses to make statements along the lines of "Mexican illegals are rapists" or "I love Hispanics" sort of suggests he naturally thinks along racial lines, which isn't the best trait to have in a country where national-level arguments about race continue to be a big deal. I think it plays into the various reasons people call him divisive.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 06, 2016, 11:49:54 am
Maybe the problem isn't him? Maybe the problem is people trying to ascribe a set of beliefs to everyone else around them. Maybe just take what people say at face value instead of trying to analyze it and determine what they REALLY meant but didn't know they meant. All he said was that he likes Hispanics. You know what, I also like Hispanics. So ****ing what?

Also the quote if we've forgotten:

Quote from: Trump
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.

Not quite as damming as you seem to remember it being, Sam. Certainly unpolished, but he's saying he wants to stop the flow of bad elements from Mexico, of which there are plenty. He says that not all of them are bad and that some are good, but he reiterates that his conclusion is based on what he is being told by the border patrols. Face value. That's what he said. Nothing more, nothing less. He didn't say that Mexicans are rapists. But turn to the news and they won't fact check this or do the bare minimum as I have and post the entire quote. They'll just run the story where Trump says that all Mexican illegals are rapists.

Furthermore, this is a major issue that the electorate wants addressed. It is an issue that our elected officials have neglected since the Nixon administration. He is talking about the issues that people want to talk about, issues that our government has refused to talk about in a meaningful fashion outside of the occasional puff of smoke up our collective ass.

Your time would be better spent if you focus on something worth focusing on. Maybe this:

Quote from: Trump
“Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works.”

“… and if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us”.

At face value he is saying that he wants to torture people despite the fact that we know this method doesn't work or yield meaningful results. Then he doubles-down and says that even if it doesn't work that we should do it anyway because screw those guys. This is a much more sound issue to be anti-Trump about. This kind of quote is what should make you question his qualifications for office.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 06, 2016, 04:38:10 pm
Well, I don't think Trump is unfit for office because he uses language in a way that suggests he views the world a certain way. That just makes me not like him. The torture and foreign policy stuff is indeed why I sincerely hope he doesn't become your president, because it will impact the whole world. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 06, 2016, 08:26:36 pm
I thought the issue was that tweeting a picture of a "taco bowl" and saying you love Hispanics on Cinco de Mayo is about the same as tweeting a picture of a bowl of Lucky Charms and saying you love Europeans to mark St. Patrick's Day.  It's half assed pandering without caring enough to know anything about the topic.  Kinda like quoting one of your favorite passages from Two Corinthians, groping the flag, or flashing a duckface while you mime shoveling coal out of a ditch.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 06, 2016, 09:06:11 pm
Classic
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 06, 2016, 11:51:00 pm
Well, I don't think Trump is unfit for office because he uses language in a way that suggests he views the world a certain way. That just makes me not like him.

That's cool, I can understand that.

As for the extreme pandering... you're right, it is extreme pandering. Part of me wonders if he is doing it on purpose to sort of stick it in the eye of all the politicians out there that literally fumble over themselves and only manage to come up with exactly the same thing only to have it backfire. But part of me thinks he is just pandering.

All of me thinks it is funny as hell and doesn't gain or lose points. I mean come on... it's great. Really great!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 07, 2016, 12:01:49 am
Yeah that's the weird thing.  It's the worst pandering ever but it still works.  Or at least it did for the primaries.  How will he do in the general now?  I have no idea, and I was wrong about the primaries so why speculate at this point?  At least I have company in being wrong.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 07, 2016, 12:04:43 am
I think a few of us thought Trump had the legs
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 07, 2016, 12:17:39 am
Poor Nate Silver.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 07, 2016, 12:34:54 am
I think Trump is gonna keep doing his thing and I suspect it's going to carry him all the way to the White House.


And I mean, there's all this stuff with Hillary. Let's talk about her for a bit. There was a thread over at reddit and someone asked a very cogent question.

Quote from: NebraskaGunOwner
Here's a question I am having trouble finding an answer to. When she left the State Department she effectively became a private citizen. The server wasn't discovered until sometime later. Therefore, as a private citizen she had thousands of classified materials in her possession, as did her aides. As a private citizen she chose to delete 30k emails unilaterally.

If there were any protections of being Secretary of State, wouldn't those be null once she became a citizen? If they don't charge her, aren't they setting a precedent that even if you leave office with thousands of classified documents (marked or not) in your possession, you cannot be charged? Or at minimum they have to prove intent that you planned to leak them. You could just throw your hands up and say "Whoops, my bad. Good thing you have to prove that I had bad intentions with all of this classified material in my possession." And even so, if the materials were leaked, the DOJ would have to prove that it was your intent they be leaked even if you didn't do it? It just seems to setup such a bad example for everyone else in government.

EDIT Essentially, she is claiming that she was permitted to have a private server as Secretary of State - this is very much debated. But is there any argument that she wouldn't be permitted to have a server full of classified material as a private citizen? Even if she continued to have security clearance, that would only allow her clearance to view materials in an authorized location not store classified material on a private homebrew server?

They raise a good point. Clinton had access to the information because of the nature of her job, obviously. She stored the data at home on her server. Once she left her job as Secretary of State she still had the server at her house with all of the data, but not the clearance. As the poster says, even if she retained clearance, that clearance is only to view the data and not store or manipulate that data.

Furthermore, let's take a look at the Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) that Clinton signed before taking her job with the State Department: Click here for the PDF (http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf)

Check out Section 8 in particular. I'll post the text of it for you, but look at the whole document yourself rather than just take my word for it.

Quote from: Clinton NDA
I understand that all information to which I may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an appropriate official or final ruing of a court of law. Subject to such determination, I do not now, nor will I ever, posses any right, interest, title, or claim whatsoever to such information. I agree that I shall return all materials that may have come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access, upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government or upon the conclusion of my employment or relationship with the United States Government entity providing me access to such materials. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Section 793. Title 18, United States Code.

Seems pretty open and shut. If you check out Section 9 it mentions that unless she is given permission in writing by the appropriate Department or Agency, she cannot breach any aspects of this NDA from the moment it it signed and into perpetuity. And before I close this down, let's check out Section 793 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793). The part we want to see is subsection D.

Quote from: Section 793. Title 18, United States Code
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

To me it sounds as if Clinton has failed to return her classified data to the officer or employee of the US that is entitled to receive it.

It is also worth noting that there is a hacker that claims to have spent time cruising through Hillary's private server (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/07/romanian-hacker-who-claims-breached-clinton-server-says-spoke-with-fbi-at-length.html) full of US secrets. That gentleman spoke with the FBI today. And wouldn't you know it? There's was one of those great 4PM on a Friday dumps that nobody will hear about until Monday. Gives anyone that needs it a whole weekend to spin and prepare.

What do you guys think? Should we stick a fork in her? Or is she magically going to find that missing authorization that lets her off the hook? Because I really don't see how she hasn't violated the law here. And the violation is a very serious one that carries real penalties. What happens?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 07, 2016, 12:58:27 am
I want to believe she'll be indicted.

I also wanted to believe Bernie would win the nomination.

Deep down I think she'll still walk. Games over and we lost. The mega rich see the writing on the wall with climate change and are getting all they can before **** hits the fan globally and they need to dip out.

Elysium is our future , at least in spirit.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 07, 2016, 10:13:21 am
Nah. We have guns and overwhelming numbers. Plus the military is on our side. They only have the police.

If they get too uppity, we'll kill/capture them all and install new people into their positions.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 07, 2016, 10:22:54 am
The military is its own side.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 07, 2016, 10:29:01 am
Maybe in Egypt, but not here.

The military will stand behind the people every time because the military is largely made up of people that have lived and understand the struggle, if they are not still going through it because of substandard support and care. They understand their position as the first and last line of defense against politicians.

The police on the other hand have been systematically built up over the last few decades to act as an armed wing of the politicians' power. This occurred because the military won't do it. The police are more easily corruptible.


**EDIT**
But here, let's listen to Obama tell us how we can avoid this terrible fate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxuwazaXOMg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 08, 2016, 08:16:10 pm
He was totally channeling his past professorship in constitutional law. That was great.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 09, 2016, 07:12:24 pm
How about we try not to have the stress test of who the military sides with.

I did not expect to relate this much with a campaign ad from 52 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiG0AE8zdTU
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 09, 2016, 08:43:54 pm
Wait to see if if a third option with an actual chance of winning shows up.

When that doesn't happen, vote for the least worst, I guess?  There are plenty of good reasons not to like Clinton, but she doesn't say things that are so stupid and irresponsible that experts are left questioning reality:

http://www.marketplace.org/2016/05/06/economy/weekly-wrap/weekly-wrap-finding-silver-lining-jobs-report

You can skip to 2:40 for the Trump part.

And hey, let's see how that reunifying the GOP coalition is going:

http://time.com/4323009/donald-trump-southern-baptist-russell-moore-evangelicals-christianity/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 09, 2016, 09:31:23 pm
The "confessions" video that Inkling posted is excellent. Definitely watch it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 10, 2016, 09:26:07 pm
I assume some of you will want to hear Jonathan Liebowitz's thoughts on the campaign and Trump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJnbcn7mZ14

The full event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da5VYSPsoE0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 11, 2016, 12:38:53 am
I'm sick of that guy

**** or get of the pot, Jon.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 11, 2016, 09:22:08 am
Oh man this interview is done by David Axelrod? HOLD ME!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 11, 2016, 02:28:22 pm
I'm sick of that guy

**** or get of the pot, Jon.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, this is the first I've heard from Stewart in months.  What do you want him to do or say?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 11, 2016, 02:37:41 pm
Run for office
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 11, 2016, 03:16:14 pm
Oh man.

Thank you eropS, I needed that laugh.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 11, 2016, 03:17:56 pm
Jon would probably rather kill himself.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 11, 2016, 04:55:56 pm
Meh, he's had one foot in the politics and the other in the comedian for too long imo. Especially considering how involved he was for the 9/11 benefits bill. The guy sees the problems, knows how to fix them, has the brand power behind him. Run for office to change something, Jon, your ability to directly connect with voters gives you such a leg up it'd be trivial to do. If you care about the changes you want to see and are tired of the same old establishment problems then ****ing do something about it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 11, 2016, 08:20:15 pm
Mocking or critiquing politics, even advocating for certain key issues is one thing.  Actually being an elected official is entirely different.  What do you think is harder, being a quarterback, or being the announcer up in the booth?  As a legislator he could work on his key issues, sure.  But he'd have to deal with all the mundane stuff too.  And then there's all the events to attend and constituent services to provide.  And the campaigning and fundraising.  Endless, nagging, prostrating yourself for cash fundraising.  Stewart stepped back from doing a tv show four or five times a night to be an executive producer and spend more time with his pigs, what makes you think he'd want to dive into the procedural bullcrap of elected office?

Stewart has made some very significant contributions, but in the end he's a talking head.  And there's a reason talking heads almost never run for office.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 11, 2016, 09:02:18 pm
but in the end he's a talking head.

Hence my general disillusionment with the guy
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 11, 2016, 09:15:17 pm
But why would you expect more in the first place?  To drive my analogy into the ground, it's like being upset that Bob Costas never tries to pitch for the MLB.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 11, 2016, 09:43:19 pm
IDK, I was young, he held that Rally and I was really hoping he would actually attempt to restore sanity, he was way more active than your average pundit when it came to legislation he cared about, I guess I sort of believed in the guy, **** me, right?


If Al ****ing Franken can be a senator it's obviously not rocket science. Jon should've stepped up
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on May 12, 2016, 07:13:44 am
I didn't know Jon had pigs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-rescue-pigs_us_57164df7e4b06f35cb70a9d4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 13, 2016, 03:16:51 pm
Hey, let's see what Donald Trump, the most honest man in politics, was up to today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-refuses-reveal-tax-rate-business/story?id=39086788

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 13, 2016, 04:13:18 pm
I'm increasingly starting to feel like we're all just simulacra in Donald Trump's fantasy universe.

DO I EVEN EXIST?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 14, 2016, 12:08:14 am
MAGA
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 14, 2016, 11:44:17 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEsb9MftJC8

Summary starting at 1:10:

-Speaker wants to take a vote on passing the "temporary convention rules" and asks for a yes or no from the body.
-Crowd says no. Boos. Yells. Does everything to indicate "no" including screaming "no" during the "yea" portion.
-Speaker reminds everyone that the decision cannot be debated once closed and decides to pass the new rules, giving Hillary a win.
-Crowd hasn't even reached their final form yet.

Hey I'm all for states' rights, but they clearly can't handle this whole "national election" thing. Time to standardize the whole setup.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 15, 2016, 12:28:03 am
Voice votes for anything remotely contentious are bs.  And state conventions are often trainwrecks.

It would be very difficult to pass, I think, but some uniform rules for state party processes would be fantastic.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 15, 2016, 12:52:27 am
It would be very difficult to pass, I think, but some uniform rules for state party processes would be fantastic.

AKA: We can't rig it so we're never changing it to be like that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 15, 2016, 05:07:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_7c0I8ODKw

More in-depth explanation.

America is a sham! Hooray!

*existential crisis continues*
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 17, 2016, 02:34:42 pm
Yeah, that's a jungle primary.  They have it in Louisiana, too.  I have no idea if it's a good system or not, but I like seeing the states try different things.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 18, 2016, 10:17:06 am
That could go pretty badly if a vote result was like:

Seat 1: John Smith (D) - 43
Seat 2: Paul Weaver (D) - 40
Total = 83

Also-rans:

James Drake (R) - 39
Sally Jackson (R) - 35
Michael Bolter (R) - 32
Sam Crane (R) - 29
Total = 135

62% of voters voted (R) and 100% of the seats are (D).


Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 18, 2016, 03:46:06 pm
Yeah, in theory it could give third party and independent candidates a chance.  In reality you can end up with a general election with two people from the same party.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 18, 2016, 03:57:12 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/6hmiWQS.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on May 19, 2016, 04:58:05 am
oh we doing spiderman?

(http://i.imgur.com/WtP3CLZ.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 19, 2016, 05:37:27 am
(http://i.imgur.com/I3PSbnA.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 22, 2016, 06:08:00 pm
So, Bernie has endorsed and is fundraising for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary opponent.  I think this is might be what a political party civil war looks like.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 22, 2016, 08:33:30 pm
It's pretty great!

Very happy to see the chaos engage.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 23, 2016, 01:45:03 am
So Bernie is what... Captain America in this situation? Hillary is that douche Stark... Biden is Ant-Man?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on May 23, 2016, 05:05:36 am
It isn't anything like that.

In Marvel's Captain America: Civil War, the people fighting each other were the good guys.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 23, 2016, 05:13:15 am
So Bernie is Red Hulk?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 23, 2016, 06:45:23 am
Wait what is a Hulk?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 23, 2016, 03:47:40 pm
Nothing to see here, move along.  The Clintons definitely aren't involved, don't even worry about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/politics/terry-mcauliffe-fbi-doj-federal-investigation-campaign-contributions/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 23, 2016, 05:11:14 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/f5mcgE7.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 25, 2016, 08:01:49 pm
Don't underestimate the ants, Sam. They will come for you.

(if you come to Florida)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 26, 2016, 07:01:36 am
If Trump and Sanders actually debate I just don't know if I'm living in real life anymore

It feels like a trap, like Sanders would come out worse and Trump better for some reason, I mean why else would Trump or his pr team let him do it?

Idk, seems sketch,but still how nucking futs
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 26, 2016, 09:59:00 am
They both stand there and make Hillary jokes for an hour and a half.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 26, 2016, 10:22:23 am
"The Clintons walk into a bar. Bill orders a Budweiser; Hillary orders drone strikes. Amirite?" 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 26, 2016, 10:45:47 am
BJudwiser.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 26, 2016, 10:48:27 am
I probably should have gone with 'sex on the beach.'
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 26, 2016, 11:46:04 am
Hold the beach.  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

*Saxophone Solo*
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 26, 2016, 08:54:27 pm
Can confirm, read that in Bill's voice.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 26, 2016, 10:01:12 pm
Last I saw, Trump was saying he wants ten million paid to a charity for him to participate in the debate.  Don't count on this happening.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 26, 2016, 10:41:39 pm
IT'S HAPPENING!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 27, 2016, 06:40:47 am
Elizabeth Warren stay away from Hillary Clinton please.

And stop feeding Donald!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 27, 2016, 02:03:23 pm
Elizabeth Warren stay away from Hillary Clinton please.

Came here to say pretty much this. Apparently Pat's got it covered, though.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 27, 2016, 03:34:18 pm
Looks like Trump is wussing out on a Sanders debate.  I told you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 27, 2016, 03:54:19 pm
Did we think it was gonna happen?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 27, 2016, 04:03:20 pm
I honestly can't tell anymore.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: sgore on May 27, 2016, 04:28:21 pm
No, no, Inkling.

Whatever happens in politics, the key is to write an editorial afterwards pretending the outcome was obviously what was going to happen from the start.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 27, 2016, 09:23:51 pm
Looks like Trump is wussing out on a Sanders debate.  I told you.

I WILL FIGHT YOU.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 27, 2016, 10:04:51 pm
I am delighted that Patman33 has agreed to fight me. Let’s do it in the biggest stadium possible.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 27, 2016, 11:13:48 pm
yesssssssssss
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 28, 2016, 03:33:06 am
I'll provide a trillion dollars if Ink and Pat debate.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 28, 2016, 08:18:22 am
Ink I think this thing has traction. Maybe we should do it.

Also, the poor poor tears of the Bernie supporters is pretty irritating. That debate was a pipe dream and the response is about what I expected from them.

(http://i.imgur.com/PxubAFH.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 28, 2016, 09:02:33 am
(http://i.imgur.com/IKJXdIl.png)

ahhahahahahahahahaha
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 28, 2016, 09:05:30 am
Classic
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on May 28, 2016, 10:06:33 am
Trump v Reality.

We can only hope Trump wins that one.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 28, 2016, 10:15:27 am
Donald Trump on the California Water Crisis is pretty sad.

But there is no drought. California only has California to blame for misusing their water.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 28, 2016, 10:58:26 am
(http://i.imgur.com/jywGEj0.jpg)

Yeah, looks pretty wet to me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 28, 2016, 11:45:19 am
At least if the food runs out in Europe we have Syrian refugees to eat. What are you gonna do when California runs out of food and the Mexicans have taken the Trump-wall to stop you raiding their country for more??
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 28, 2016, 11:55:13 am
Yeah there's drought, but decades of bad water management aren't helping.

What did Trump say about it?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 28, 2016, 11:56:33 am
I think I just realized that Pat may have been being sarcastic, since I don't know what Trump said either.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 28, 2016, 11:58:54 am
It is okay. You would have realized I was being a dork when I responded with more inflammatory, irrelevant remarks about California. There is definitely a drought happening.

HOWEVER.

California isn't exactly helping itself with crop choices and land development decisions. Oh and those Saudis! ho ho ho
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 28, 2016, 12:18:26 pm
I too am waiting eagerly for the day to watch the house of cards built by the Saud family to come crashing gloriously down.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 28, 2016, 09:19:38 pm
There's some saying from the middle east. Let me find it.

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel" -Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 29, 2016, 02:45:21 am
I remember that quote. That guy could really see how it was gonna unfold.

I bet he tried to change stuff and the pushback from the rest of the dynasty kept him quiet,
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 29, 2016, 08:39:59 am
And he's not wrong. Between the fighting and the blaming of everyone else for their problems, what are these people gonna do when the oil runs out? They have no capacity to do anything... and even places like Dubai which can act as a regional hub will become pretty useless if the region is at a "we ran out of oil" tier of instability.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 29, 2016, 08:45:52 am
Of course if the oil runs out we're all going to be screwed...

Unless our governments finally get off their asses and actually put some decent money into alternatives. It doesn't really help that the sort of progressive people who acknowledge that fossil fuels are finite and also bad for the planet are generally also highly opposed to nuclear power (probably because governments tend to use it to make bombs) which currently seems to be the only sensible alternative to fossils.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 29, 2016, 08:59:36 am
Maybe? I don't worry too much with a couple oceans and massive nation states between me and there.

America has the capacity and can produce as much oil as the Middle East producers, plus our crude is of significantly better quality than what you pull out of the desert. Not to mention abundant natural gas resources, coal, and all of our space for solar and wind.

It'll definitely suck when it happens, but I'd rather be here than there. I mean any time, really. I'd rather be here than there.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 29, 2016, 12:34:02 pm
Yeah, at this point, the US doesn't need to worry about losing out as we continue to use coal and oil.

We'll have fusion power plants before we deplete either of those in North America.

The "issues" are more like climate change and dollars per kWh. Most of our oil comes from Canada or here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 29, 2016, 01:31:10 pm
AWESOME POST!!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 29, 2016, 08:26:10 pm
http://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate&live

Libertarian Presidential Debate

You do not wanna miss this. There were jetpacks, streakers, and people booing because drivers licenses represent tyrannical government overreach.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 30, 2016, 02:38:23 am
Oh wow.

"Be a libertarian... give the libertarian party money for free!"

God damn parasites.

Edit: Man these people are like the biggest nerds you went to school with.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 30, 2016, 04:59:32 am
They are. :D

Here is a supplement to ChiToes' previous video. A little more in-depth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 30, 2016, 05:20:58 am
Excellent points. However I feel like a lot of the latter-day Trump supporters are also falling prey to another common human bias of false equivalence.

A lot of people seem to be hearing this fact that Trump is an effective orator and is good at persuading people (which is true) and comforting themselves that therefore he would be an effective president. On the strength of his bluster and oratory he may well win, but he could still be a trainwreck.

Part of the reason we have bureaucracies and government and democracies is to protect ourselves from a situation where our leader is always the person who can talk over everyone else and wave his dick around. It works in some situations but is usually detrimental to the kinds of societies we want to live in now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 30, 2016, 07:59:14 pm
First off maybe I should preface this and remind you guys that I am only presenting points and these aren't necessarily my opinions. My opinion is that they are REALLY ****ING INTERESTING to talk about. :D

Part of the reason we have bureaucracies and government and democracies is to protect ourselves from a situation where our leader is always the person who can talk over everyone else and wave his dick around. It works in some situations but is usually detrimental to the kinds of societies we want to live in now.

And then the system produces self-serving, insular thinking politicians that are more interested in the preservation of a "system", rather than the prosperity of their people. Maybe a fireband every now and again isn't a bad thing. Perhaps a government that feels it must act as a means of protecting their people from the types of leaders that "talk over everyone else and wave his dick around", strips its citizens of fundamental rights. If the people want to tear them down, they will.

The contrast is potentially important for a society to see and later judge. If government insulates the population from undesirable elements, they may not even be aware that they're being duped.


Perhaps a government that feels it must act as a means of protecting their people from the types of leaders that "talk over everyone else and wave his dick around", strips its citizens of fundamental rights. If the people want to tear them down, they will.

The contrast is potentially important for a society to see and later judge.

This is foolishness though because if a blustery sort of personality gets into power and manages to break the system, there is no time or space for the populace to judge the contrasts between leadership types, other than the thought that "this type of leader broke our system". But past that point, all bets are off because you are in the wild west. And is that a risk worth taking with a nuclear power? Is it even possible for a President to destroy the US? Can they seriously break through all the different firewalls within our government (and others) to bring about the type of radical situation that causes the nation to cease to exist?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on May 31, 2016, 01:09:50 am
No, but thanks to presidential precedent, he can invade any arid godforsaken piece of sovereign territory he wants and then tell congress about it the next day.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 31, 2016, 03:25:43 am
How about just elect nobody? It worked for Belgium.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 31, 2016, 09:33:25 am
Quote
Skunks are omnivorous, eating both plant and animal material and changing their diets as the seasons change. They eat insects and larvae, earthworms, grubs, small rodents, lizards, salamanders, frogs, snakes, birds, moles and eggs.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 31, 2016, 10:49:43 am
You know what they say, a Trump in your hand is worth two Bushes.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 31, 2016, 02:32:33 pm
A literal way of questioning the dumb folksy idea of a skunk being any better than a fox, sure.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 31, 2016, 03:14:05 pm
Yeah, folksy wisdom is, generally speaking, a crock.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on May 31, 2016, 03:42:51 pm
I mean everything is.

We are all slowly dying.

These hands... what have they wrought?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on May 31, 2016, 04:31:07 pm
offering a better alternative.

arm the chickens
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on May 31, 2016, 04:44:55 pm
The last 240 years of not electing Trump didn't solve anything, so how is defeating Trump going to fix anything?

I'm just going to let that sit there since you know full well that statement makes no logical sense.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on May 31, 2016, 08:12:47 pm
The last 240 years of not electing Trump didn't solve anything, so how is defeating Trump going to fix anything?

I'm just going to let that sit there since you know full well that statement makes no logical sense.

Your first mistake was applying logic to an internet argument
Your second mistake was to argue with a person referencing Trump
But your biggest mistake was not picking up your statement and backing it with a side of bacon.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 31, 2016, 08:22:56 pm
I replied to the stuff about foxes and skunks because I hadn't read the previous comments and was in a hurry.  I don't think Brandon was blaming Trump for precedent, he was complaining about that precedent.

I don't see people saying that "Trump is the problem and defeating Trump is the solution."  I have seen people (not necessarily people here) saying to vote for Trump because he's different from the status quo.  But just being different from the status quo doesn't mean he'd be an improvement.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on May 31, 2016, 08:43:20 pm
Yeah but people are willing to risk that since they see the status quo as a negative. So the options are negative or ?? And people are going ??
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on May 31, 2016, 08:57:05 pm
Status Quo, Wild Card, or Third Party protest vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYtjpIwamos
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on May 31, 2016, 09:04:12 pm
Anything would be an improvement. Trump is the closest thing I can get to actually just tearing America down and starting over*. It's why I'm voting for him.

Any difference from the status quo would be good, even if it was negative. Maybe if it gets bad enough people will realize they have to pay attention to politics.

Plus, the way the Democratic party is rigging themselves towards Hillary makes me actually, physically angry. There's no way I'm voting for a party Democrat for a while after this.

Like, you don't want Bernie? You want to continue our slog through a corpulent bureaucracy, through the necrotic and pussed flesh that used to be the democratic process? Fine. **** you. Trump.

TRUMP.

TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!

*I don't necessarily think he'd actually get very close to it- we've got legal firewalls in place so the President cannot do exactly that among other things- I just think he's the closest option to it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 01, 2016, 03:00:09 am
Any difference from the status quo would be good, even if it was negative.

Be careful what you wish for.

(http://i.imgur.com/q1yOkmT.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Posted_Japanese_American_Exclusion_Order.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/Nf0DDRS.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/dxGeKIw.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 01, 2016, 05:27:16 am
Idk, I don't look at Trump and see aspiring genocidal maniac with a book blaming a minority group for all our country, and basically all the world's, problems.

PotUS can only do so much before Congress has to cut him a check

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 01, 2016, 07:15:39 am
Yeah I know comparison between Trump and Hitler is ridiculous and overblown and tends to sap credibility from the argument. I was more targeting the general idea that a change from the status quo is always going to be a good thing. Change is good, but not too much change, all at once, where the outcome is totally up in the air and signs point to it not being a good outcome.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on June 01, 2016, 08:43:41 am
Now come on Sam that comparison is just insulting.


Nobody voted for Chis Evans.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on June 01, 2016, 11:32:09 am
Okay, fine, I'm willing to admit I was being hyperbolic. Most changes from the status quo would be good, from my perspective.

My point was, foremost, that I'm willing to buy that Trump would be a negative change from the status quo. Maybe he'll run this country into the ground. Hopefully, though, he'll at least be able to give the people some political wiggle room whatever he does, make the parties sit up and listen for fear of another grassroots, barely-a-party-candidate candidate.

It's a bit of a longshot. But I honestly don't see any other options. Getting Bernie in office is more of a priority, if it's possible, but if it isn't I can't justify voting for Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 01, 2016, 11:45:40 am
Surely the more anti-establishment thing to do would be to vote for a third party?

If enough people do it then it sends a clear message that people don't like the two parties they're being offered. Also the republican and democrat defectors will more or less balance each other out so the outcome won't really be different. Never Trump republicans can vote Libertarian and Never Hillary Democrats can vote Green or Communist or whatever.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 01, 2016, 11:54:05 am
I don't have the numbers, but I remember a story from a month or two ago where they were analyzing Trump's business success rate and failure rate versus the average success and failure rates across all businesses. And their conclusion was something along the lines of: people love to puff up the times when Trump's business have failed, but given the number of businesses he has started, of those that failed, his success rate is still a good deal higher than the global average.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on June 01, 2016, 12:29:45 pm
Surely the more anti-establishment thing to do would be to vote for a third party?

If enough people do it then it sends a clear message that people don't like the two parties they're being offered. Also the republican and democrat defectors will more or less balance each other out so the outcome won't really be different. Never Trump republicans can vote Libertarian and Never Hillary Democrats can vote Green or Communist or whatever.

Who cares if people don't like what the two parties are offering? If they're voting third party, their votes don't matter, and if their votes don't matter why would politicians care about what they think?

Even so, I'm probably going to start voting Green after this election. I just think Trump has a use, here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 01, 2016, 12:32:20 pm
Even if he loses, Trump's impact has forced a discussion on the nature of our nomination system and electoral processes that was not happening on such a scale before. I only hope people remember to keep talking about it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on June 01, 2016, 02:10:33 pm
Trump's success may encourage others like him to come forward,and they don't have to be republican


 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 01, 2016, 02:16:12 pm
Or wealthy or lawyers, hopefully.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 01, 2016, 02:16:35 pm
Trump doesn't work if he's not wealthy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 01, 2016, 06:07:12 pm
I don't think Brandon was blaming Trump for precedent, he was complaining about that precedent.

Well duh.

I didn't think it was possible to be so defensive that one could construe my post as "Donald Trump is the reason for everything bad about executive authority in American history"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 01, 2016, 06:35:09 pm
Trump is hard for me.

I have a pre existing condition, and repealing Obamacare would be bad. I hate his energy policy, I think he's dooming us all.

But Hillary just has so many things wrong. Trade. Economy. Special interest. His just all bad. Idk.

Maybe Trump wouldn't get away with most? Maybe he's actually great at his job? Maybe he puts the right people in place ...?

I don't know if I believe much of that. I do believe Hillary is bad for us. I don't know if I could vote for Trump....

I'm like, idk, hinged on Bernie being president. Otherwise my vote will probably go Stein even though green party isn't great. Bernie or bust. Or maybe vote Trump and roll the dice?

It ain't going to hrc

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 01, 2016, 06:43:20 pm
As a sidenote, I don't buy any of the bluster about "repealing Obamacare" from anyone that says it. And even if they did manage to do that (which they won't), they won't roll back the mandate for preexisting conditions. Because people love that part of it. In fact, taken individually, most people like the odds and ends of the ACA. But when you take it as a whole the numbers plummet.

But it definitely does need to be fixed. Because I fall in the doughnut hole. I am not wealthy enough to afford coverage, but not poor enough to get medicare. So I don't have insurance and am paying a massive fine for it. But that fine is still cheaper than having the insurance. I really want to go to a doctor, it has been almost six years at this point. But I can't afford it and for various reasons I was never eligible to be on my parents' insurance plans when I was of age to do so.

Set up single payer and let's be done with it. I'm sick of the Eurotrash mocking us for it and I don't want to die young because of something dumb I couldn't have detected because of money issues. I live in the ****ing United States goddammit.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 01, 2016, 06:46:20 pm
Yeah but what do you think Trump will do if a GOP Senate house sends a repeal obamacare bill bus way? Veto it...?

Idk.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 01, 2016, 07:12:47 pm
I have no idea what Trump would actually do on any issue or any bill other than one to name stuff after himself.

Meanwhile, the guys claiming leadership of #NeverTrump have apparently come up with a candidate... and it may be the most pathetic move I've seen yet this cycle.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/never-trump-movement-settled-candidate-195613642.html

President French.  Yeah I don't think so.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 02, 2016, 01:19:12 am
Yeah but what do you think Trump will do if a GOP Senate house sends a repeal obamacare bill bus way? Veto it...?

Idk.

Ok, so first of all, today I passed a bill repealing Obamacare, and instating Trumpcare. It's the most fantastic single payer health insurance program the world has ever seen.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 02, 2016, 09:35:35 am
I would not have a problem with any of that. Including the delivery.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 02, 2016, 10:26:14 am
It would be hilarious if all of Trump's strongman tactics and right wing bluster were a trojan horse to introduce the most progressive policies America has ever seen.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 02, 2016, 10:37:01 am
There is a conspiracy-tier theory that says just that. The Clintons got him in the race so that the agenda can be set no matter who wins.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 02, 2016, 01:27:08 pm
That would imply that Clinton's are pushing a progressive platform.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 02, 2016, 02:29:23 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os6_dipHDwA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzBGhLWULkQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scrU2FqlPpk

USA has the best theme song.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 03, 2016, 12:27:35 am
So please, don't actually address anything and just negatively characterize this post and feel smug, again.

Don't mind if I do!

(http://i.imgur.com/CJdSyUV.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 03, 2016, 05:54:27 am
I sure find it odd these Trump protest always seem to occur and get rowdy just before some primaries.

Always seems to make Bernie look bad.

But that's just me I guess.


I hate this so mucch
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 03, 2016, 02:06:56 pm
I just had a nightmare that Trump was elected president. @_@
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 03, 2016, 04:51:52 pm
Obama didn't manage to establish an American Caliphate and Trump won't make America great again.

One failure after another.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 03, 2016, 07:20:30 pm
/thread
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 03, 2016, 08:42:23 pm
My turn to post the long, unorthodox political interview that nobody will actually watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQIuHGbKckY
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 03, 2016, 09:54:13 pm
>more than two hours

Oh yeah that was a great video that I certainly watched. :Y
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 03, 2016, 10:04:58 pm
It's a radio show so I mean it's more like a podcast
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 03, 2016, 10:13:43 pm
I'm too busy occluding my dark thoughts with British comedy panel shows.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 03, 2016, 10:14:44 pm
I'm just trying to prove that I'm better than Pat and his measly hour long videos.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 04, 2016, 07:12:26 am
Hey I listened to that Joe Rogan episode. It was really good!

There was another one as well... let me see if I can find it.

FOUND IT! Was with Dave Rubin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBWv9yaf_w4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 04, 2016, 11:34:17 am
Dang, Pat wins again.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 05, 2016, 01:09:53 pm
So.

When are we gonna have a talk about how the media, the police, and a large portion of the public are simply okay with violent protests at every Trump rally? This is entirely unacceptable. And the police are not doing anything about it. They won't arrest people or even touch them for whatever reason. Maybe they're scared? And the media ignores this unfair treatment and even goes as far as to blame Trump people for "being provocative".

muh victim blaming

And the public... oh the public... your crimes are the worst of all because you are ignorant to it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 05, 2016, 01:47:35 pm
So.

When are we gonna have a talk about how the media, the police, and a large portion of the public are simply okay with violent protests at every Trump rally? This is entirely unacceptable. And the police are not doing anything about it. They won't arrest people or even touch them for whatever reason. Maybe they're scared? And the media ignores this unfair treatment and even goes as far as to blame Trump people for "being provocative".

Guess now the Trump supporters know what it's like to be black.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 05, 2016, 01:53:42 pm
Even the black ones!

Though your implication is pretty ****ty. A lot of these people are working class and have been jerked around by the system and society for their whole lives. They already know what it is like and your flippant disregard for them is ****ing disturbing. What is happening is not right.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on June 05, 2016, 02:00:13 pm
I never got the whole thing about the working class rallying around someone rich that pretty much preaches that the rich should get richer.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 05, 2016, 02:16:01 pm
Can't explain it either.

However that doesn't accurately reflect what Trump has been preaching to them this election cycle.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 05, 2016, 03:59:43 pm
Even the black ones!

Though your implication is pretty ****ty. A lot of these people are working class and have been jerked around by the system and society for their whole lives. They already know what it is like and your flippant disregard for them is ****ing disturbing. What is happening is not right.

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing that it's wrong.

It's possible for both black people in America *and* angry, disenfranchised Trump voters to be a victim of a bent system, I wasn't implying that one problem was worse than another or anything.

It's not like you to decide that suddenly a topic can't be joked about  :(

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 05, 2016, 05:37:26 pm
So.

When are we gonna have a talk about how the media, the police, and a large portion of the public are simply okay with violent protests at every Trump rally?

Are they, though?  I know that the protests have gotten a good amount of attention in the media.  As they say, if it bleeds, it leads.  I really don't know how much condemnation there has been, or if it gets the same "gawk at the spectacle" coverage as Trump and anything around him.

With the police, different forces are going to have different capabilities and different strategies to deal with a large violent group.  One of the videos I saw, everything rapidly escalated when police took someone into custody.  A somewhat hands off approach may keep protests from getting even more violent, I don't know.  Just speculation.

And the public, well.  If I knew what the general public was thinking I wouldn't have been in denial about Trump for so long.  But maybe there seems to not be much outcry because there's been a steady stream of violent rhetoric and political activity.  There's been violence on both sides at Trump events.  Black Lives Matter has crashed events of supporters and opponents alike.  There were the riots in Baltimore and the media has eagerly held its breath waiting for more violence every time a verdict is reached in these unarmed black shootings.  I'd include the Bundy supporters' armed squatting in Oregon.  Hell, I might go so far as to include Occupy Wall Street and their insisting that they be allowed to camp for free and indefinitely on any city property.  So yeah, egging and tackling Trump supporters didn't happen in a vacuum.  What is "normal," what is "acceptable" political activity may be shifting, and not in a good direction.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on June 05, 2016, 05:55:04 pm
Can't explain it either.

However that doesn't accurately reflect what Trump has been preaching to them this election cycle.

It is however part of what he has be preaching.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on June 05, 2016, 06:05:41 pm
It is however part of what he has be preaching.

I'd really love some sort of source on Trump saying the rich should get richer.

He wants lower taxes overall, yes, but I should think his policy of not allowing the current byzantine network of tax loopholes and special interest exceptions to continue would make the wealthy less money, all told.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 05, 2016, 06:33:23 pm
I'm still so far in denial I still think Sanders will be our next president
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 05, 2016, 07:44:06 pm
Right, Trump supporters aren't routinely assaulting people they disagree with, only occasionally.

But equivalence wasn't my point.  I was talking about why, as Pat asked, the recent riots and attacks on Trump supporters aren't getting the public's attention to the degree he thinks it should.  And my point was that each story about violence at a Trump event, no matter who was at fault, makes it less attention grabbing when there is violence at a Trump event.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 05, 2016, 10:33:02 pm
I'm still so far in denial I still think Sanders will be our next president

We only have to believe it until we get our plane tickets to Vancouver.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: sgore on June 05, 2016, 10:50:55 pm
Woah, hey, I voted for Bernie too, but we can't just up and move to another country if he doesn't win.

We need to stay here and complain uselessly about whoever becomes president in his place.
America needs us now more than ever.

To stand in the parking lot of a Wegman's.

And tell the guy who puts away shopping carts.

How great it could have been.

After we mistake his nod at our defunct campaign T-shirt as an invitation.

For a twelve minute political rant.

It's the American tradition.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 06, 2016, 12:36:19 am
Way to improve my morale.  :(
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on June 06, 2016, 04:08:31 am
It is however part of what he has be preaching.

I'd really love some sort of source on Trump saying the rich should get richer.

He wants lower taxes overall, yes, but I should think his policy of not allowing the current byzantine network of tax loopholes and special interest exceptions to continue would make the wealthy less money, all told.

The tax reforms he promotes, despite his rhetoric, would benefit the rich more. As such I feel is a pro rich policy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 06, 2016, 04:43:58 am
I'm still so far in denial I still think Sanders will be our next president

We only have to believe it until we get our plane tickets to Vancouver.

He's gonna keep doing speeches and gathering crowds after the convention as well. Wait for it.

There's still a chance. Even if his negative ratings are higher than Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: sgore on June 06, 2016, 08:00:14 am
Way to improve my morale.  :(

 :-[
Sorry Brandon.
I was joking around.
I still do want him to win.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 06, 2016, 09:52:56 am
Does this judge stuff have legs?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 06, 2016, 10:49:49 am
You mean Trump saying the judge in the Trump U case is biased against him and shouldn't decide the case because he has Mexican heritage?  If it was anyone else, definitely.  But it's Trump, so I have no idea.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on June 06, 2016, 12:20:48 pm
The tax reforms he promotes, despite his rhetoric, would benefit the rich more. As such I feel is a pro rich policy.
I'd really love some sort of source
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on June 06, 2016, 12:28:41 pm
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform <-- Is this what your're looking for?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on June 06, 2016, 12:42:16 pm
Yes, that is the one where it says he will be closing tax loopholes and special interest exceptions.

I'm really unclear as to how that benefits the wealthy, who are known to use those things to not pay very much tax at all. This is part of why the GOP establishment does not like him.

Honestly, as a liberal, I'd prefer higher taxes. But closing those loopholes is important. We can raise taxes later.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 06, 2016, 01:11:53 pm
Here's some stuff on Trump's tax proposals.

http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/donald-trumps-tax-plan-primary/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full

Quote
His proposals would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households.

Chitoes, you're putting too much thought into it.  Of course white judges are fine, they're honest God-Fearing Americans!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 06, 2016, 05:03:08 pm
And here's Trump selling pizza.  No, I don't know why I'm posting this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVmAcULPMu4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on June 06, 2016, 05:06:25 pm
haha, why was he even doing that? he hardly needed the money?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 06, 2016, 05:52:23 pm
Same reason he is running for President.

Because. He. Can.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 06, 2016, 06:27:13 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvOZSJyXFQw
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 06, 2016, 06:31:19 pm
I'm kind of with Rise, right?

I mean everyone hears the story of how Warren Buffet pays a smaller effective tax rate than his secretary, right?

Would the loopholes close it?

Honestly, someone needs to raise that capital gains tax.

Again, still in the delusion, I will be so till probably like. December....
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 06, 2016, 06:38:45 pm
After this election everyone will be too busy pointing fingers at one another to get anything done.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 06, 2016, 08:37:37 pm
I don't know if it matters because I cant tell what you're trying to say.  Both sides are bad, so Trump gets a pass for racial attacks on the judge in his fraud case?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 06, 2016, 09:06:10 pm
i think more it isn't seen as worse?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 06, 2016, 09:07:56 pm
AP says Hillary has secured the democratic nomination.  Sanders campaign says they're not dead yet, they don't want to go on the cart.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/ap-declares-clinton-winner-of-democratic-primary-223972
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 06, 2016, 09:10:11 pm
counting super delegates? Does it really count?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on June 06, 2016, 09:24:02 pm
Rise do you want a analyst of the tax reform? Because what was link clearly states that there reducing taxes on a larger amounts of areas. Yes there many deductions that are removed. But overall is a tax reduction. And it a tax reduction that benefit those that have money the most. I mean that why he is also talking about cutting programs to finance these tax reductions. But if you like I guess I could look up a some analyse of the thump tax policy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 06, 2016, 09:25:07 pm
Counts enough for the AP, ABC, NBC, Politico, BBC, etc.  She was going to lock it up tomorrow anyway.

Thump 2016.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on June 06, 2016, 09:38:30 pm
I know Trump is lowering taxes overall. That was never, NEVER what I was talking about.

I'd be more inclined to believe that a lot of wealthy people, especially those wealthy enough to be politically influential, would lose more money through the closure of loopholes than they would through the lowering of their tax.

We can raise taxes later. The closure of loopholes is important.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 07, 2016, 02:06:10 am
All right but when you talk about taxes it's really more helpful to think about the value people are getting/retaining rather than looking at just the percentages or the absolute amount of money leaving everyone's pocket.

First off it's pretty well-known and obvious that the more money you have, the less you are hurt by more of it being taken away by the tax-man. A hypothetical person on minimum wage being taxed at 10% feels that tax a lot worse than a millionaire taxed at 25%. Even a relatively low tax on the poorest fraction of people could mean the difference between being able to make rent or buy food for a month.

The other issue is the value added to the community by what those taxes pay for. Now admittedly it gets confusing in the case of the USA because of this mess of federalised taxes being levied at all sorts of levels, but lets generalise a bit.

If taxes are cut across the board, then the money needs to be found somewhere. Will closing tax loopholes be enough to cover the reduction elsewhere? It's hard to speculate because obviously the government has no figures for tax avoided through loopholes. If closing the loopholes doesn't balance out the tax cuts then either the deficit will have to increase (doesn't seem like a popular option these days) or it will have to come out of government spending. It's unlikely a Trump administration would take that money out of the military or business subsidies, so where? Healthcare? Unemployment? Infrastructure? Cutting tax by spending less money on these things hurts the poor more than the wealthy because they can't cover that difference out of their own pocket.

tl;dr - an identical cut in the tax rate across the board still manages to benefit the rich/hurt the poor because of the value that money has both in itself and as money for government programs is much greater to the poor than it is to the rich.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 07, 2016, 06:01:12 am
If you watch John Oliver, online universities and similar predatory industries are getting away with more than Trump is being accused of, yet he is being singled out.

Ok but Greenlearn Online Chartered University Plus isn't running for President.

Is it hypocritical that Hillary is seemingly getting less flack for real or alleged wrongdoing than Trump is for his real or alleged wrongdoing? Maybe? If you want to be extremely literal then yes. But real life is complicated and not amenable to black and white rules where everyone is held to the same exact standards and all decisions are based on rigorously applied logical rules.

Hillary gets off with stuff that would totally disqualify Trump? Maybe that's because she has a long and proven track record in government. Call it cronyism if you want but people get leniency based on prior service. Clinton got minimal consequences for perjury and Nixon got pretty light consequences for a number of serious crimes. I'm sure you don't have to dig very deep to find a laundry list of politicians who have infractions overlooked because they have previously served well or demonstrated loyalty. It's a natural part of human nature.

Is that right? To a certain extent I would say yes. The terms of your contract at your job may state in no uncertain terms that being five minutes late for work is an offence which has consequences, but if you're otherwise a very hard worker and often go beyond the call of duty your manager might rightly overlook it. Then the question becomes where you draw the line, rather than "is it right to bend the rules sometimes".

Trump is trying to have his cake and eat it by playing the outsider card. To expect to get the benefits of preaching his outsider status to his followers and then refuse to take the obvious consequences with good grace is at worst childish and at best another one of his rhetorical tactics (wah wah the bad people are against me, I must be good, just terrific, very unfair). Trump gets less leniency than Hillary because he hasn't earned any leniency with decades of political service. Having clout with the people who make the rules and make the accusations stick is as much a part of politics (if not more) than Trump's lauded ability to whip up a massive crowd.     
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on June 07, 2016, 11:45:26 am
I would like to point out that deductions are not loopholes ether. And deductions can benefit the poor depending on how the tax system is set up. In a hypothetical example: If you have tax deduction on medical cost for example then is very likely going to benefit those with low income a lot more then those with high income.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 07, 2016, 04:27:38 pm
Which strikes me more as a joke than an endorsement.

I was thinking today, since The Don said the judge in his fraud case had a conflict of interest for being Mexican, all of the talk has been about Trump being racist.  But he's been dealing with that since he announced he was running.  Sure, he's getting more pushback on it now than he has in a while, but I wonder if he would rather deal with the racism charge than having his business acumen questioned with the fraud case.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 07, 2016, 05:13:46 pm
Meh, I don't think it was calculated. I think he thinks that since the judge is a mexican immigrant activist* of hispanic decent he has an interest in seeing Trump lose beyond just the case.

Made sense to me, the guy is clearly a 60+ year old white man idk what people expect.



Bernie pls

*Mexican immigrant activist, ie, he is an activist for mexican immigrants, not a mexican immigrant who is an activist
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 07, 2016, 07:20:22 pm
I think it was calculated.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 07, 2016, 07:21:28 pm
Well, Bernie fans, what do you do now?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 07, 2016, 07:34:28 pm
what do you mean? they called it yesterday, it's been over since super tuesday.

HRC gets indicted or she doesn't, thats been it since Feb.

The delusion lives on.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 07, 2016, 08:38:31 pm
Well, Bernie fans, what do you do now?

(http://i.imgur.com/dgUQsOs.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 08, 2016, 02:58:13 pm
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/ap-bondi-sought-trump-donation-before-dropping-fraud-case/2280537

How many times has Trump bragged about buying off politicians?

Quote
"When I want something, I get it," Trump said at a rally in Iowa in January. "When I call, they kiss my ass. It's true."
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 08, 2016, 03:08:32 pm
Trump gets a pass because he never lied about it. Cooky!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 08, 2016, 03:23:56 pm
Oh Pam Bondi, you keep being the Florida politician you were meant to be.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 08, 2016, 03:24:55 pm
Not gonna lie, Pat.  I'm going to steal your car.  It's gonna be the classiest automotive theft you've ever seen, and you're gonna thank me for it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 08, 2016, 05:17:13 pm
Shame on me for not expecting it at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 09, 2016, 11:05:41 am
Obama endorsed Hillary.

Guess that kind of signals FBI not so hot? Idk. ****. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 09, 2016, 11:22:57 am
The bombs will drop soon.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 09, 2016, 12:20:43 pm
On the other hand, Bernie's kinda concession speech after he met Obama puts him firmly in the "never Trump" camp so now what are you gonna do?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 09, 2016, 03:32:02 pm
Vote Trump anyway?

Maybe Stein so when Trump wins I don't feel guilty for screwing myself.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 09, 2016, 03:46:51 pm
There seems to be a trend around here.  We're so disgusted with who our party chose, and the process that led to it, that we're seriously considering voting for the candidate from the other side.  It'd be interesting if we weren't so miserable over it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 09, 2016, 03:58:00 pm
It really highlights how far removed the parties are from their constituents.

Doubt it will change much but hey more information is good I guess
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 09, 2016, 04:24:01 pm
Are the parties removed from their constituents?  Or are we that distant from the "average" member of each party, whatever that would be?  Are things so polarized now in every which direction that it doesn't make sense to try to stuff everyone into one of two big tents? 

Or was Hillary an unstoppable establishment juggernaut, and Trump a perfect storm of celebrity worship and red meat for a perpetually irritated base?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on June 09, 2016, 04:31:04 pm
I guess you'd better leave the EU or don't I don't know nobody knows what the **** they're talking about in this whole thing.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 09, 2016, 04:53:05 pm
Lurk you've been no less-wrong than anyone else here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 13, 2016, 09:41:40 pm
Live updates from Election HQ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n3ZzWKXaU4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 14, 2016, 05:08:11 pm
Wasn't trump supposed to have a big clinton speech?

As of now it seems like the nation is collectively waking up to how crazy it would be to put him in power. Maybe it took a massacre for him to finally put his foot in his mouth and have it stick? Or maybe it's this cycle and next month we will all hate Clinton for some new reason and Trump is now the better option?


Again, I still think it will be Bernie. But still.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 14, 2016, 06:04:36 pm
Again, I still think it will be Bernie. But still.

Pass the bowl, bro. I need another hit of whatever that is.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 14, 2016, 07:15:29 pm
The Clinton attack speech was replaced by a Ban all Muslims speech.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 15, 2016, 12:55:34 am
I bet you all that FOX & Co will continue to spin the terrorist angle, even with more details coming in about prolonged mental instability and the fact that he was probably gay.

Bet someone at ISIS cringed super hard when they found out too late. This was not TERURISMS. It was a sick mind with a big gun.

Oh, and of course it's too soon to bring up the gun debate. We should mourn and not speak of it for as long as it takes to get the next one.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 15, 2016, 02:50:04 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 15, 2016, 07:28:42 am
*shrug*

Don't know what to tell you about the gun debate. Background checks seem reasonable. Our government somehow keeps getting away with doing nothing.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 15, 2016, 12:07:23 pm
NRA is apparently okay with "delayed gun sales", whereby the sale is delayed for [xxx] amount of time while the FBI investigates a person. If they find something bad, they can get a judge to do [xxxx].

I think that's about the best you're gonna get from the NRA on this issue. Everyone saves face and the NRA got a **** ton of revenue from the entire debate over the years.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 15, 2016, 04:22:07 pm
Putting the NRA in charge of gun licensing is the worst idea I've heard in... Well, I was going to say a very long time, but then I remembered Trump is still pushing to ban entry to the country based on religion.  But yeah, putting the NRA in charge of guns is an incredibly bad idea.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on June 15, 2016, 05:07:04 pm
http://www.inquisitr.com/3201406/hillary-clinton-fbi-investigation-enough-evidence-for-an-indictment-but-more-emails-coming-wiikileaks-founder-julian-assange-claims/

eropS's predictions bear fruit.

The fire licks at heels, after draughting down to embers.

My, does it Bern.

Sorry if I'm late on this one. A couple days old. Still relevant, though, I should think.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 15, 2016, 07:18:49 pm
Putting the NRA in charge of gun licensing is like putting Mothers Against Drunk Driving in charge of liquor licenses or PETA in charge of hunting and fishing.

And the American Medical Association does not license doctors.  That's done by the states.  It says so on their own site.  They're a professional association and advocacy group, not a regulatory body.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-physician/medical-licensure.page

Sure, a hypothetical neutral private body could take on regulatory powers.  But enforcing regulations should probably be handled by the body that comes up with the laws and regulations.  You know, the government.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 15, 2016, 09:34:26 pm
The comparison was that they all have a very clear bias on their issue, make a lot of noise, throw around a lot of money, and can be belligerent in spreading their views.  Not the best qualities in a potential regulatory body.

In other news, Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-us-troop-stole-millions-and-millions-in-iraq-224352

http://imgur.com/a/ATcsi

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 16, 2016, 05:14:53 am
I don't know about either of them.

I do know that those cases full of American dollars being handed out to dust farmers because we blew up their rat corral pissed me off then and still pisses me off now. Apparently the best way to get the government to give me money is to let them kill my family and blow up my land or to just be a dick and lie and steal my way to the top. And here I've been trying to work hard and play by the rules. lolol
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 16, 2016, 07:04:26 am
You talking about Native Americans?!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 16, 2016, 10:29:21 am
I do know that those cases full of American dollars being handed out to dust farmers because we blew up their rat corral pissed me off then and still pisses me off now. Apparently the best way to get the government to give me money is to let them kill my family and blow up my land or to just be a dick and lie and steal my way to the top. And here I've been trying to work hard and play by the rules. lolol

What about the even larger cases of American dollars being spent on blowing up the dust farms in the first place? Pretty sure if they just went easy on the cruise missiles and aircraft carrier fuel for a couple of weeks they could pay those people reparations ten times over.

If the KKK comitted a bunch of terrorist attacks in Japan and then the Japanese flew over and started bombing them and then accidentally blew up your house and car surely you'd be marching up to the doors of the Japanese embassy to get some restitution?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 16, 2016, 11:05:52 am
I don't look at it like that. The way I see it, you make this financial commitment to blow the place up. So stick to that. Committing more money to literally hand out doesn't matter and doesn't make up for lives lost so why bother?

Also, to get back to the NRA topic. I took my head out of my ass a little bit and came to the realization: why the **** does the NRA matter in any of this anyway. **** them.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 16, 2016, 11:42:31 am
I had a portion in my post about that and then removed it because I thought it was straying too far.

So really I was right.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 16, 2016, 12:40:02 pm
He had gotten banned the other day and then reinstated.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 16, 2016, 03:31:05 pm
The merits of the payments in Iraq and how they were handled aside, accusing US soldiers of stealing millions of dollars is another example to add the the list of the countless things Trump has said that would immediately, deeply damage any other candidate.

Twitter is weird.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 16, 2016, 03:54:35 pm
New controversy to push away the old one. Rise and repeat long enough for Hillary to implode.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on June 16, 2016, 04:24:12 pm
trump is mister peanut

FINALLY chitoes says what he really thinks!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 17, 2016, 05:07:07 pm
Don't ever accuse me of thinking!  ;D

I swing through once a month or so and there is always some nice nugget.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 18, 2016, 04:30:57 am
New controversy to push away the old one. Rise and repeat long enough for Hillary to implode.

Trump is like that kid in middle school that says you have something on your shirt then flicks/hits your nose when you look down.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 18, 2016, 05:17:22 am
Or acts like he's going to punch you and then makes fun of you because you flinched.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 18, 2016, 11:06:43 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh_GFkdxwbQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Pixxel on June 18, 2016, 03:59:29 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

トランプ2016?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on June 20, 2016, 03:17:47 pm
I never got why people take pride in there ignorance. Or even worse. There fake ignorance.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 20, 2016, 04:54:47 pm
I think it will help Trump a little, maybe. But I also think the government's actions are being misinterpreted a bit.

Honestly I think the government may be worried about inadvertently tipping off or otherwise signalling other smaller or lone wolf-style cells. The Orlando killer's calls were (as I have read) very methodical and seemed deliberate and planned. He made a point to say a specific message over the course of the night and several 911 calls. I think the government has reason to believe that they themselves may be giving out coded messages to terror cells by way of press releases and media spectacle.

At the end of the day a lot of these people are getting all torn up about people not using strong enough language and the discussion is not allowed to progress beyond that point. I think the GOP and conservatives could stand to shut the hell up a little bit in this case.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 20, 2016, 06:05:05 pm
Hmm.  That's an angle I hadn't considered and would make a lot of sense.  It's also an angle that would fly in the face of all the talk I've been hearing that he fits the profile of a mass shooter more than a terrorist, and was somehow just using ISIS as an excuse.  I'm no expert but those seem like they could be very similar profiles.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 20, 2016, 09:04:42 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/donald-trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-rally

Gee, thanks, the UK.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 21, 2016, 12:45:14 am
Yeah, **** that guy. He should have prepared better.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 21, 2016, 02:27:41 am
Really sorry, we just don't have a big history of successful assassinations over here, we're pretty new to it and haven't had much chance to practise. I promise if Trump gets elected we will try a lot harder.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on June 21, 2016, 03:20:33 am
Our spymaster will be replacing,his intrigue level is clearly not good enough
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 21, 2016, 04:33:22 am
All I know is that if I were running ISIS, I'd be having these guys put tons of coded messages into what gets to press. I'd also have them derailing trains, knocking out power lines, and causing all sorts of simple chaos.

This is why I don't think much is actually happening. Though I'm not yet convinced that the perceived increase in railroad accidents over the last year or so are not actually terrorist attacks that are being covered up.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on June 21, 2016, 06:39:01 am
If I was running ISIS I'd concentrate on un****ing my own backyard instead of chimping out in countries that have no interest in sharia law.

Also, if I was a twenty year old english kid I'd concentrate on un****ing my own backyard instead of chimping out and trying to shoot the president in a country that has no interest in sharia law.

Also, if I was a fifty-something right wing nerd I'd concentrate on un****ing my own backyard instead of chimping out and shooting an MP in a country that has no interest in sharia law.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 21, 2016, 07:34:37 am
This is it, this is how Bernie's supporters overcome Hillary.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Cheri-Honkala-plans-Worlds-largest-fart-in-for-Hillary-Clintons-DNC-speech.html
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 21, 2016, 08:34:54 am
First the Simpsons started becoming real, now South Park is becoming real.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 21, 2016, 09:54:14 am
Yeah!! Rikki Tikki Tavi!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 21, 2016, 11:12:34 am
Please god let this have consequences. (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/06/21/after-dnc-attack-hacker-guccifer-2-0-releases-hillary-clinton-dossier.html)



Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 21, 2016, 11:16:31 am
"Russian government" hackers. Hue.

Sure guys.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 25, 2016, 12:08:17 pm
Are they even voting on the platform yet?  I thought that would happen at the convention.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 25, 2016, 12:48:57 pm
I also didn't realize that the platforms were being voted on. Wut?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on June 25, 2016, 01:00:10 pm
Yeah Trump's bringing out his single-payer healthcare plan right now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 25, 2016, 03:23:57 pm
Then maybe let's find some sources first?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on June 25, 2016, 04:43:18 pm
I heard Trump bit a dog's head off on stage yesterday. No sources but my dad was there. Tell your friends!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 25, 2016, 06:49:12 pm
I will now be voting for him three times.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 25, 2016, 10:15:24 pm
I know the feeling.  Also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMPF_V0EOG4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 26, 2016, 04:42:20 am
Conservative George Will has left the GOP because of Trump's nomination.  He is now unaffiliated.

lol at least they've stopped pretending the party means anything

Draft of Dems' policy positions reflects Sanders' influence (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEMOCRATS_PLATFORM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 26, 2016, 02:28:02 pm
There is a soundbite going around about how the Democratic Platform voted down universal healthcare (single payer), $15 minimum wage, fracking ban, carbon tax and opposing TPP.  However, I can't find a source to verify it.

I believe he is referring to this, guys: [source (https://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-dnc-platform-committee-fight/)]

Quote
The battle over the official Democratic Party platform began in earnest this Friday at a nine-hour meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, and already the sparks of tension seem to be outweighing the calls for “unity.”

The Democratic Party’s platform is an official statement of values on a wide range of issues, and while it is officially non-binding, the platform serves as a crucial guidepost for the entire party. The 2016 platform committee comprises fifteen members, with five members chosen by Bernie Sanders, six chosen by Hillary Clinton, and four chosen by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Sanders representative on the committee, attempted to insert language into the platform that stated Democrats would not hold a vote on the widely derided Trans-Pacific Partnership deal in order to effectively end the plan’s prospects, but the committee rejected Ellison’s proposal so as to avoid indirectly criticizing President Obama on the issue, despite both Sanders and Clinton being against the deal.

...

The Democrats also voted to include the $15 minimum wage into the platform, even calling the current rate of $7.25 a “starvation wage.” However, there arose some confusion over this particular issue among progressive critics, as two further amendments introduced by Ellison that would have indexed the minimum wage to inflation, making it a truly “livable wage,” were voted down.

Bill McKibben, a Sanders appointee to the committee and prominent environmentalist who co-founded 350.org, attempted to insert language on both a carbon tax and a national moratorium on fracking, but both proposals were rejected in perhaps the most disappointing move of the proceedings.

The committee also rejected a single-payer Medicare-for-All plan in a decisive blow to one of Sanders’ key domestic policies. Hillary Clinton has stated in this election cycle that single-payer healthcare will “never, ever come to pass” despite supporting universal healthcare for most of her career. According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, 58% of Americans support a federally funded healthcare option. Only 48% of those polled wished to continue the Affordable Care Act.

So yep, looks like the DNC just shot down every single progressive plank but the $15 minimum wage.

Maybe do your own work next time when you make arbitrary claims, eh Chitoes?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 27, 2016, 04:20:21 am
I don't find that topic very amusing.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 27, 2016, 11:37:34 am
(http://i.imgur.com/ydURBPi.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 27, 2016, 11:54:32 am
Is that what I think it is?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 27, 2016, 04:19:49 pm
Is that what I think it is?

Yeah, snow in June... Hell froze over.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on June 27, 2016, 04:32:39 pm
He should've held on.

After the convention Russia's going to release HRC.pdf
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 28, 2016, 03:23:14 am
Is Hillary seriously not considering Sanders as her VP? It's a no-brainer surely? His grassroots support and strange grandpa charisma could go some way to dampening some of the aggressive "never Hillary" spirit among angry democrat voters, and the prospect he could still end up President if something happens to Hillary might mobilise some people as well. If she doesn't pick the man who almost got the same number of primary votes as her then it doesn't seem like Hillary has enough willingness to compromise and work with her enemies to be a real leader. But then maybe I'm missing something here, I'm done kidding myself I know how the US system works.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 28, 2016, 06:32:05 am
Nah, Sanders has almost no shot at the job.

I keep hearing Warren more and more. Warren better stay away from Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 28, 2016, 07:04:13 am
But why doesn't Sanders have a shot at the job?

I keep hearing this but there never seems to be an explanation attached. In terms of election winning it makes political sense. Is Hillary just putting party politics ahead of a better shot at the White House?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 28, 2016, 07:17:24 am
Because he is the opponent to the nominee.

Lincoln's team of rivals isn't happening. Sorry.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 28, 2016, 08:17:33 am
A Vice President Sanders would probably publicly speak out when there was policy disagreement at the White House.  Hillary isn't going to have that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 28, 2016, 09:06:14 am
A Vice President Sanders would probably publicly speak out when there was policy disagreement at the White House.  Hillary isn't going to have that.

Well I sure hope her pigheadedness doesn't hand the election to Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 28, 2016, 09:12:22 am
heh heh

I do.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 28, 2016, 09:39:08 am
Dude come on, learn from our mistake. Don't fall for populist horse****.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on June 28, 2016, 09:54:33 am
Clinton isn't corrupt like our politicians are corrupt, Sam. She's American corrupt.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on June 28, 2016, 10:07:45 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjtkWZ1uCXo
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on June 28, 2016, 10:18:25 am
He wants to ride that crazy horse?

let him

Once it bucks him though..


Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 28, 2016, 12:31:57 pm
Dude come on, learn from our mistake. Don't fall for populist horse****.

Isn't it a little early to call it all a mistake?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on June 28, 2016, 12:33:37 pm
Actually, it's several days late now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 28, 2016, 01:18:14 pm
We'll see where we are in three to six months.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 28, 2016, 03:32:23 pm
In three to six months things will probably still be bad economywise and probably not much progress will actually have been made to withdrawing from the EU. Once article 50 is invoked it will take a maximum of two years to negotiate.

If there's any positive outcome to be had we won't know about it for literally years. I'm calling it a mistake until then, enough damage has been done already so there'd have to be a hell of a good outcome to undo it. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 28, 2016, 03:56:22 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=158Zh7h14FQ

Stand back. Genius at work! Another freaking home run. Shillary is in for it.

(http://i.imgur.com/8LYADy5.jpg)

A new era of prosperity!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 28, 2016, 04:04:06 pm
The Onion is prophetic.

http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 29, 2016, 09:49:05 am
The better to beat you with, my dear.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on June 29, 2016, 05:17:47 pm
The thing with Trump is that he says so many crazy things that they all blur together.  But I'm going to pick out of of those topics from yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/28/donald-trump-ohio-rally-isis-torture-tpp-rape

This is an absolute dealbreaker for me.  His talk of wanting to do a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.  This insane notion that abiding by the rules of war and national and international law makes us weak.  Vague tough guy talk that the audience can read into whatever they please.  Even if he doesn't believe any of it, this kind of rhetoric is dangerous and completely unacceptable.

Oh, and also all of the rape talk.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on June 29, 2016, 05:21:03 pm
Whatever he does, I hope he does it in prime time.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 05, 2016, 12:33:46 pm
HEY WANNA KNOW WHAT'S NEAT.

Clinton gets no investigation and hours later she is holding a rally where Obama will speak. :UUUUU
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 06, 2016, 01:51:51 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 06, 2016, 03:05:46 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/nc9Eblk.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on July 06, 2016, 03:11:12 pm
Oy veyyyyyyyy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 07, 2016, 08:28:35 pm
Man.  Just as soon as I collect my thoughts about a crazy story, another comes in.  I think it's time we upgrade this from a dumpster fire.

(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/Not_Inkling/2016%20presidential%20election.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 12, 2016, 11:39:04 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2tibaBedug

(http://i.imgur.com/xQzYAAk.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 12, 2016, 12:30:33 pm
If you'll excuse me I have to go weigh the worth of a continued attempt to have a long lived life or just bail and have short one filled to the brim with hard drugs and a lack of care for the world. One sure is looking better and better
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 12, 2016, 12:33:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpce0faSaFA

BRUTAL.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 12, 2016, 01:49:20 pm
Hmmm... potential news maybe?

FOX News has suspended its agreement with Newt Gingrich in which he was a contributor to the network.

VP?

This cycle has been crazy enough and Newt definitely has baggage. Have a taste of what we might be in for if he is indeed Trump's VP pick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-gnWKiM4Y8 (must be watched on YouTube)

Don't **** with Newt unless you're ready to go to war. ****'s gonna be crazy...

(http://i.imgur.com/Ay8TtQJ.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 12, 2016, 08:21:31 pm
If you'll excuse me I have to go weigh the worth of a continued attempt to have a long lived life or just bail and have short one filled to the brim with hard drugs and a lack of care for the world. One sure is looking better and better

Dude, come on.  Never have this much riding on a single politician.  You should know this.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 12, 2016, 10:04:36 pm
Idk. I guess it's what the politician represents.

I feel like the progressive movement has capitulated to the Clinton wing. She will act as though she is now the progressive champion and her ideals are now progressive ideals. This will turn off progressives and further disenfranchise voters, something I'm sure hrc doesn't mind, which will just screw the movement, leaving the establishment sitting pretty as feared
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 12, 2016, 10:23:35 pm
The choices this year are Worse, Worst, and Weird with no chance of winning.  That's been obvious for a long time.  And there's plenty of places to push for causes and issues you believe in other than the presidential level.

...I keep trying to be optimistic here.  I wanted to work in politics, and did so for a while.  But I can't see myself getting back in given the current climate and now I don't know what to do with my life.  I just can't stand talk of giving up, I guess.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 12, 2016, 11:31:40 pm
I was drawn to Bernie because he represented a shock to the system if elected. I'm not on board with whatever progressives have decided they believe today. That movement is scary, somewhat selfish, and totally lacking in self-awareness. No thanks, progressives.

Gary Johnson seems to be the ticket for me. But I mean, I knew that a year and a half ago. :U

MAGA
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 13, 2016, 07:46:02 am
To me there's only one issue and it's climate change and Bernie was the only candidate to acknowledging it for the current threat that it is. No future, no present.

I don't believe either of these other two candidates will go far enough or set us up for success next decade. I think we're ****ed, going to be bled dry, and when **** hits the fan and the world starts to sink the mega wealthy will insulate themselves and watch the world die
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 13, 2016, 11:12:08 am
That's what they think. 8)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on July 13, 2016, 11:15:10 am
Sounds like you're going to need more than just a revolver.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 13, 2016, 11:19:52 am
Good thing I already do.

(http://i.imgur.com/y7raBZy.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on July 13, 2016, 01:59:28 pm
Fakir as in a Muslim ascetic?

Why would someone make that comparison, though? If it's intentional, why? What is she alluding to about him?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 13, 2016, 03:38:31 pm
Maybe it'd make more sense if a Muslim who takes vows of poverty wasn't the exact opposite of Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on July 13, 2016, 04:39:34 pm
Faker? I think you're the fake hedgehog around here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 13, 2016, 06:02:34 pm
http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2365

Uh oh Hillary!!

Trump has been changing his tactics somewhat. Being quieter for longer spans of time. HAS THE PIVOT OCCURRED?

(http://i.imgur.com/7bICJsw.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/7bICJsw.jpg)

Remember when Jim Webb killed a guy?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 13, 2016, 06:40:48 pm
And then the polls will go crazy in the aftermath of the Republican convention.  And then they'll go crazy in the aftermath of the Democratic convention.  And the first debate.  And any number of other things between now and election day.

But you're right, I haven't seen anything outrageously stupid from Trump since the Bernie endorsement.  Maybe I just didn't look hard enough.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 13, 2016, 06:42:12 pm
Maybe I just didn't look hard enough.

With the amount of media scrutiny Trump and Clinton receive you shouldn't have to look hard. All you have to do is be alive.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on July 13, 2016, 07:21:00 pm
i can't even vote so all aboard the trump train i guess!!

(http://i.imgur.com/sejR8XB.png)(http://i.imgur.com/sejR8XB.png)(http://i.imgur.com/sejR8XB.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 13, 2016, 07:26:05 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/bvvNg9D.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Slinky on July 13, 2016, 07:29:56 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/lo5thwh.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 13, 2016, 07:53:44 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/hyLBGgS.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 13, 2016, 08:13:47 pm
It should have been painfully obvious to primary voters that the guy who paid the Clintons to attend his wedding wasn't a pillar of conservative ideals.  I would say that they deserve what they get, but I have to deal with the consequences too.

But yeah, other than it being secret code, what do you all think of of Justice Ginsburg's comments on Trump?  I don't know of any precedent for it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 13, 2016, 09:17:46 pm
Since everyone else is popping off she might as well get her two cents in too. Before she dies.

And the Clintons accepted that money and invitation. So everyone just sucks. But onto what really matters:

http://nypost.com/2016/01/12/the-clintons-didnt-give-trump-a-wedding-gift/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 13, 2016, 09:33:39 pm
Classy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 14, 2016, 11:57:00 am
The oath thing is implied and expected when talking with federal investigators, a non issue.

The nda is more than likely related to the sensitivity of the information being inspected (top level classified emails) and not necessarily to keep the agents quiet about Clinton specifically.

The Lynch thing is hearsay.


I'm all for **** being ****ed but all those are crap. Bernie gonna win because the other shoe, the Foundation, has yet to drop. That's a conspiracy I can get behind
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on July 14, 2016, 01:21:23 pm
Everyone already knows about the Clinton Foundation.

They think it's okay.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 14, 2016, 01:36:45 pm
That's the space colony the Clintons have set up at the other end of the galaxy to accelerate the rebuilding of America after it inevitably falls to barbarism, by using the science of psychohistory, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 14, 2016, 02:16:54 pm
BARBARS
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 14, 2016, 04:19:46 pm
That's the space colony the Clintons have set up at the other end of the galaxy to accelerate the rebuilding of America after it inevitably falls to barbarism, by using the science of psychohistory, right?

What's funny is I only know this is a foundation reference after reading a reddit thread about how hbo needs to do a dune series.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 14, 2016, 05:19:48 pm
If they can throw GoT money at it I'd watch the **** out of an HBO Dune series but I think actually the story would be best presented through animation. Get one of the Japanese studios that makes anime for grownups to do it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 14, 2016, 06:21:18 pm
Someone needs to give Akira Toriyama a bunch of money to turn Chrono Trigger into a full feature or something.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on July 14, 2016, 07:23:47 pm
If we are going full Asimov, just tell DARPA to hurry the hell up with SKYNET.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on July 15, 2016, 03:14:20 pm
Poor Trump, he wants to make a bunch of announcements but the rest of the world has to keep him from talking...
"Trump is gonna talk, stop him!"
So police kill a couple black people.

"Not good enough, try harder!"
So someone kills a bunch of police.

"Still not good enough! Drive a truck through a crowd of people!"
"But sir, we killed a third black guy and fired the cop!"
"TOO SMALL!"
"Ok, floor it Mohammed!"

"MORE! DEAR GOD TRUMP IS GOING TO TALK TO THE MEDIA!"
"More?"
"MORE DAMMIT MOOOORRRRREEE!"

"Fine. OK guys, time for a military coup in Turkey."
"What?!?!"
"A. Military. Coup. In. Turkey."
"If the military takes over Turkey, won't NATO have to come defend it?"
"Oh wait. Um. Hmmm. How does this work out in our favor?"
"We could call Putin."
"What?"
"We could call,,,, Putin?"
"Get me the Kremlin on line one STAT!"

-Lego


Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on July 15, 2016, 03:29:16 pm
no, no, the Nice thing was already a smokescreen for the police shooting thing, don't you see?

(http://i.imgur.com/tMgIEIV.jpg?1)

The coincidence of me posting this after my absurd username change is not lost on me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 15, 2016, 03:41:43 pm
Haha, they don't even realise praying doesn't do anything!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on July 15, 2016, 04:10:36 pm
OK, I had to do a little history digging. I did not realize that Turkish military overthrows were more common than White House scandals.

You can go about your business, move along.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on July 16, 2016, 09:33:27 am
Yeah you can see why EU is not really that keen on letting them join yet. Coups are not really a regular feature of European democracies after all. Anyway I do not think it effects the US election that much does it?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 16, 2016, 09:57:58 am
Anyway I do not think it effects the US election that much does it?

Depends what the media and campaigns decide.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 16, 2016, 10:46:24 am
We're less than 24 hours from the event starting, so hard to say.  One candidate or another saying something boneheaded about the coup attempt is more likely to have an impact than the coup attempt itself, unless someone starts messing with US/NATO bases or Americans in the country.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 17, 2016, 11:37:37 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAu44wVgb58

This is a year. A real year.

The video should work despite the thumbnail.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 18, 2016, 02:30:54 am
Sheriff Clarke apparently hasn't heard of de-escalation. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on July 18, 2016, 06:31:11 am
Neither has the Labour party, Labour boy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 18, 2016, 08:26:33 am
Sure, but like he said, they're not really a coherent organisation, so you can't accuse "Black lives Matter" of seriously making some sort of concerted effort to get cops killed as a group. The police force are an organised, hierarchical organisation, he's a senior member of that organisation and he has a responsibility to handle things in a way which is consistent with the mission statement or constitution of the police, which I believe is something along the lines of "to protect and serve". Going on tv, yelling, being visibly angry and just pushing his own personal line isn't a responsible act. As an individual he's entitled to those views and he can express them all he wants in private, but taking a platform like that is irresponsible, particularly in light of his seniority. 

For some reason this sentiment doesn't seem popular with a lot of people that get involved in the debate but police can and should be held to a higher standard than random people on the street. It's sort of part of the job.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 18, 2016, 10:02:06 am
In response to Sam.

Well, like you say, the police department is hierarchical and has a creed. Therefore if they have a problem, it can and will be fixed with enough pressure. They will not be able to fix those problems if they are being shot at, antagonized, and underappreciated on a regular basis. BLM has absolutely been the cause of this recent escalation. Yes, they were a response to a legitimate problem; however, they have been anything but noble with their cause and to call them nonviolent is laughable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JezQNSirUe8

Here is one of their leaders, the one that took the mic at the Bernie Sanders rally. Her tactics are crude and dishonorable, she speaks in broad strokes about white people and ascribes her personal story to all black people.

Quote from: Marissa Johnson
I think for black Americans we need to look completely outside the system. I don't think anybody's put any policies that remotely even speak to what we're getting at.

Quote from: Marissa Johnson
What it's going to take to dismantle white supremacy is white folks actually gotta give up something.

This woman is obviously a racist. And she was in charge of a major wing of the BLM movement and her tactics are what propelled the movement into the spotlight during primary season. She has no regard for white people and uses black people as a tool and a wedge to achieve some crazy, self-centered goal. This junk trickles down, organizations operate top-down. The movement has been pushing the police around for two years, effectively playing "I'm not touching you!" whilst screaming epithets out of the other side of their mouth. It's rotten and ruins any chance of actual progress.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 18, 2016, 10:23:55 am
Ok as a general response to all points I just want to say that I'm not addressing whether or not BLM is a good thing, or the nature of the individuals or groups which make it up. I don't live in the USA, and even if I did I probably wouldn't have the sort of contact with the right people which I would need to make a judgement on this issue. All I can see is what's in the mainstream media and online, and it's an incredibly muddled message so my response is to just leave it alone. I can't comment on how BLM comport themselves or the legitimacy the group has, or how that reflects on civil rights overall. I only want to address some points about the police.

Police are not paid to die, and it is not sort of part of the job. They can't protect and serve as their prime directive when they are in danger of being murdered by any member of a group they need to be protecting and serving. 

Police aren't paid to die the same way fire-fighters, soldiers and loggers aren't paid to die, but it's a real risk of the job. At any rate, my comment about it being part of the job was not directed at police laying down their lives, it was about their general behaviour as individuals. In their public role I don't think it's unreasonable to expect police to act in a certain way, to hold their tongue even if they want to make certain statements which may be true, but would obviously cause a situation to escalate.
If it's to be believed that there are genuinely racist ideologues inside BLM that are trying to manipulate the situation for their own benefit then having angry sheriffs denouncing BLM on television plays entirely into their hands. The same way that Al Quaida benefits from western governments cracking down on all Muslims or indiscriminately bombing Syrian towns, because it cultivates an us and them mentality which just gets them more recruits.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 18, 2016, 11:06:55 am
Except the way you arbitrarily pick a team and then compete with the other teams for no reason >_>
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 18, 2016, 12:36:44 pm
They match the colours of the legendary birds.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 18, 2016, 04:00:22 pm
Zapdos highest tier best team
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 18, 2016, 04:28:30 pm
Articuno is the most ****able legendary bird though.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 18, 2016, 04:53:17 pm
I mean... I guess?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 18, 2016, 04:59:46 pm
To keep things on topic, if the presidential candidates had to **** one pokemon of their choice which ones would they pick?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 18, 2016, 05:12:28 pm
Rapidash.

Normally I'd say Ponyta but US laws are pretty clear on matters such as those.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 19, 2016, 02:36:04 am
Is that Trump or Hillary's choice.

Is Ivanka a pokemon???
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 19, 2016, 05:20:11 am
Is Ivanka a pokemon???

Oh man I wish.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Gec on July 19, 2016, 10:01:47 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFjDBvRxcbM
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 19, 2016, 12:26:45 pm
>colbert's glasses
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Gec on July 19, 2016, 04:47:06 pm
>colbert's gray hair
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 19, 2016, 07:28:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KtzdP7mR-4
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 19, 2016, 09:12:58 pm
Oh yes, there's almost no chance that Melania wrote the speech.  But who are the complete hacks in charge of this speech, who thought it was a good idea for Mrs. Trump's speech to rip off Michele Obama of all people, and who thought nobody would notice?

Yes, in the long run this doesn't matter.  It's just another example showing that Team Trump is stupid, incompetent, deeply cynical of the voting public, or all of the above.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 21, 2016, 09:58:55 am
So let's recap.

Monday was PlagarismGate.

Tuesday was Ben Carson doing his best impression of the old SNL Church Lady skit.

Wednesday was Ted Cruz taking a conscious dump in the proverbial party punchbowl.

Tonight is The Donald's turn.  The possibilities are practically endless.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 21, 2016, 10:19:13 am
It has been a great week.

Trump is looking real good coming out of this. His kids are rock stars.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 21, 2016, 10:43:23 am
Oh, and then there's this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=1

Quote
But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 21, 2016, 01:28:42 pm
Who is Vice President Pence? Trump will be the domestic guy, Pence will be the international guy. Who is Pence?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 21, 2016, 02:26:53 pm
He will fly like an eagle into the future.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 22, 2016, 08:09:54 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNiqpBNE9ik
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 25, 2016, 08:41:47 am
*looks nervously at the election*

Hey is anyone else seeing this? Polls are all over the place today, some have Clinton down. It doesn't factor in the email leaks. ****'s getting wobbly. DWS is out and now working with Hillary. Evidence of scandal. Democrats shouting "lock her up!" in the streets outside the convention. This will be a week.

https://gfycat.com/SilentWickedInexpectatumpleco

https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/757568245129879552 - DWS booed
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on July 25, 2016, 08:56:19 am
STOP SCREWING THIS UP FOR EVERYBODY DNC GODDAMN.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 25, 2016, 09:00:11 am
(http://i.imgur.com/eqqOViG.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/jzJMY8B.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/LyMFJxq.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/YshTLgT.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/C2gZPHL.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/NgJtiYy.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 25, 2016, 09:51:35 am
What happened
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 25, 2016, 10:10:34 am
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 25, 2016, 01:43:01 pm
http://www.unicornriot.ninja/?page_id=216

Livestream outside convention in Philly.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 25, 2016, 03:03:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryZJWLMe1ag
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 26, 2016, 12:42:24 am
Ah Man I feel that depression coming on again

How is this happening. I have never felt so helpless in my life it's... it's an odd feeling. Like, a stone in my chest that weighs on my every action. An echo of cynicism in every thought. How can I just sit by? But then what can I do is always my followup. And it's never enough. It could never be enough. It's like a horrifying catch 22 that will slowly consume me and who I am
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 26, 2016, 02:17:20 am
I told you, the Americans would feel the same pain we felt after the Breferendum soon enough. This was foretold.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 26, 2016, 06:28:58 am
On the contrary, I think Americans should learn to stop worrying and love Trump. It'll be fun! He won't break anything just go along with it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on July 26, 2016, 08:16:31 am
The fun won't last
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 26, 2016, 08:20:19 am
Well it never does. That's why we have to go for the most fun up front.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 26, 2016, 08:28:20 am
So should we do cocaine or meth, then?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on July 26, 2016, 09:40:03 am
I'd do math,that's lots of fun!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 26, 2016, 11:06:28 am
brown-brown

#wechildsoldiersnow
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 26, 2016, 04:21:20 pm
Gaaaaaaah




Will the leaks change anything? How many more could there be? God damn I want to believe in the dream . Why am I so addicted to this and let it impact me so heavily ffs
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 26, 2016, 07:24:17 pm
Don't count on the leaks.  This year is insane, nothing is impossible I guess, but don't count on it.  Hillary's the nominee and it'd take somebody finding the bodies to change that.

And yeah, politics is addictive.  Even when it's painful.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 26, 2016, 10:51:12 pm
Hillary's the nominee and it'd take somebody finding the bodies to change that.

Bodies? We got something for that.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html

Quote
"There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything,"


Also here's some anti-Hillary copypasta:

Quote from: copypasta
We all know Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary was able to get DWS in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within. That's the theory anyway, except....

In order for this to work, they would first have to, not only get the DNC chair to step down, but also get them to recommend DWS for the position. The Clinton's would have to promise something to that person, something more prestigious than being head of the Democratic party. So who was that person and what did they get in return?

It would appear that Donna Brazile was in-line to get the position, but she was only the interim chair after the previous chair left, served only one month. According to this, http://rulers.org/usgovt.html#parties, the previous chair of the DNC prior to DWS was Tim Kaine.

Yes, HRC Vice President running m8 Tim Kaine.

www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 27, 2016, 12:16:18 pm
And for today...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

(http://i.imgur.com/DzdiwiB.png)


**EDIT**
Alright so I gotta take time and read through this one. Maybe I'll do it.

http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf

This report is apparently one that shows proof of election fraud in the DNC. It includes an estimate of how many delegates Bernie Sanders lost. I gotta read it to be sure. If it's true, he should be the nominee. Dunno, gotta read it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 27, 2016, 07:01:03 pm
Meanwhile over at Trump Land, it's another story where you can tell reporters are having trouble keeping a straight face:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-invites-russia-to-meddle-in-the-us-presidential-race-with-clintons-emails/2016/07/27/a85d799e-5414-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

So we have a presidential nominee calling on a foreign power and probably our biggest rival in espionage to spy on his opponent.  Mainly to spy on her time as Secretary of State.  At what point is Trump's nonsense going to veer into criminality?  And then when asked about recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, he gave his standard blow off the question answer of "we'll look into it."  And then there's his talk the other day of bailing on NATO allies.  And then, and then, and then...  Look, I don't like Hilary either, she plays dirty, but I can't see an equivalence here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on July 27, 2016, 07:07:45 pm
OK, I have stayed out of this crap, and I don't want either of these scumbags winning... but seriously... it WAS A JOKE and it WAS A SHOT AT THE PRESS.. and people are screaming F***ING TREASON!

GET
A
SENSE
OF
HUMOR


sadly nobody I know has one right now. ******* is EVIL and ****** is the DEVIL

The presidency is lost, vote for congress!

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 27, 2016, 08:49:48 pm
I could chalk that one up as a joke if Trump says it was and just wait for tomorrow's insane, normally campaign ending moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 28, 2016, 07:37:10 am
I could chalk that one up as a joke if Trump says it was and just wait for tomorrow's insane, normally campaign ending moment.

Eh, I think you're misguided on this one. I watched it live, like I do most of the speeches that the people give.

If ever there was a throwaway joke line from Trump, this one was it. It's so obviously a joke. I watched a Daily Show last night at a friend's place and Trevor Noah hitched his wagon to this issue for almost the entire show and it was embarrassing. Time and time again they're focusing on the wrong issues. But hey, they'll run with this "Trump is a Russian spy" narrative for as long as they have to so long as they don't have to actually address the real crimes of the DNC.

Furthermore, he never asked Russia to spy on us. He said that "if anyone out there has the emails" that they should turn them over to the FBI. And that our parasitic media would reward whoever had that data greatly. His implication was that they are already spying on us, so maybe they have it? Maybe someone has it? Let us know if you do!

Quote from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-invites-russia-to-meddle-in-the-us-presidential-race-with-clintons-emails/2016/07/27/a85d799e-5414-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said during a news conference at one of his South Florida resorts. He added later, “They probably have them. I’d like to have them released.”

Oh and it was also a joke.

But again, let's focus on how Trump is saying nice things about a rival leader (with his own set of issues and problems) and is advocating for working with our rivals more. Somehow a desire to, as Trump says, "get along with people instead of fighting for everything" makes him the Manchurian Candidate. What world are we living in right now?

it WAS A JOKE and it WAS A SHOT AT THE PRESS

For real. He literally takes five to ten minutes of every major speech to call the press "the most horrible people in the world", this is his thing.

(http://i.imgur.com/QVSxpN6.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 28, 2016, 07:54:15 am
I don't get why Russia is still considered an adversary.

Is there abserious chance it will invade a NATO country? Why? Does more land get them more money now days? Furthermore, why do we owe the countries that actually don't pay their fair share of the NATO bill? If I recall, if you don't pay your taxes in some areas or your local fire dept, they will come out and watch your house burn to the ground as they stand by to protect those that are current with them.


Idk. I don't see Russia as a big bad. It's a second tier country surrounded by other second tier countries. Bfd
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 28, 2016, 08:15:45 am
Indeed. The "Trump wants to dissolve NATO" line is pretty egregious in terms of how deceptive it is spun.

Like you said, erops, he is talking tough to get countries to pay their obligations.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on July 28, 2016, 08:20:40 am
If I recall, if you don't pay your taxes in some areas or your local fire dept, they will come out and watch your house burn to the ground as they stand by to protect those that are current with them.

LIBERTARIAN UTOPIA HAIL RAND USA USA USA
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on July 28, 2016, 08:29:56 am
Well yeah it's ****ed up, but I mean that is the way America operates domestically so I am surprised people are surprised it carries internationally
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 28, 2016, 08:44:07 pm
So Trump said today that he was kidding, being sarcastic.  Fair enough, I'll set it aside as a joke.  That still leaves that he took a day to clarify, even though he was asked to do so at the very event where he said it in the first place.  No, he left it unexplained to bounce around as the main story about his campaign.  He also didn't explain what he meant to his campaign surrogates, instead leaving them to make stuff up and twist in the wind, the same as when they took a day or two to explain the Melania speech plagiarism mess.  This is campaign 101 stuff.  You hit back on stories that go sideways promptly, you get talking points out to the team and make sure everyone is on the same page.  I get that these aren't concerns for the average voter and that it hasn't hurt Trump so far, but the fact that he and his team struggle with the basics of a campaign doesn't give me much confidence that he can carry out the duties of the office.


Back to the Democrats... for non-political reasons I'm not sure if they can pull it off.  This is not a charismatic ticket.  Hilary is about as relatable and approachable as Martha Stewart.  Tim Kaine is kind of a dweeb.  Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, they were all in their element in the convention speeches.  The two actually running for office, not so much.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on July 28, 2016, 09:29:09 pm
Thrump have never done the campaign in a 101 fashion. Just one more off his gaffs. He say a lot of dumb stuff he does not mean. Do not think however I am defending him. No. The very fact that he do not think he should be held accountable for what he says will make him a poor president. What are you really voting for if you elect him to start? No. Avoid voting for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 28, 2016, 10:25:57 pm
Oh right, and Russia.  Did you all forget about Ukraine?  The other border countries have good reason to be concerned.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 29, 2016, 08:27:07 am
That still leaves that he took a day to clarify, even though he was asked to do so at the very event where he said it in the first place.  No, he left it unexplained to bounce around as the main story about his campaign.  He also didn't explain what he meant to his campaign surrogates, instead leaving them to make stuff up and twist in the wind, the same as when they took a day or two to explain the Melania speech plagiarism mess.  This is campaign 101 stuff.  You hit back on stories that go sideways promptly, you get talking points out to the team and make sure everyone is on the same page.  I get that these aren't concerns for the average voter and that it hasn't hurt Trump so far, but the fact that he and his team struggle with the basics of a campaign doesn't give me much confidence that he can carry out the duties of the office.

Are they struggling with the basics or are they just turning it all on its head? Trump has cultivated the expectation of uncertainty about him while somehow still gathering enough votes to potentially become President. I'd argue that, if he wins, Trump will have run a perfect campaign.

Trump is the linchpin of it all. He is the only person that can pull this method off. There is nobody else on the planet that could get away with it. This is his superpower and what makes him exceptional. No future candidate is going to be able to accomplish nearly what Trump has, though make no mistake that people will try to emulate the 2016 strategy and fail.

What Trump says is what the story is, until Trump decides to say something different. Let the surrogates flounder around and try to soften it. This allows many versions of the same message to hit receptive targets. Then big man Trump comes in later on to clarify and since people have already bought into a modified narrative, there's a good chance they will just go with the "refined" version Trump comes out with a day later.

Furthermore, the news reports on it all day. As the confusion grows, so does the coverage. Hillary can't get a word in edgewise and all you hear about is Trump. The viewer becomes tired of the media reporting this drivel and nonsense, making Trump's anti-media message more resonant. These people are pushed one inch closer to Trump, making his entire platform that much more appealing.

And he still has 102 more days to do this. Each one pushes more people a little closer. It's like that arcade game with the coins laying on a ledge: coin pusher. You have to dump a lot of money into it but eventually you'll push enough people toward the edge to cause the avalanche. This election is that times a thousand. The 2016 election is no normal coin pusher game.

This is our election, Trump is the dude playing, buckle the **** up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0OnmhhFk9g
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on July 29, 2016, 08:37:32 am
he thinks climate change is a chinese hoax though
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 29, 2016, 08:50:54 am
Yeah they still talk about that one. It was a good one.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on July 29, 2016, 09:27:37 am
hahahahahahahdontvoteforhim
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on July 29, 2016, 09:43:48 am
That's a fair point.

But I can still be impressed and interested in his campaign from the standpoint of someone that is interested in politics and history and whatnot. It's pretty cool to be able to witness this sort of moment.


**EDIT**
Speaking of, this is a good opening to post this article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/jane-sanders-why-bernie-voters-shouldnt-get-over-it-w431428
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on July 31, 2016, 08:55:09 pm
But enough about Trump going to war with the parents of a dead soldier.  Let's watch him flail about trying to answer a question on Ukraine.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-nato-41028664

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-donald-trump-vice-president-joe-biden/story?id=41020870

Quote
TRUMP: Well, look, you know, I have my own ideas. [Putin's] not going into Ukraine, OK?

Just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right?

You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he's already there, isn't he?

TRUMP: OK, well, he's there in a certain way, but I'm not there yet. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he's going where -- he takes -- takes Crimea, he's sort of -- I mean...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you said you might recognize that.

TRUMP: I'm going to take a look at it. But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also.

Now, that was under -- just so you understand, that was done under Obama's administration. And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration, with his strong ties to NATO.

So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess. Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on August 01, 2016, 06:38:36 am
So he flails around incoherently and then ends it with an immaculate soundbite.


This campaign is crazy. We're on a super-liberal part of the internet (like most parts of the internet) and people only want to talk about Trump. And of course we want to talk about Trump, he's an expert ruseman. We can talk about how great he is at trolling the media. We can spend months just talking future president Trump and the fun stuff he says we'll do.

We don't talk about the other one. We can't talk about the other one, because there isn't anything nice to say.

This is a one-horse race.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 01, 2016, 08:54:03 am
Lurk has finally weighed in on the election.

DEFINITIVE.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 03, 2016, 06:38:21 pm
It seems that Mr. Trump isn't having a very good week.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-03/donald-trump-is-the-lone-ranger-candidate?int=a14709

And from one of the people quoted in the article with some ...colorful comments on Trump, some thoughts from twitter on the "Nuke ISIS" story from Morning Joe.  Starts at the bottom because twitter is weird.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co8r5IvWIAAFPiM.jpg:large

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on August 04, 2016, 04:22:36 am
poor mr trump

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on August 04, 2016, 05:14:31 am
"This will be the end of Trump's campaign", says increasingly-worried man for the fifth time this year.

Trump is here to win the election, not convince people that he'd be a good president.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 04, 2016, 05:44:43 am
Just like Obama!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on August 04, 2016, 08:22:06 am
poor mr trump

But Trump told me he was rich! I am not sure what to believe now  :-\
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on August 04, 2016, 08:31:32 am
Dont you see

they stole all his money so he couldn't win,the system is rigged I tell you
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 04, 2016, 09:22:04 am
Well yeah it is.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 04, 2016, 07:33:34 pm
"This will be the end of Trump's campaign", says increasingly-worried man for the fifth time this year.

Trump is here to win the election, not convince people that he'd be a good president.

But... that's how you win the election.  By convincing people you'd be good at the job.

It'd be one thing if you said something like he has to win over the public, not analysts and pundits.  But he's been getting slaughtered in the polls this week, too.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

As of me posting this, the odds of winning are Clinton with 79.9% and Trump with 20.1%.  I don't see how you can realistically spin this as anything but a bad week for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 04, 2016, 07:37:51 pm
No it wasn't a bad week. It was a normal week.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on August 05, 2016, 07:07:06 am
wow if that site is accurate then that quite a dive. Well I guess anything can happen in this race...
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 05, 2016, 08:12:19 am
He's been here and clawed back before.

She's had these numbers and blown it before.

(http://i.imgur.com/xo9ic9Q.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 09, 2016, 02:40:24 pm
What a very fitting picture, Pat.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-second-amendment-people-can-stop-hillary-clinton-from-curbing-gun-rights-1470773378

It's all just a misunderstanding, of course.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 09, 2016, 04:40:20 pm
Nobody wants to vote for Trump, but the prospect of him getting four bad years in office while the democrats find a better person than Clinton is rapidly becoming something some people are considering. This election has a supreme court seat open to fill and possibly more (two will be over 80 years old and average age of the 8 is 75.

On a different note, I am curious what either of them will do about ACA (Obamacare). It is starting to crack part really bad already and the big tax hit isn't until 2018. The solution of 'just throw more money at it' from the Obama administration is a disaster. While a lot of unions promoted it, they are now getting slapped in the face by the shear cost of it.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on August 10, 2016, 07:07:50 am
I look into my crystal ball and see..

 Hillary gets in, the first thing she does is scrap Obama care and replace it with her own healthcare,marketed as a successor to Obama care,call it ' Hilary Helps'

And then somehow she'll go down in American history as the  female President who established the first affordable  (wink wink) universal healthcare in America,and Obama's efforts with Obama care will be a footnote,and even it will be derided as a failure,this is despite the fact that it laid a lot of groundwork for Hilary's Health service

"Oh yeah,Obama tried establishing free american healthcare,but it didn't work.it was too expensive and [other reasons]   but Hilary created the American Health service"-Someone in far future,maybe

But the truth is/was  that Obama care was no different to Hilary's health service,it would take many presidents later to establish an affordable Health service in America,it just took some time to make it work"-A historian in the far,far future regarding the attempts to establish a health service which ordinary Americans could afford

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 10, 2016, 09:57:25 am
Hillary gets in, the first thing she does is scrap Obama care and replace it with her own healthcare,marketed as a successor to Obama care,call it ' Hilary Helps'

Not going with Hillarycare? Make it all 1993 up in this B.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on August 10, 2016, 11:41:50 am
*snip*

That's because Obamacare is an abject failure in creating a leftist, government-based healthcare service. It should have been completely socialist healthcare or nothing at all, and you certainly shouldn't be forced to pay a fine because you fall into the special poor person bracket that means you're too rich to get help but not rich enough to afford being forced to pay for insurance. That's just more pressure on the working/lower-middle classes that we really don't need right now of all times.

Yeah, I'm aware that the bill was only formulated that way because otherwise Republicans wouldn't have gone for it, but honestly something like this needed to not have been compromised at all. Obamacare as it stands now is hot garbage.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on August 10, 2016, 12:43:00 pm
Hillary gets in, the first thing she does is scrap Obama care and replace it with her own healthcare,marketed as a successor to Obama care,call it ' Hilary Helps'

Not going with Hillarycare? Make it all 1993 up in this B.

Cos it has a nice ring to it
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on August 10, 2016, 02:42:37 pm
*snip*

That's because Obamacare is an abject failure in creating a leftist, government-based healthcare service. It should have been completely socialist healthcare or nothing at all, and you certainly shouldn't be forced to pay a fine because you fall into the special poor person bracket that means you're too rich to get help but not rich enough to afford being forced to pay for insurance. That's just more pressure on the working/lower-middle classes that we really don't need right now of all times.

Yeah, I'm aware that the bill was only formulated that way because otherwise Republicans wouldn't have gone for it, but honestly something like this needed to not have been compromised at all. Obamacare as it stands now is hot garbage.

Out of curiosity. What are the actual effects of Obamacare? Like is there a good source for statistics (rather then anecdotes. You will always find anecdotes)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 10, 2016, 03:57:10 pm
Out of curiosity. What are the actual effects of Obamacare?

Let me know. I still can't afford insurance. :u
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 10, 2016, 06:12:09 pm
Gonna talk about insurance plans and a little bit of Obamacare (henceforth ACA) Affordable Healthcare Act https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/

You will need to open the image below in a new tab to see it clearly.

https://s9.postimg.org/8ugzivyf1/Plan_1.png

(https://s9.postimg.org/8ugzivyf1/Plan_1.png)

Behold these seven plans. This is a lot of information so I will try to give a condense it in to a few examples and you can see the damages.

This is the Redacted Health Systems RHS (the black boxes) seven currently active health plans. The top set are plans A, B, and C and are available to any RHS employee  that works 20 or more hours a week. * These plans are through Blue Cross Blue Shield

Plans D,E,F, and G are only allowed to Union Nurses of RHS.

Each plan has different levels: Single (just you), Single + Children (Single parent or married but spouse has own insurance, not available on D,E,F,G), Single+Spouse (hold the kids), Family (Adult+Spouse+ legal dependents.)

Since I'm the only running family here if memory serves, I will focus on single person for this example:

Plan A will cost you $1130 a year
Plan B will cost you $1109 a year
Plan C will cost you $887 a year
Plan D will cost you $1540 a year
Plan E will cost you $1870 a year
Plan F will cost you $1859 a year
Plan G will cost you $3022 a year

All seven plans, a basic checkup is free but only in network. Out of network, out of pocket.

Network?
Since RHS is a hospital and clinic group, they have their own services and would like you to go to those first. They are called In-Network under the RHS network.
Blue Cross Blue Shield has non-RHS sites they would like you to use as well, those are In-Network/National Network.
Anything else is Out-of-Network

I have strep and need to get to urgent care to get antibiotics. Now this can give some stupid numbers, so I am going to cap a Urgent care visit at $150 and the drugs at $20 (it will make sense in a minute)
Costs:

A: 10% of deductible (10% of $300) plus a generic drug $5 -$10 at a supported pharmacy (Walgreens isn't). Total = $35-$40

B: Deductible ($1300) then 15% + generic drug deductible ($1300) then 15% at a supported pharmacy (Walgreens isn't).Total = $170 Insurance doesn't cover anything.

C: Deductible ($3000) then 15% + generic drug deductible ($3000) then 15% at a supported pharmacy (Walgreens isn't).Total = $170 Insurance doesn't cover anything.

D: $15 + generic drug $11 at a supported pharmacy (Walgreens isn't).Total = $26

E: $15 + generic drug $11 at a supported pharmacy (Walgreens isn't).Total = $26

F: Deductible ($250) then 20% + generic drug $11 at a supported pharmacy (Walgreens isn't).Total = $161 Insurance doesn't cover much.

G: $0 + generic drug $11 at a supported pharmacy (Walgreens isn't).Total = $11 Cool!

Recap
A: $35
B: $170
C: $170
D: $26
E: $26
F: $161
G: $11

Big difference eh, especially with G.

Next example, you need a regular med filled once a month (birth control, insulin, welbutrin, whatever...) I am going to list two prices for each category and an end of year cost, a Generic that will cost no more than $50 and a name brand item that will cost no more than $400 (and if you think those numbers are high, trust me, they are not)

A: $5/$100 - EOY $60/$1000 ($1000 maximum out of pocket drug cost per year)
B: $50/$400 - EOY $600/$3500 ($3500 maximum out of pocket total reached for the year
C: $50/$400 - EOY $600/$4800
D: $11/$11 - EOY $132/$132
E: $11/$11 - EOY $132/$132
F: $11/$11 - EOY $132/$132
G: $11/$11 - EOY $132/$132

D,E,F,and G are looking pretty cool now aren't they? C sucks rocks. Keep reading.

Last situation: Catastrophic issue. 5 Days in hospital, 3 Xray, 1 MRI, 1 CT scan, 20 labs, 1 surgery. Well call this a compound fracture (through the skin broken bone).
5 Days in a hospital we will say will be $4000 a day
3 Xrays = $1500
1 MRI = $2500
1 CT scan = $2000
20 Labs = $2000
Surgery (Dr, Room, anesthetic, etc) = $15000
Meds =$2000
Total = $45,000 (having had my wife go through major surgery, I promise you, these number are not off (a little low actually))

Luckily this is going to be easy to calculate because of the working on the bottom of each plan... Maximum out of pocket per person.
Your cost
A: $4500 ($3500 out of pocket + $1000 for the meds which is a separate plan actually)
B: $3500
C: $6000
D: $500
E: $3000
F: $1250
G:$1300

PROTIP: If you cap out, get all you health stuff done in the same year because you can't be billed anymore.

(End of Part 1)
-Lego

*Part of ACA is to require company supported health insurance for employees that work more than 30 hours a week and employ 50 or more people must provide a health care plan. If you work part time for a major company (like McDonalds or Starbucks) you might as well forget getting more than 30 hours a week. If you work for a small company an you get ton so work, don't expect the staffing level to exceed 50 unless critical (and they can hire contractors to get around the rules too)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 10, 2016, 06:52:17 pm
Part 2 - OK, what about ACA?

Plans D-G are called Cadillac plans because they  cover just about everything. They are also extremely expensive and this is where, in 2018, the fit is going to hit to political shan. A plan that costs over $28500 a years is going to get taxes 40% as a penalty.

"But Lego", I hear you cry, "the most expensive plan listed is G and it is only $14,500 a year for a family."

Nope. That is what the EMPLOYEE pays, which can end up being only 15-25% of the actual plan cost. Assuming it is 25% for the family plans, they ACTUALLY can cost (some rounding):
A: $22600
B: $22200
C: $17732
D: $24700
E: $29900
F: $29700
G: $58000

If we assume a 5% per year price increase for the next two year (to 2018) these numbers become

A: $24916
B: $24475
C: $19550
D: $27231
E: $32965 + 40% = $46151
F: $32744 +40% = $45842
G: $63945 +40% = $89523

Ouch. And within a year or two D also goes over the edge.

That 40% hit is intended to keep plans affordable and restrict the insurance companies from gouging the American Public. At that point you need to reduce costs or reduce coverage.

The fast answer is reduce coverage and put more of the cost on the consumer. We'll hear about it in two years.

The other method is to reduce cost. Oh yeah, the gold calf is slowly being dragged in to the light.

Medical care costs in the United States are not regulated. They can charge you whatever they want. The only challenge is charging you as much as they can while still hoping you can pay. When you have insurance, the insurance companies meeting with the hospitals and agree to reimbursements for various procedures and RULES about when you can do certain procedures. (got a bad heart, need a pacemaker, you need to try drug therapy for nine months and suffer because the insurance won't pay the $37,000 for the pacemaker).

The idea with the 40% excise tax is to cap insurance companies.

"But!" they screamed, "We will lose money!"

So the ACA forces all Americans to get health insurance and pay in to the pot. The Fed dumps billions in to state exchanges and private insurance companies to get them to make it possible for all Americans to get insurance. Too broke to pay for it, here is a subsidy to help you if you're poor. Where does that subsidy come from? Our Taxes! Too poor to pay taxes too? Don't worry, we'll just F-over the middle class some more.

ok. I'm getting a little political, so I'll cut to the chase. Until the actual COST of health care is addressed (starting with Tort reform) this is a money pit.

The 2018 cap in place is going to force insurance providers to raise their rates on the cheaper plans. Those plans you have to have,so the poor get subsidies, so out go more taxes.

I don't want to be force to buy insurance. Well, technically you don't have to. Just pay a growing penalty each year instead which is 2.5% of your gross adjusted income with a shifting cap, currently at $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085.

End Part 2

-Lego

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 10, 2016, 07:13:19 pm
So what is going wrong?

There is a loophole in the enrollment process that allow people to enroll after they had a problem. This is a very bad thing.

But first, a couple good things, no more disqualifications for pre-existing conditions. In many states employee-offer insurance was protected by this under law, but a unemployed citizen was not. Diabetic? Sorry, we won't cover you. ACA banned that.

Another good thing: No more medical payout caps. Many plans had $1millon or $2million max payout caps. Major cancer treatments and rehabilitation can burn that up in under a few years. ACA - no more caps. The insurance companies have to keep paying out.

Now put them together.

Bob find out he has cancer but no job or insurance, Bob enrolls big plan because of the loop hole and is covered. Bob doesn't make premium  payments after the first couple and coast on a 3 month COBRA credit. Bob end up only paying a few thousand dollars, the insurance company gets soaked for the rest, potentially a million or more.

So, many insurance companies are getting out of the exchanges. The number of seriously sick people was much higher than anticipated and the losses extreme (most are saying at least a half a billion dollars on the low end)

There is a hole in the balloon and nobody in Washington is going to put in more money during an election year.

So people that have to get insurance are getting fewer options. The companies that are still in are going to raise their rates and reduce payouts. People may risk it and pay the penalty and file bankruptcy if it goes to pot rather than pay in.

But Obamacare is working! Look at the numbers!

Ok, lets look at the numbers and this will be the last part I point out. I call it the smoke and mirrors piece.

Under 26? Stay on mom and dad's dime!

Obamacare allowed 'under employed' offspring to remain on their parents insurance plan until they turn 26. That means they plugged and 8 year gag order in the statistics (18-26) to keep people insured so long as they are 'under-employed'. Gee, better not work too hard or even look for a job then, I can't afford the mandatory health insurance! HEY LOOK! Unemployment is going down!

Yuck

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 10, 2016, 07:59:24 pm
Bernie was it


Man. We're so boned. Lego why you do that
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on August 11, 2016, 01:46:35 am
Maybe his mistake was attaching his name to it. AttleeCare is a terrible name for the NHS.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 11, 2016, 05:41:51 am
Bernie was it


Man. We're so boned. Lego why you do that

I work in health care, I'm gonna get majorly boned before it really goes in the crapper because of this mess. Hint, I only get to choose between A, B, and C so here come the budget cuts.

-Lego

p.s. sorry for the bad grammar and typos in the three post example. I rushed it and was tired. I might go back and fix it someday.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 11, 2016, 05:54:13 am
Never fear, Lego.

We usually just assume it is alcohol-related.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 11, 2016, 10:14:49 am
I usaully gloss over stuff so quickly I baerly notice
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on August 11, 2016, 10:50:37 am
So how come healthcare is a non-issue this election? Is it just Trump-magic or was Sanders the only one who cared?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 11, 2016, 10:54:08 am
Never fear, Lego.

We usually just assume it is alcohol-related.

I wish it had been, been sick for three days. I have this habit of going back and editing but forgetting to change tenses and such.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 11, 2016, 10:59:40 am
So how come healthcare is a non-issue this election? Is it just Trump-magic or was Sanders the only one who cared?

I wouldn't say it's a non issue. Trumps gaffes just take up all the air time so luckily no one has to actually address our issues and discuss solutions.

They both have a healthcare page
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on August 11, 2016, 04:13:20 pm
So today's side anti-Trump CNN position is that while NAFTA has been an issue with Mexico, the bigger problem has been with Canada. So stop hold the maple syrup and pass me a taco.

"BLAME CANADA! BLAME CANADA!.."

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 12, 2016, 07:09:19 am
"We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before someone thinks of blaming us!"
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 14, 2016, 01:59:00 am
Maybe his mistake was attaching his name to it. AttleeCare is a terrible name for the NHS.

Obama didn't call it Obamacare though. It was a name cooked up by critics of the idea and general media wags which was catchy so everyone adopted it and started using it.

Parts 1, 2 and 3

Gee whiz, what a simple, comprehensible system. I can see why ordinary working people without qualifications in accounting love it so much.

For whatever flaws it may have I feel incredibly lucky to have a system where for me as the end user everything just comes down to an extra column on my monthly paycheck denoting National Insurance contribution and then I can go to the doctor any time I want for nontrivial issues.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on August 14, 2016, 02:06:55 am
Yeah that's the dream.


I have the same expense on my paycheck for all the good it does me
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 14, 2016, 07:20:18 am
Finally met one of those types that think America invented slavery and is therefore responsible for all of it ever and can never be forgiven.

I never actually believed these people exist. But they do tend to defy expectation.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 15, 2016, 11:05:37 am
(http://imgur.com/zAMHzHi.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 19, 2016, 06:41:10 pm
Well, Ink is gone for a few days. So here's the politics until he's back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHeSC_Ws5Ic
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on August 19, 2016, 10:20:14 pm
Don't do all of the drugs always, kids.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 19, 2016, 10:25:14 pm
Indeed.

Someone already achieved Hunter S. Thompson status. It was Hunter S. Thompson. That game is over now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Mechaghostman2 on August 20, 2016, 02:26:05 pm
Hillary is an incredibly corrupt shill with poor judgement, Trump is a demagogue and a bigot with no experience at all, Gary Johnson supports the TPP, and Jill Stein is against GMO's, vaccines, and nuclear power.

This election sucks, I'm staying home.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on August 20, 2016, 04:37:11 pm
Why do not you run for president then?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on August 20, 2016, 05:15:56 pm
I'd argue that the sentiment that GMOs are often used by people like Monsanto to increase their power in a grey-legal manner is a bit more nuanced than just "being against GMOs", but I also really don't agree with a lot of other stuff she says so. Whatever. She can take a hike.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on August 20, 2016, 06:05:16 pm
Yeah. I am not against GMO but I am against some practices of GMO companies. Though I think that targeting those issues is better then just going after all GMOs. That I think wont help anyway in the long run. The turnaround, cost and precision on gen manipulation is getting cheaper and cheaper.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on August 21, 2016, 09:42:13 am
We should require people to act like people.

By force if necessary.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 21, 2016, 02:54:30 pm
The way people act is pretty context-specific though.

It turns out that the way people act when they're in charge of a huge company is different to how they act when they're just some schlub on the street.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on August 31, 2016, 10:23:52 pm
http://www.theonion.com/article/tim-kaine-found-riding-conveyor-belt-during-factor-53580
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 01, 2016, 01:13:41 pm
I imagined exactly the article's picture before even clicking.

He's so adorable.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 01, 2016, 02:34:12 pm
I wonder if as Vice President he gets the Trans Am, or if Biden is keeping it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 01, 2016, 03:24:03 pm
Who even reads the Onion anymore now that Hillary owns it? And before some sucker says "oh it's still fine"; scroll down two stories.

Cutting political parody, hmm?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 01, 2016, 05:35:21 pm
Oooooh yeah that did happen
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 01, 2016, 05:44:51 pm
They're still good at photoshop, though.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 02, 2016, 05:00:23 am
Yeah maybe they can photoshop Hillary into the Oval Office this November.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 02, 2016, 08:05:34 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3BQGwESVbU

Good video.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 08, 2016, 03:10:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOT_BoGpCn4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuUd4qHTVZ0
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 09, 2016, 07:01:03 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVznerpOkTI

All of our choices are ****ing retarded.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on September 09, 2016, 12:03:29 pm
Window-licking, pants on head, booger eating, potato packing, lunchbox toting, finger sniffing, inbred retarded. I think I'll vote absentee just to avoid the lines.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 10, 2016, 11:55:46 am
But ChiToes, they literally aren't people. They are some kind of sub-human race that we shouldn't care about.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on September 10, 2016, 12:19:33 pm
Window-licking, pants on head, booger eating, potato packing, lunchbox toting, finger sniffing, inbred retarded. I think I'll vote absentee just to avoid the lines.

-Lego

Hey,leave us  potato pickers alone.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 10, 2016, 10:14:11 pm
My lunchbox and I will fight you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 11, 2016, 04:44:58 am
*PAT used a Pokeball on Lunchbox*

...

...

...

*Lunchbox escaped!*

(http://i.imgur.com/KjaVz5L.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 11, 2016, 12:25:25 pm
https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200/video/1

Nothing to see here.  Move along, people.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 11, 2016, 04:05:11 pm
I'd be interested to know what you base your Parkinson's diagnosis on, Dr. ChiToes.

The spin I'm predicting is heat stroke, and that anyone picking on her for attending a 9/11 commemoration is an *******.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 11, 2016, 04:08:46 pm
You can't make this **** up.

Her health is going to have to be addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlRP8WTsp5k

Also they're saying she has pneumonia. After that break she took. :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 11, 2016, 04:54:51 pm
Here's the official line.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-has-pneumonia-doctor-says-228012

People don't have pneumonia for four years.  If that's what's happening here, it would be something separate from researching a medication four years ago.

Secret Service and other staff blocking off Clinton from onlookers implies that they were aware of the current situation, it's severity, and how it would be portrayed, not that it was an ongoing situation.

All that said, yeah, this is bad.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 11, 2016, 06:46:01 pm
Now there's a plan I'm happy to endorse.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 11, 2016, 11:14:51 pm
Bernie pls
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on September 12, 2016, 12:56:01 am
Well this fresh new bull**** won't be spread as thinly as the last of the butter for the next two months. 68 year-old woman gets a bit faint standing for 90 minutes in the heat, will the line of supermen that have run America thus far be ruined by a fallible woman?

I think the fact that she went to her daughter's house instead of a hospital means she's basically fine. It's not like pneumonia is some rare degenrative disease.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 12, 2016, 03:54:42 am
Yeah this honestly sounds like some grade A conspiracy crap.

Even if Hillary does have Parkinsons and they're covering it up, it's the 21st century. People can and do live productive lives despite suffering from Parkinsons. It's treatable to an extent and many people can manage the symptoms and live relatively normal lives, so it wouldn't exactly disqualify someone from being president. Certainly no more than suferring from Alzeimer's, which we have anecdotal evidence makes you one of the most popular presidents of your era.

People have also diagnosed Donald Trump with various mental disorders from watching videos of him. No credible evidence for that either. Like Ink said, an old lady falling down after standing in the heat for 90 minutes (while running a presidential campaign so probably not sleeping enough) isn't exactly a mindblowing revelation.


Edit: JUST DISCOVERED, video evidence that Trump has a degenerative nervous system disorder characterised by having absolutely no rhythm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbkGAlqxFzQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 12, 2016, 04:27:33 am
my feet hurt

i'm bored

this music is too loud

i wish i was at trump tower firing apprentices
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 12, 2016, 10:13:33 am
HIGH ENERGY
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 12, 2016, 10:23:22 pm
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

Someone please make it stop
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 12, 2016, 11:23:33 pm
Vermin Supreme.  We deserve Vermin Supreme.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 13, 2016, 04:13:34 am
Haha, good old "totally innocent Pepe" being co-opted by white supremacists.

I wonder if the people who wrote that article know the original 4chan maymay came from a comic about pissing with your underwear pulled all the way down around your ankles.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 13, 2016, 08:11:11 am
I didn't know where he originally came from, but I always hated that stupid frog.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 13, 2016, 11:24:54 am
I am ready to vote Patman33 at this point.

AHHH! AHHH!!

*runs around the room pointing at each of you*

SOMEONE SAID IT. ACCORDING TO OLD LAW IT IS NOW TRUE. I AM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

(http://i.imgur.com/f3qwKpb.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on September 13, 2016, 01:31:40 pm
I have been looking in a bit to old Roman politics. Later republican era. Darn that was crazy. No wonder they related everything to which year which Consul was in power. Almost wish it was back to that era now... On the second though.. Some of Thumps populist crap actually mirror some of it... In a really bad way... Yeah... Likely better if people do not get assassinated left and right and lynched by mobs...
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 13, 2016, 04:46:51 pm
Nah, but sticking Hillary's head on a dead guy will be sexist.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 13, 2016, 04:49:44 pm
Goddamn microaggressions.

(http://i.imgur.com/NUnezac.png)

lololololol
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 13, 2016, 04:52:52 pm
I didn't know where he originally came from, but I always hated that stupid frog.

FOR YOU.

(http://i.imgur.com/gq5vjpO.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 13, 2016, 05:36:48 pm
This **** is cultural appropriation. As usual they take one of our (internet people's) things and assign their own meaning to it and totally disrespect the culture it came from. That's all this ever seems to be to them: a treasure trove of things that aren't theirs, which they can trot out before the public and can assign whatever meaning they want.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 13, 2016, 06:16:19 pm
Tell that to the people the Nazi's stole the swastikas from eh
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 13, 2016, 06:34:05 pm
Trying to take on internet ****posters is just such a stupid idea that only the geniuses who thought Hillary Clinton would make a good or alive President could have thought of it.

(http://i.imgur.com/cw9H0PI.png)

You can't fight this.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 13, 2016, 09:20:25 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/ZvKGih0.jpg)

Haven't looked them all up, it'd make my headache worse.  There's exaggeration in either direction.  But still.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 13, 2016, 09:23:22 pm
lolololol

Quote from: Bill Clinton
Well, if it is it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors, because frequently, not frequently, rarely, but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing’s happened to her where she got severely dehydrated

ALSO GUCCIFER TWO: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 13, 2016, 09:32:40 pm
I want to see someone do a diagram of that sentence the way we used to back in english class.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 14, 2016, 05:33:34 am
http://www.northcrane.com/2016/09/12/rumors-gone-wild-hillary-clinton-had-body-double-sent-in-after-fainting-spell-posed-for-candid-photo/

OH MY GAAAAAAAH!!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on September 14, 2016, 05:54:00 am
haha, do these people have no conception of things like angles and lighting?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 14, 2016, 11:09:51 am
I dunno. But I've decided to change my vote to Harambe McHarambeface.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 14, 2016, 03:34:41 pm
Feels good man.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 14, 2016, 04:21:06 pm
Feels good man.

Feels Shadilay (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAx0t3O55Zo) man.

This frog is starting to get a out of control.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 14, 2016, 04:27:58 pm
I saw a quote on reddit by a user:

Quote from: art_comma_yeah_right
"Blessed are the memes, for they shall inherit the earth." - Me 9:14
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on September 14, 2016, 05:51:48 pm
http://theboomerbible.com/

Oh, we are going to make fake bible style quotes? Cool....


Anyhow... life sucks, you die... bad day here... carry on.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 14, 2016, 07:09:15 pm
At this point, if Bernie became president, I would genuinely believe in a God like force in the universe.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 15, 2016, 12:46:23 am
Haha, twitter guy thinks Italians aren't white.

What an idiot.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on September 15, 2016, 12:49:53 am
Quote
Is it my imagination, or is Clinton losing a fight with a cartoon frog?

On the internet maybe. If you only listen to the internet, Sanders was a shoe-in not only for the Democrat nomination, but also the president and eventually God. And it was Ron Paul last election.

Or there was no way the Tories could win again.

I hope that the vast majority of people have never heard of that damn frog. If this does become a deciding point of the campaign (which is even more stupid than Clinton having Syphilis/Parkinson's/Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) then Western civilisation is dead. We have gone beyond satire and into the cold, harsh post-modern reality. How can a society survive when everything is a reference to everything else?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 15, 2016, 07:50:31 am
On the other hand, the internet was a 100% Trump-zone. If it worked for him, maybe Clinton isn't too powerful to meme away.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 15, 2016, 10:08:22 am
On the internet maybe. If you only listen to the internet, Sanders was a shoe-in not only for the Democrat nomination, but also the president and eventually God. And it was Ron Paul last election.

Eh, I disagree with this assessment. That's a very shallow interpretation of what we saw. And frankly, a lot of the online support for Sanders was coming from people that aren't even old enough to vote. He had a hype train and while a lot of us may have hoped, we knew how it was going to go down. Same with Ron Paul. It's a hope, not a serious determination.

On the internet... they're injecting all of this internet stuff into the election because they can manipulate it easily for the public. Like you say, the public doesn't know much about memes. They know the occasional mention of "weird sites" on the internet that cater to this stuff. It is all manipulation and I wouldn't even be surprised if it is just a long-con to clamp down on the internet even more. They've got people convinced that 4chan is a haven for white supremacists, rather than one of the last bastions for them to have their goofy-ass discussions about things that will never come to pass.

I find myself forced to defend these groups in the same way I find myself forced to defend Trump sometimes. They are *******s, yes. They are also being clearly misrepresented and having their freedoms pushed further and further toward the brink. I don't agree with a damn word this minority of white supremacists say. But they have a right to say it and driving them off sites like 4chan (where they are still a tiny minority) only serves to harden those wild stances they hold and forces these groups underground.

And this is especially irritating because people I know and respect, people that I know are highly intelligent... they refuse to understand what I am doing. They're so hardened in their positions that they won't see objectivity. I am not supporting white supremacy and **** you for saying that. I am supporting the idea that these people, even with their deplorable opinions, deserve the same right to voice what they think that anyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less. It's simple. It's the system we are supposed to be champions of. I reject a system that would take the voice away from those that are clearly in the wrong. Let them speak. Let them be heard. And let them fade back into the background where they belong once they've spoken their piece.

This is what I think my whole gripe is with this election and previous ones. I am finally starting to grasp some of where my anger comes from. Because I don't like that I find myself coming to the defense of people I'd rather not give the time of day to. But... well, I don't think it is right to let Hillary tell me that these people are bad and why, while also supporting the idea that social justice is an acceptable way to combat these groups. This is just the same thing those hate groups did back in the day, but reversed and hidden behind another mask of "doing a public good".

If these racists are as bad as everyone says, let them speak. Let their crappy, tired ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas like they always, inevitably have.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 15, 2016, 10:29:17 am
I agree with what you ay Pat, but can we please stop using "social justice" as a term to describe fringe groups and an obviously dumb ideology.

I mean, look at the words there. I think we can all agree we want a just society. The very fact that social justice now seems to be turning into an insult is handing a victory to that minority you're talking about who hang out on 4chan posting smug frog memes. "Regressive left" is a much better way to label what you're talking about than "social justice" is. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 15, 2016, 10:50:41 am
"Social justice" is what they call themselves. You're not some kind of ****lord who'd tell them what to identify as, are you?

Don't fight over this because arguing semantics is stupid. If the tumblrs call themselves social justice and the smug frogs call the tumblrs social justice then there's no point trying to say it's something else, since those are the only people who use the expression these days anyway. Trying to use it the way you want went out in the 50's or even earlier.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 15, 2016, 11:02:52 am
"Social justice" is what they call themselves. You're not some kind of ****lord who'd tell them what to identify as, are you?

Don't fight over this because arguing semantics is stupid. If the tumblrs call themselves social justice and the smug frogs call the tumblrs social justice then there's no point trying to say it's something else, since those are the only people who use the expression these days anyway. Trying to use it the way you want went out in the 50's or even earlier.

Because sometimes someone like a politician (Like say, our Lord and Saviour Bernie Sanders) might use the word with it's older connotation and then a bunch of ****lords on the internet jump to the wrong conclusion.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 15, 2016, 11:12:44 am
If he knows Pepe's secret neo-nazi history then he should know social justice means these days.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 15, 2016, 11:18:48 am
I come up against this a lot and it seems like a national difference as well.

I know plenty of people in the UK who describe themselves as feminists who hold "normal" positions about equal rights etc. From this angle it seems like the US just has a problem with loud regressive feminists.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 15, 2016, 11:23:36 am
From this angle it seems like the US just has a problem with loud regressive feminists.

(http://i.imgur.com/u6dOzF1.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 15, 2016, 11:25:33 am
Hey maybe it's as if labels aren't actually important.




lol j/k feminist transqueer intersectional femme-poc butch androboi here, u?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 15, 2016, 11:28:00 am
im a queef
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 15, 2016, 11:30:50 am
I think honestly the "just accept the meaning has changed" crowd are depriving themselves of a pretty powerful weapon against the people they claim to be opposed to.

If "feminist" now means regressive leftist who thinks society needs to be restratified based on privilege or thinks white men are all rapists-in-waiting then feminist starts getting used as an insult by people who oppose that ideology, but the target of the insult don't consider it an insult and actually consider it a badge of honour (and it justifies what they're doing because of the historical connotations of the world, proto-feminism resulted in women's sufferage after all). If instead people got their **** together and decided that actually the word means what it used to mean, someone who believes that people should be treated equally regardless of gender (we'll put aside what being treated equally entails) and tells the regressivos they're *not* feminists then you've delivered a sick burn and delegitimised their whole project.

The perjorative use of the word feminist is mostly a way for people who don't like regressive lefties to signal their beliefs to each other, rather than a useful term for discussions that are actually going to change anyone's mind.

Hey maybe it's as if labels aren't actually important.

Labels are important a lot of the time. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it isn't real :U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 15, 2016, 11:39:47 am
Language use bifurcates even between small groups.  With a population of billions, the issue is probably worthy of an entire field of academic study.  Fascinating stuff.

I think the position on "social justice" that people gravitate to is along the lines of "if social justice is different from justice, then it cannot be just."  I think that relegates the term to some sort of Orwellian newspeak.

Can't tell if you're trying to make a joke with that first point but here you go anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_social_science

Second point I don't really understand what you're trying to say, could you rephrase it?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 15, 2016, 11:41:40 am
WHOA GUYS!

RUSSIAN HACKERS GONNA STEAL THE ELECTION!

This new angle. Where does it come from? Why?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on September 17, 2016, 01:40:08 am
I would like to point out that you can not trust what you see on media on the internet. Yes. Sure you may see your facebook page just post information that all seems to agree with you. Or at least railed you up. But it is because it is programmed to. The algorithms that selects what you view are ether focused on making sure you are as engaged as possible or finding information that you are most pleased about. And that goes both with social media and search results. Google is not about helping you find the truth. But what your looking for. And on top of that humans are by nation looking for information that is confirming there world view while disregarding anything that goes against it.

In the end the result of the current media landscape is that it polarize people more and that people find fringe groups to be the norm. Not to mention that many of these fringe groups have a vested interest in trying to construct strawmans and demonise the opposing views.

In the end I think we just need to start shooting down bad arguments rather then trying to bunch up everyone in to one big group and then attack a strawman that we have made in the image of that group. It is very dishonest.

And is there really a group that call them self as the regressive left?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 17, 2016, 02:28:55 am
Yeah, you guys have no idea who pays me. 8)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 17, 2016, 04:27:57 am
The movie theater.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 17, 2016, 09:59:05 am
Some guy in the alley behind the movie theater?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 17, 2016, 10:49:45 am
Warmer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9gqStFxAo4

This election.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 17, 2016, 11:27:36 am
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/trump-tv-pools-erase-video-hotel-tour-228284

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1nLyjqu6Yk
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 17, 2016, 11:54:12 am
Neat!

Babby media is so cute.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 18, 2016, 02:51:06 am
Related video from that: George Lucas Salad Unboxing Video #1

Whatever universe we live in it isn't one of the "normal" ones.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 18, 2016, 06:37:36 am
We are definitely in one of the Wednesday-flavored universes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 18, 2016, 11:09:49 am
(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/VdiXyFX.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 19, 2016, 03:11:21 am
Yeah definitely pneumonia.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 19, 2016, 10:15:45 pm
(http://imgur.com/wRpR99q.gif)

And on the Clinton side, Congress is now investigating archived reddit posts.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on September 20, 2016, 12:40:09 am
That gif misses the best part: "Whoop-whoop-whoop. Move it chowder-head."
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 20, 2016, 06:41:25 am
(http://i.imgur.com/TBmKNIL.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 20, 2016, 09:24:58 am
(http://i.imgur.com/zNZhaQ5.png)

 :o
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 20, 2016, 11:19:31 am
fstop herb

Gotta put a kibosh on that legalised fmarijuana.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 20, 2016, 03:09:19 pm
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ahmad-rahami-bemoans-hospital-lawyer

This is the kind of stuff that scares me about Trump.  Complaining about basic due process and human decency.  I guess he'd prefer gunning him down in the street or throwing him in a cell with an untreated wound.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 20, 2016, 03:41:57 pm
fstop herb

Gotta put a kibosh on that legalised fmarijuana.

Lurk you realise F-stop was the name for the concept prototype that was going to be Portal 2 before idiot playtesters complained about the lack of portals?

Is Gaben now issuing press releases through former Presidents???
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 20, 2016, 04:19:31 pm
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ahmad-rahami-bemoans-hospital-lawyer

This is the kind of stuff that scares me about Trump.  Complaining about basic due process and human decency.  I guess he'd prefer gunning him down in the street or throwing him in a cell with an untreated wound.

Oh man.

Don't tell Pat that you can go to hospital for free if you set off a bomb somewhere. He's still trying to deal with Obamacare.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 20, 2016, 05:20:08 pm
One day maybe I can live in the comfort of prison.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 21, 2016, 01:05:36 am
Better somehow get extradited to Norway then. The American system will have you chained to 70 black guys and 21 Mexicans and growing tobacco in Florida for 2 cents an hour.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 21, 2016, 04:30:03 pm
Can confirm, being in Florida is a form of corporal punishment.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 21, 2016, 06:50:28 pm
Well, at least I've found the drinking game for the first debate:

https://imgur.com/Gu1Tu7I.gifv
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 24, 2016, 07:39:38 pm
So that's like in two days

MONDAY MONDAY MONDAY come out to the THUNDERDOME to watch two geriatrics try and show why the other is actually WORSE than they are!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 24, 2016, 11:16:02 pm
Two candidates enter.

All hope leaves.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 25, 2016, 06:37:11 am
Every time they mention Putin, we play Russian roulette.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 25, 2016, 11:04:25 am
Oh also, friendly reminder of your hopes and dreams:

(http://i.imgur.com/DQJaaHm.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 25, 2016, 11:36:38 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htt91G2qDwM

Quote
“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump.  It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, whoever disagreed, whoever challenged him — it is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.”

What great motivation to run for office.  And that's just what the people on his own team say.

Oh, and I almost forgot.  Remember that friday afternoons are the dumping grounds for stories people don't want to get much attention.  This friday it was Obama vetoing the bill to let 9/11 families sue Saudi Arabia, and Ted Cruz swallowing his ego and endorsing Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 25, 2016, 12:29:57 pm
THEY WILL BOW BEFORE THE EMPEROR AS HE CLEANSES THE EARTH WITH FIRE.

I WILL MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Gungnir on September 25, 2016, 12:31:42 pm
Darn polish internet won't let me watch that video grumble grumble guess i need to find a proxy.

I'm excited for the debate though. Gonna be a fun ride.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 25, 2016, 12:39:53 pm
What an appropriate way to phrase it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s62msrPjSVY
(idea brazenly stolen from Pat)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 25, 2016, 07:30:17 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/qQD6ClR.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 26, 2016, 06:58:28 am
NPR is discussing "excrement-posting" and I continue to hate everything.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 26, 2016, 07:17:24 am
Jesus... these people, they are setting themselves up for their own worst nightmare. They see these people mouthing off online and think it represents a real-world threat. This might not be entirely related.

The racists lost, people. They've got small corners of the internet to themselves and a few houses scattered across the continental United States. Let them have their free, hateful speech and let's get on with the rest of this stuff.

Or, you know, recognize that maybe they are engaging in the hyperbolic sort of discussion that my generation and those after it are known for.

Nah, let's just shut it down instead. Bottling this up and refusing to allow these people to have an outlet will work out just fine. :-\
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 26, 2016, 07:31:04 am
Pat it's not unreasonable for people to want to be vigilant. Yeah, there have been big strides made in fighting racism and other forms of prejudice in the last few decades but they could easily come back.

The recent wave of hatred targeted at Eastern Europeans following the Brexit vote is a pretty good indication that people will look to what they see and hear around them to validate beliefs they may not have been voicing or acting on previously. I'm not advocating censorship and I think that the ****storms of public shaming which arise on social media sometimes (like the woman who lost her job for making a joke about AIDS) is reprehensible, but I think it's up to everyone to be intolerant of intolerance (hur). Racists can have freedom on the internet, and we're all free to call them pieces of **** and make their lives difficult. These changes happen due to social pressure, and the pressure needs to be kept on, one way or another.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 26, 2016, 07:47:15 am
I should clarify that NPR brought this up to explain Palmer Luckey's political activity and why everyone hates Oculus Rift now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 26, 2016, 08:33:50 am
Racists can have freedom on the internet, and we're all free to call them pieces of **** and make their lives difficult.

I don't agree with the "make their lives difficult" part. That's you putting your nose where it doesn't belong. You're better off ignoring them, rather than hardening their stance and making them ornery.

Now, if they're causing trouble or being a disturbance, that is another issue and one for the authorities. Otherwise, I see no virtue in the public shaming of people that hold opinions privately and are otherwise not going out of their way to impose their beliefs. Going after those people because you somehow found out they have a poor opinion is just zealotry veiled behind cries of justice.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 26, 2016, 09:36:33 am
Well I am just refering to cases of people who can actually go out and do something with their bigoted beliefs. Aside from anything else attacking the "peaceful racists" will just make them harden their stance, like you said.

I'm just advocating a low tolerance for public displays of this kind of thing. I'm not sure where your line is for people holding opinions privately. If someone I worked with or was in a social situation with said something racist then I think in most cases I would be inclined to challenge them. There is a definite breed of person who thinks if people are silent when they say something hateful then those people are agreeing with them. This isn't a net police thing, just personal attitudes.

anyway, here's a thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Zxc4WuJ6Q
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 26, 2016, 09:46:49 am
wiggidy wiggidy
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 26, 2016, 05:56:02 pm
SOON
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 26, 2016, 08:57:18 pm
Well that was that.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 26, 2016, 09:19:53 pm
Bigly.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 27, 2016, 03:04:12 am
Just watched a short highlight reel. I feel like in a formal debate setting Trump's tactics don't seem quite so effective and he comes over a bit pathetic. The bullying worked in the Republican debates where he shared the floor with about a million other people and could constantly interject but Hillary does a good job of not appearing phased by his horse**** and tends to call him out when he deflects the issue or starts talking about something completely different.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 27, 2016, 05:39:08 am
I thought they came out kind of even.

Neither of them had anything really great to say. They both had moments where they looked good, and moments where they looked bad. I don't think Trump was nearly as incoherent as some people are saying, frankly I just think they weren't listening. Then again, I've been listening to all of these speeches for over a year now, so I'm familiar with the way these people speak and phrase their thoughts.

On Hillary's side, I don't think she was anywhere near as strong as some outlets are spinning it today. She seemed tired most of the time and her energy didn't stack up against her opponent. That said, she definitely gave off more experience in this specific field; however, I'm not sure which one I think could handle people better. They're both mother****ers to have gotten where they are, so I think this category is a bit of a wash.

But Hillary once again came off very condescending, which is a major turn-off for me, but it's no secret that she's the most politically-qualified person on the stage. Trump was blustery and too unfocused, not good skills for the Presidency, but I still like some of his approach and what it does to the establishment. Trump had a few statements against Hillary that were absolutely devastating and she never really came up with much to match that, outside of the tired (lol) "you're lying" shtick.

The spin will determine the win.

My plan is to commit suicide on election day so I don't have to actually vote. Gonna put my insides on the outside for America!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 27, 2016, 09:13:24 am
"Low energy" is a problem now?  It seemed to me that she was trying to appear as the calm and level headed option on the stage opposed to Trump.  And condescension is a perfectly reasonable reaction to a steady stream of bold faced lies and constant interruptions.

Trump would earn a massive amount of credit with me if he could ever admit that he's anything other than perfect.  On discriminatory business practices 40 years ago, on the war in Iraq, on the birther stuff, on taxes, on being insulting to women.  There's easy outs on most of these to set the issue aside and move on, like Clinton did with emails.  But no, he has to quadruple down.  I get that pretending to be perfect in everything he does is Trump's brand, and maybe it works for the average voter, the common clay of the New West.  But to me it makes him look vain, petty, and near pathological.

Meanwhile Clinton was a generic Democratic politician with generic democratic talking points and generic democratic flaws.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Mr. Wizard on September 27, 2016, 11:08:17 am
"That makes me smart"  8)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on September 27, 2016, 12:04:08 pm
To be fair both of them were fairly restrained it seemed like. Even Donald's typical bombastic manner of speech was toned down pretty significantly, aside from his occasional off-turn "wrong"s.

As someone who kind of checked out of the election a while ago, it seemed pretty boring.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 27, 2016, 01:23:00 pm
"Low energy" is a problem now?  It seemed to me that she was trying to appear as the calm and level headed option on the stage opposed to Trump.

She can do that without acting like a corpse dug out of the earth and placed behind a podium, especially against an opponent like Trump. Literally anyone can look calm and level-headed next to Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 27, 2016, 03:01:48 pm
If Clinton looked like a corpse, then Trump looked like a coke fiend. *sniff*

Play the "doesn't she look tired" card all you want, but Trump flopped on multiple issues.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 27, 2016, 03:49:24 pm
Play the "doesn't she look tired" card all you want, but Trump flopped on multiple issues.

I'll be sure to rescind the part where I said that he had a great night and nailed every issue.

OH ****ING WAIT. :|

Let the bitch take her licks, she can handle it without your help.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 27, 2016, 04:07:25 pm
Can we vote for Joe Biden yet?

Please?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 27, 2016, 06:04:58 pm
Biden/Warren vs Rubio/Kasich.  But no, this is what we get.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 27, 2016, 06:33:47 pm
Biden?

Sandman
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 27, 2016, 08:01:47 pm
Biden/Warren vs Rubio/Kasich.  But no, this is what we get.

It's not the election that we want or need; it's the election that we deserve.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 28, 2016, 11:43:10 am
With all the identity politics, I actually forgot that this election was a one-percenter vs. someone even richer.

Good job CIA.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on September 28, 2016, 12:27:39 pm
Racists can have freedom on the internet, and we're all free to call them pieces of **** and make their lives difficult.

I don't agree with the "make their lives difficult" part. That's you putting your nose where it doesn't belong. You're better off ignoring them, rather than hardening their stance and making them ornery.

Now, if they're causing trouble or being a disturbance, that is another issue and one for the authorities. Otherwise, I see no virtue in the public shaming of people that hold opinions privately and are otherwise not going out of their way to impose their beliefs. Going after those people because you somehow found out they have a poor opinion is just zealotry veiled behind cries of justice.

I was thinking over what's been said and here's my thoughts

If people hold racist opinions and people call them out,is there a chance they may change their minds?

Or should we ignore racism as long there's no chance of it influencing anyone else?

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 28, 2016, 02:59:53 pm
Well I mean, they can't help it, can they? But, there's nothing you can do about it. So, er, I'd kill 'em.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 28, 2016, 03:34:56 pm
I was thinking over what's been said and here's my thoughts

If people hold racist opinions and people call them out,is there a chance they may change their minds?

Or should we ignore racism as long there's no chance of it influencing anyone else?

Ohh! Good thoughts!

I think both are correct. Because you are right that it is worth trying if there is a chance to change a mind.

We should absolutely call people out and try to talk with them about what they believe. But some people aren't going to change and/or some people are just a nuisance about it but otherwise harmless, and there has to come a time to stop and move on to more promising pastures.

It's a difficult balance. And it seems difficult to talk about degrees of racism, if that even exists.

But again, I've got problems with people taking the initiative to "dole out some justice" to the ignorant set. Yeah, Kathy is pretty racist, but do we really need to make it the point of our lives to make sure every moment of hers is filled with public shame? I mean, she's not even trying that hard to put down the ethnic groups she hates. 95% of her life is spent doing the same **** the rest of us do, and some small part of that remaining 5% is stuck on a dead end ideology. You can leave Kathy be.

David Duke-tier people on the other hand? Sure, we can shame them. But I mean, I think people like that thrive on public shaming... they're like trolls. @_@
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 28, 2016, 07:18:47 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/AArcqlp.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/AArcqlp.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/AArcqlp.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/AArcqlp.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 28, 2016, 08:08:09 pm
I don't know that I support the whole public shaming thing, but I don't think the point is changing opinions.  I think the point is to say that whatever opinion isn't welcome.  And I guess it could be useful for flagging someone who is hateful to the point of actually being dangerous.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Haseri on September 29, 2016, 01:20:24 am
Well I mean, they can't help it, can they? But, there's nothing you can do about it. So, er, I'd kill 'em.

I think being racist is a learned trait. If so, it can be un-learned. The problem is, by the time you're an adult, it's mostly entrenched. Though there is that video around about an ex-KKK Grand Wizard who was basically turned with kindness. So it's hard, but not impossible.

And it seems difficult to talk about degrees of racism, if that even exists.

I think there is. There's a difference between my parents' making fun of Greek names whenever they come up and their distress at the local Traveller group; to my grandparent's post-Empire "these people are different but they're basically alright"; to my great-grandparents using terms like "fuzzy-wuzzies", although according to my dad, there wasn't any actual proper hatred there, just ignorance.

I think a big problem happens when people lump benign ignorance - people can't be blamed for not caring about everything all the time - with genuine hatred.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 29, 2016, 04:36:39 am
Though there is that video around about an ex-KKK Grand Wizard who was basically turned with kindness. So it's hard, but not impossible.

The KKK are a bunch of LARPing dweenies. It probably wasn't that hard.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on September 29, 2016, 11:01:59 am
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKnxwpUqCkdb5Li/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 29, 2016, 05:20:46 pm
Wait a minute.

I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A JOKE! (http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/pepe-the-frog.html)

The Jewish Anti-defamation League is SERIOUSLY a real thing?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 29, 2016, 05:50:25 pm
You've been spending too much time in parts of the internet where everything is a joke.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/28/495816963/pepe-the-frogs-long-strange-journey-from-internet-meme-to-hate-symbol

Quote
At this point, views have diverged. Some still think of Pepe as an Internet joke. Others are gleeful that the joke has managed to ensnare the mainstream news and politicians. And a third group takes him seriously.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 29, 2016, 07:57:56 pm
Quote
And a third group takes him seriously.

Are they talking about themselves?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 29, 2016, 08:05:09 pm
(http://imgur.com/2u7MGEK.jpg)
Play. The. Game.

Read. The. Article.

Play. The. Audio.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 30, 2016, 05:05:10 am
The picture that Ink linked it this:
(http://i.imgur.com/ErTG7No.gif)

His implication being that I didn't read the article because of the nature of my question. It was one of a couple ways to go with it. In the image, Reggie (from Nintendo) is telling Geoff (from GameTrailers) to play the game before judging it like they always do with Nintendo stuff.

What I said was a joke, mainly. Satisfied with the overall result.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on September 30, 2016, 02:42:10 pm
Yes, the implication is that I'm going to beat Pat like a rented journalist for his sass.

Because I care.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 30, 2016, 03:52:33 pm
Yes, the implication is that I'm going to beat Pat like a rented journalist for his sass.

Because I care.

>not wanting to watch the world burn and spite the future for petty, personal reasons
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 30, 2016, 03:54:38 pm
Gee whizz Chitoes. For someone who ostensibly believes in giving everyone a fair shout, and looking at the facts and using reason you sure do like dredging up dumb media articles about memes or regressive leftie twaddle or whatever.

You're a smart guy. Maybe you've noticed that big news organisations latch onto whatever happens to be drifting through the public conciousness and spin it into sensationalist articles. Pepe is a natural fit for this because he's silly and bizzare and funny enough to be interesting to a broad range of consumers, but importantly, he can be linked directly to serious, newsworthy stories like Donald Trump and white supremacy. That way news outlets can get people to look at ads without appearing to compromise their journalistic integrity.

>not wanting to watch the world burn and spite the future for petty, personal reasons

Shiggedy diggedy.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on September 30, 2016, 04:32:48 pm
>not wanting to watch the world burn and spite the future for petty, personal reasons

Shiggedy diggedy.

We were already spited by the past. It's only fair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 30, 2016, 05:10:12 pm
Thanks Sam, that was hilarious.  You've clearly got that Scott Adams meme down pat, 'spot the "gee whiz" tell for cognitive dissonance.' 

What the **** is a meme?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on September 30, 2016, 05:14:53 pm
He that's kind of an interesting question. When does something turn from small internet joke to meme
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on September 30, 2016, 07:07:06 pm
may-may

Also...

>not wanting to watch the world burn and spite the future for petty, personal reasons

Shiggedy diggedy.

We were already spited by the past. It's only fair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

Lurk with a top-tier post.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 01, 2016, 02:45:11 am
In the original meaning of the word it refers pretty much to any cultural item. AKA a piece of information spread between people. So Glob Earth would also be a meme. It not a set of cultural oddities as people often seem to associate it with.

Of course option B is even more what people think today a meme is. This is technically just a subset of memes.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 01, 2016, 03:25:11 am
Obviously I know what a meme is. However I don't know what a "Scott Adams meme" is. Something to do with Dilbert? One of his ebooks where he says women aren't as smart as men?

In the original meaning of the word it refers pretty much to any cultural item. AKA a piece of information spread between people. So Glob Earth would also be a meme. It not a set of cultural oddities as people often seem to associate it with.

Of course option B is even more what people think today a meme is. This is technically just a subset of memes.

Yeah, although the definition of memes popularised by Dawkins is a pretty bad way of thinking about cultural information. Memes just aren't that analogous to genes and no amount of wishful thinking will make them so. I remember reading something some academic wrote about memes and how in his professional opinion a musical ditty of three notes was the minimum length required to be a genuine cultural atom or whatever. Apparently that guy had never heard a doorbell that goes "ding-dong" before.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 01, 2016, 03:51:50 am
Personally I would not throw out the meme concept just yet. After all the interspersing part of it is to view how information it self can have characteristics that makes it more suitable for survival. That a sort of natural selection process acts even on information. But I think is more interesting to compare and contrast memes with genes. Clearly some Memetic information has high degree of survival even if this information is in a select few. Yet something popular now can fade away quickly in time.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 01, 2016, 04:09:50 am
I'm continuing this conversation in Everything Else so this one stays on track.


Vote Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 01, 2016, 08:49:54 am
Remember when I said that bad news often gets dumped on friday afternoons in hopes that nobody notices it?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/trump-deposition-video-release-schedule-228953
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 01, 2016, 12:02:30 pm
This whole mess over a former Miss Universe is amazing.  The story itself isn't really an issue, but Trump's reaction is.  I know this campaign has been completely insane, I know that we're desensitized to this craziness.  But stop for a moment and realize that a major candidate for President of the United States of America has been goaded into going on twitter at 5 in the morning and telling people to watch the sex tape of his former employee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/30/before-6-a-m-donald-trump-proved-hillary-clintons-point-about-his-temperament/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 01, 2016, 12:08:26 pm
But will this be the thing that brings him down?!

*timeloop #115*

But will this be the thing that brings him down?!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 01, 2016, 12:16:02 pm
I'm not saying that this is the final straw to break the camel's back.  I'm saying Trump couldn't be doing a better job of proving the attacks against him to be true if the Clinton campaign had sent him the script.

But then, Trump has been on a downward slide in the polls since the debate, so...
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 01, 2016, 12:38:15 pm
Meh at this point it's just as valid that he DOES have the script
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 04, 2016, 09:45:33 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0nZt1Rtps
(Ignore the clickbait style title on the video)

Trump hit a nerve with Uncle Joe.  I would not want to face the fury of Biden.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 04, 2016, 05:26:58 pm
Anyone else going to watch the VP debate, or is it just me?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 05, 2016, 05:32:53 am
I kept asking you when it was and I guess you thought I was joking because I didn't find out when it was until it was just about over.

I liked Pence more, but he has the chops for radio so it makes sense that his presentation was better. But he looks weird. I don't like Kane that much, somehow he's even more off-putting to me than Pence.

Also that's what Kane (first name not found) looks like!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on October 05, 2016, 05:35:06 am
I don't trust this Kane guy,did you see what he did to his brother Able?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 05, 2016, 05:35:56 am
Disraceful.

Able lives matter, too.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on October 05, 2016, 08:57:37 am
wow now your being Ablelist
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 05, 2016, 09:39:04 am
OHNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

*is banished from dimension*
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 05, 2016, 03:15:49 pm
It's actually spelled "Abel", you retarded spastic cripples.

So we're being "Abelist".
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 05, 2016, 03:19:02 pm
If you sent me messages, Pat, I didn't get them.

Oh, and cnn is running stories about all the videos Trump did with Playboy back in the 90's.  Good times.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on October 05, 2016, 03:22:14 pm
It's actually spelled "Abel", you retarded spastic cripples.

So we're being "Abelist".

LADYM LADYM /Lurk said a bad word!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 05, 2016, 03:46:13 pm
BREAKING: ******* business tycoon lived it up in the 80s and 90s.

More useless junk for the pile.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 05, 2016, 03:57:27 pm
I guess it's payback for the Miss Universe thing.

What's that they say about people who live in glass houses?  They're disgusting losers, winners live in gold and glass towers?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 05, 2016, 04:33:46 pm
Yeah, something like that.

The Miss Universe thing was also dumb and more useless junk for the pile. I don't care about this ****. Attack him for actual reasons, of which there are plenty. A beauty queen getting fat in violation of her contract (and then getting berated by her ******* tycoon boss) isn't a blip on my radar. Is everyone taking crazy pills except for me? Who the **** cares?

Also her porn video was meh. Don't waste your time. 5/10 performance with shoddy production values and bad audio.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 05, 2016, 07:04:50 pm
I don't think Miss Universe herself was the point, it was more illustrating how easy it is to get him angry and sidetracked.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 06, 2016, 05:34:32 am
Again... proving points that were already proven years ago. And doing so with worse and worse examples.

We already know Trump is a doofus. And she's still trying to tell us that all the time. Maybe she really doesn't have anything worthwhile to say about herself.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 06, 2016, 10:16:01 am
honestly just repeating that he's a doofus is probably the most effective tactic. After all it's the one he favours as well, just keep repeating stuff until it becomes true. Of course in this case it already is true so it's a little easier.

Hillary doesn't have to talk about policy because that's clearly not what's going to win this election on either side. If it was Jeb vs Hillary then you'd need to hear their tax plans. Trying to pull out policy and legislation in a debate with Trump is like playing Monopoly with a chimp.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 06, 2016, 03:48:09 pm
Both candidates are so loathsome that the winning strategy is to just shut up and make the campaign as much about the other one as possible.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 06, 2016, 04:01:45 pm
honestly just repeating that he's a doofus is probably the most effective tactic.

No that only works on people that already hate him. Undecided voters are, after all of this time, still undecided. Those tactics have not been working because a lot of the "BREAKING NEWS" discoveries are ultimately not that important to the overall election.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 06, 2016, 04:14:27 pm
Right but if the key to swayiing the undecided voters was policy then they'd all be voting Clinton because Trump doesn't have any policies.

Clearly there is something the undecideds are waiting for. Some X factor that will decide the election. Something nobody has considered before...
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 06, 2016, 04:27:38 pm
You say that pointing out how terrible Trump is has limited impact, but Clinton's been on a pretty steady upward swing ever since the debate.  Her campaign is doing something right, Trump's is doing something wrong, or both.

Also, trivial stuff always ends up getting too much importance in elections.  Remember Romney's dog on the roof and his binders full of women?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 06, 2016, 04:39:23 pm
Or that weird yell thing that guy did.

Or when Bill Clinton and Bob Dole kept constantly holding hands in public. All the horrible politics of today really makes me nostalgic for longproteinstringgate
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 06, 2016, 06:00:17 pm
I see Trump's losses as his own fault. I don't see Hillary's attacks doing very much because she isn't attacking anything worthwhile.

Trump meanwhile can't not keep making a fool of himself. He's killing himself. Hillary isn't exactly some artful campaigner, or else she'd have this in the bag already.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 06, 2016, 07:02:39 pm
Biden, Sanders, or other serious candidates the democrats could have put forward would probably be crushing Trump.

Many of the other republican candidates would probably be crushing Clinton.

If Johnson wasn't permanently stoned, he might be pulling in a decent percentage in the polls.

If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it jumped.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 07, 2016, 05:03:21 am
Well, we'll probably get the candidate we deserve.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 07, 2016, 09:49:43 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

I don't know how much this will hurt Trump.  If you're surprised to hear him talking this way, if you're surprised by his non apology, you haven't been paying attention.  But it sure as hell doesn't help.  This kind of dirt would completely end the campaign and of a normal candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 08, 2016, 04:53:36 am
Well ****, if we're supporting just anyone.

www.PatMan33forPresident.net
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Rysworld on October 08, 2016, 09:15:05 am
I can see where he's coming from. I live in California, not Ohio, it's not as if my vote actually means anything.

Might as well vote for a third party so they can maybe get that federal funding, broaden the marketplace of ideas a bit.

Sometimes that's all you can do.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 08, 2016, 10:09:15 am
California will go for Hillary regardless.  If those preachy rich celebrities really thought the election mattered beyond their career enhancing virtue signaling, then they'd use a morsel of their fortunes and buy yet another home in a swing state and vote from there.

Is it really that unbelievable that celebrities may genuinely not like the prospect of the Donald Trump being president? They may not live the same lives as the majority of people in America but I don't think that stops them being repelled at the idea of that gob****e calling the shots. Also, clearly there would be an unbelievable amount of negative press if rich people started buying second homes in swing states in order to alter the outcome of the election.

Also the fact you constantly use terms like virtue signalling and coginitive dissonance is itself clearly a case of virtue signalling. :Y
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 08, 2016, 10:14:07 am
What racist ****
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 08, 2016, 10:35:55 am
Today, I am wondering if Trump's "power grope" comments are something many of conservatives psychologically have to eternally condemn because they themselves are guilty of the same abuses.  Is it one of those "thou doth protest too much" sort of issues, where some righteous politicians are merely hiding from their own moral iniquity? #notallconservatives  ::)

Where the **** did you pull that from?  Outrage over a candidate bragging bout trying to bang a married woman and forcing himself onto others is just jealousy?  Is this like the argument that the more anti homosexuality someone is the more likely they're in the closet, but with even less to base it on?

Oh, and Jill Stein?  The Doctor from Harvard Medical School who thinks vaccines are dangerous and wifi rots children's brains?  That Jill Stein?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 08, 2016, 11:13:20 am
Also the fact you constantly use terms like virtue signalling and coginitive dissonance is itself clearly a case of virtue signalling. :Y
You just used it to!  Your insistence on attacking me personally at every opportunity is clearly a case of virtue signalling. :Y

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your poor grasp of rhetoric.

Vote Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 08, 2016, 11:17:18 am
You mean Bernie "The Sand is still wet" Sanders?

Oh, and Jill Stein?  The Doctor from Harvard Medical School who thinks vaccines are dangerous and wifi rots children's brains?  That Jill Stein?

wasn't that mostly shown to be kinda hyperbolic and she just feels there should be more research into both fields since it's a pretty pervasive process/tech (vacine/wifi) thats long term effects are generally unstudied?

I mean ****, am I a loon for thinking we need more research on air freshener and how it interacts with our lungs/eyes/nostrils/throat that it has constant contact with as a foreign agent? It's not always crazy it depends on the spin. I'd like to see the recent sources on her 'crazy vaccine denying'
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 08, 2016, 12:04:40 pm
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/mike-pence-donald-trump-229364

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-growing-list-of-republicans-call-for-trump-to-step-down/2016/10/08/2b572628-8ce2-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html

But I'm sure this will all blow over.  Nothing to worry about here.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 08, 2016, 01:29:16 pm
You don't even know what virtue signalling is. 

I study anthropology. I know what virtue signalling is, and even if I didn't the meaning is perfectly clear from context.

As to the rest. In that last response I engaged with the point you were making about celebrities. I disagreed, I gave a couple of reasons why I disagreed. Yeah, the dig about virtue signalling was a cheap shot. Sorry. I was on a hot mic and was engaging in locker room banter.

Fact is, you have a tendency to just post a bunch of opinions about stuff and then get mad when people disagree with you, or else, as has been remarked before, you always seem to shift in your position until it's not clear what you were advocating for in the first place. Nobody wants to play whatever game it is you're playing. Maybe instead of telling me to shut up every time I respond to your latest brainwave about the election you could cool your heels for a bit and observe how everyone else but you manages to have perfectly good dicussions about these topics that don't devolve into a bunch of confusing quote pyramids.

Vote Larry Sanders in the Witney By-Election.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 08, 2016, 03:20:51 pm
The locker room thing was paraphrasing Trump. I should have bolded it to make it clear it was a ridiculous joke.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Gungnir on October 08, 2016, 03:34:06 pm
Right but if the key to swayiing the undecided voters was policy then they'd all be voting Clinton because Trump doesn't have any policies.

Clearly there is something the undecideds are waiting for. Some X factor that will decide the election. Something nobody has considered before...

In general undecided and converts aren't nearly as important as frightening/motivating supporters into going out and voting for the candidate. The US generally has such low voter turnout that changing minds is less effective for getting votes than convincing people that the candidate agrees with the voter's already set views.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 08, 2016, 03:36:03 pm
Welp, they're sure doing a good job of frightening everyone. Including people who live thousands of miles away and can't vote.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 08, 2016, 11:16:28 pm
Saying that a celebrity should move in order to vote in a swing state, an inconvenience to their personal and work lives, seems very silly.  Saying that they should change their primary residence for the sole purpose of voting seems like some kind of fraud.  Issue advocacy by a famous person is likely to have significantly more impact than their single vote.  Putting their money where their mouth is is a legitimate point.

More importantly, I don't give a damn and I'm not sure why you do to such a degree.  There's more than enough issues, controversies, and scandals going on with the campaigns themselves.  I don't see the point in worrying about the actions of an actor or musician.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 09, 2016, 03:55:32 am
Telling people to not vote there conscience is silly. 

What the hell is a conscience exactly, in this context? We're not 8 year olds watching Pinnochio. I think we all know a conscience isn't some magical thing like a soul that gives you an objective ability to tell right from wrong. A person's attitudes can be changed by what they experience, which includes watching PSAs by Joss Whedon. A lot of people's "consciences tell them to do ****ty", reprehensible things like persecute gay people.

Also, Ink is right, advocacy by celebrities is effective. People like Robert Downey are high-status and its basically their job to be likeable and charismatic. What would be silly is underestimating the impact of what Iron Man thinks about the election on a certain portion of the voter base. The first movie came out 8 years ago, that's a decent amount of spellbound 10 year olds who can now vote.

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 09, 2016, 08:12:30 am
It is effective, but it is just the blind leading the blind. Why should his opinion matter? All he has is status and celebrity access, but why is Iron Man a good source? (yes, I know why it does matter, but retards shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway)

I have more educational credentials Robert Downey Jr. does. I'd be willing to bet that I also pay more attention to politics and the election than he does. Yeah he has impact, but so what? He's a actor with a high school diploma. They'll roll him out with whatever pre-recorded message is required and he'll do his thing. It's just a canvas with a message stamped onto it. The artist has no relevance and they are not a trustworthy or reliable source.

This is all a yearning for trustworthy and reliable sources. We have none but we desperately want them. We'll dress any pig up and pretend it is one if we have to.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 09, 2016, 09:03:50 am
This is all a yearning for trustworthy and reliable sources. We have none but we desperately want them. We'll dress any pig up and pretend it is one if we have to.
The reliable trustworthy sources you want don't exist. It's always been tough to get a proper read on a situation and that isn't made easier by the overload of information we have access to these days. You're looking for a really complicated signal through a lot of noise.

What exactly do you want reliable sources to say? Tell you Hillary Clinton or Donald Trumps tax plans? At best they can tell you what they're thinking about doing now. Even under compulsion of some sort of truth serum neither would be able to make any promises or assurances. Even if a candidate were the most honest person in the world, circumstances always change and people have to make compromises so they'd inevitably appear to be liars, or at least inconsistent.

Also, the world is just too big for one person to see the whole picture. We all look through our own keyholes. Some people see more through their keyhole and some are better at piecing together the fragments other people have seen, but nobody has access to everything and nobody can work out what's really going on.

That's my two cents anyway. Just strap yourself in and feel the Gs. 

As for RDJ, yeah, I don't disagree, what does he know? He barely lives in the real world. But someone who needs to get out of a message would be dumb not to use him as a mouthpiece.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 09, 2016, 11:24:44 am
More importantly, I am not sure why you give a damn about me posting about something that you don't give a damn about.  There's more than enough issues, controversies, and scandals going on with the campaigns themselves... but someone posted something trivial you can take issue with again!  ;)

I addressed the current topic because we had been talking about it for a while, then hoped we would move on to something else.  And we sort of have.  If you prefer, next time I can ignore you and skip straight to another topic.  Much of the rest of what you said missed the point I was trying to make, but let's move on.

As far as voting third party, I look at it in a couple of ways.
 
Are you* equally comfortable with either of the major candidates winning?
 
How close are the candidates in the polls?  If it's going to be a landslide one way or another I would feel freer to vote third party, since the thing is locked up no matter how I vote.

Are you being realistic about the chances of your third party candidate?  If you're voting as a way to boost that party's chances in future elections or as a way to send a message, that's great.  If you're voting for a candidate who is polling in single digits and think they can actually win, you're deluding yourself.


*The use of "you" here is meant in a conversational sense, not speaking to anyone specifically.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 09, 2016, 01:40:49 pm
Second debate's tonight at 9.  It'll be basically everywhere but NBC.

To get us all in the right mindset... You're going to love this.  Just love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X48RiKQmFQ
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 09, 2016, 05:49:33 pm
We doing a debate group chat again?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 09, 2016, 05:53:18 pm
We doing a debate group chat again?

You'll need Pat to light the Beacons of Gondor. He gets results.

Edit: Pray for divine intervention.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 10, 2016, 01:13:42 am
Oh darn I was asleep and Mordor won. :U

How'd it go?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 10, 2016, 04:13:59 am
Pray for divine intervention.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on October 10, 2016, 06:05:21 am
Where is the horse and the rider?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 10, 2016, 12:22:08 pm
Probably as good as an immediate take on the debate as anything else:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-late-night-podcast-to-recap-a-very-strange-second-debate/
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 10, 2016, 03:22:36 pm
this election:

(http://i.imgur.com/29RWOQj.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 10, 2016, 06:48:35 pm
I don't get it
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 10, 2016, 07:09:17 pm
Yeah, I have no idea what I'm looking at.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 10, 2016, 09:39:42 pm
Did any of you guys play Mario Sunshine?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 10, 2016, 10:09:29 pm
Yes
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 11, 2016, 02:52:11 am
Is that meant to be the doot doot doo block jumping dimension thing?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 11, 2016, 06:06:04 am
People who don't even recognise the Sand Bird are going to be voting in this election.

Think about THAT.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 11, 2016, 06:30:17 am
I didn't recognise it because the number of red coins was wrong.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 11, 2016, 09:09:51 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_ZosSy_9I
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on October 11, 2016, 02:09:09 pm
I was going to watch the debate of a bunch of you guys.

Turns out I pregamed too hard and passed out about 10 minutes in.

Oops.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 11, 2016, 04:23:18 pm
You missed the best episode of Jerry Springer ever.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 11, 2016, 04:32:39 pm
*obnoxious hooting and hollering*
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on October 11, 2016, 05:45:03 pm
Bought an AR-15 this weekend and a couple extra mags. Pat, since you will ask:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_846047_-1_804154_757785_757784_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

It'll be worth $2000 in a couple years the way things are going... or priceless if is all goes to SH**.

For those that don't know, I am an ex-US Army Military Police Officer. I can field strip this gun on 18 seconds and put it back together in 22, yes, blind-folded.

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 11, 2016, 07:04:52 pm
Neaaaaaaaaaat. @_@
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 12, 2016, 09:39:28 pm
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-any-precedent-for-a-trump-comeback/

So what do you guys think?  Is this all wrapped up for Hillary?  It looks that way, but "Unprecedented" is a good description for this whole stupid trainwreck of an election.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 12, 2016, 10:04:59 pm
Your last sentence summed it up
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 13, 2016, 01:03:38 am
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-women-new-sexual-harassment-stories?CMP=fb_gu

The most tremendous scandal. 24 karat sexual harassment.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Doomsday on October 13, 2016, 05:11:00 am
Let's wait and see if it sticks. Trump is basically ineffable to his supporters and will vote for him no matter what. I remember reading a study about how the majority of Trump supporters are for totalitarian policies. They would not identify as totalitarian and they certainly wouldn't admit to it, but if you look at their views on certain subjects, their views align greatly with that mindset. In other words, they're perfectly fine with Trump because he represents the kind of "security" that you'd get from a despotic leader like Saddam.

Also, hello again. I'm... well, I think I'm back.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 13, 2016, 05:15:46 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H61d_OkIht4

Hello!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on October 13, 2016, 07:26:08 am

Also, hello again. I'm... well, I think I'm back.

Hey there,long time so see

How's it going?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 13, 2016, 02:43:14 pm
So that's what bae means.  I've been wondering for a while now, thanks Pat!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 13, 2016, 03:51:29 pm
Any time, bae!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 13, 2016, 04:25:50 pm
Pat's references are on point and on fleek.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 13, 2016, 05:00:17 pm
For shizzle.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on October 13, 2016, 07:02:37 pm
BAE be hidin' in da club.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE

-Lego
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 14, 2016, 05:58:45 am
That is really cool.

You think that is what was on the chopper they had to strip down after it hit that wall at Bin Laden's compound? The tail section the Pakistanis sold to the Chinese. :u
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 15, 2016, 12:55:39 pm
I wanna bring this up because it involves Clinton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/15/judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker.html

The case by the Sandy Hook Elementary School parents against gun manufacturers and stores has been dismissed. Thank. ****ing. God. This kind of precedent would have been absolutely awful, as it wrongfully places the blame on manufacturers and retail locations and completely ignores the personal responsibility of the person committing the crime.

Any of you remember when Hillary Clinton was smearing Bernie Sanders as "pro-gun" and being out of touch with America and shilling for gun manufacturers. Yeah. Go **** yourself, Hillary. Bernie was right and is still right and the courts agree with him.

She's gonna go full gun control when she gets in, she's always hated guns. Ugh... you think you don't know what Trump is going to do? Hillary has literally said nothing about what she wants to do and she has three decades of plans and schemes in-progress and ready to roll-out. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 15, 2016, 02:15:11 pm
I am not saying you should vote for Hillary. Don't if you do not think she would make a good president. But even if you hate Hillary do not vote for Trump. He is worse in so many ways. I mean go for a 3rd candidate or something. But Trump... urgh... I mean what is with people if you think that a some billionaire who has a great track record of caring mainly about him self would actually care about you. But then again.. Maybe your a billionaire to or something...
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 15, 2016, 03:27:22 pm
Here is the thing. Donald trump is bad. Simple as that. Hilary in my book is just the typical establishment doing typical establishment thing and actually if she holds to here the policy she is promoting then she is actually going to be actually making it on average a tiny by easier for the poorest people that now pay federal tax. But maybe you hate her for more then that. I mean I would likely vote for a 3rd party candidate or maybe be insane enough to run my self. (Though I know there is a age restriction so I would have to look that up. also that all very hypothetical. I do not live in USA after all.)

If you in a situation where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils then you always vote for the lesser. That it. Lets say the situation really was that it was Hillary or Trump which where the only absolute choices out there. Yeah then you should vote for the lesser of those evils. And I admit that from your perspective that might be Trump. But personally I do not see how. I can not see how Trump in any way could be the lesser evil compared to Hilary.

Trump has a bad track record. And is not just sins committed 10 years ago. No. He has a bad track record during this campaign. He has said so many dumb stuff that is really really scary if he actually would make it happen. And yes maybe congress could block a lot of his dumb antics. But the President in USA is still a powerful man and what actually scares me the most is his ability to rile up public support. And those supporters may not be the majority of people. But they could be turned in to a dangerous mob.

But in the end is a really F'd up system you got in USA where you deciding to vote not on you like but who you hate the least. I mean WTF! How the heck did it come to this?! What the heck is wrong with you all!

sorry for the rant...

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on October 15, 2016, 03:48:49 pm
Hilary in my book is just the typical establishment doing typical establishment thing
And people are voting for some thing as crazy as Donald Trump because they feel that the establishment failed. You can't sell people on the "safe" choice if they already think that adding some chaos to the system would be better than keeping the status quo.
(https://a.desu.sh/ogyejb.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 15, 2016, 03:52:26 pm
Also it's less of a "safe" choice when it has an extensive record of inciting wars. So many wars.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Person21 on October 15, 2016, 04:14:40 pm
It's the safe choice because letting Clinton II incite wars hasn't caused WW3 yet.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 15, 2016, 05:59:27 pm
Hilary in my book is just the typical establishment doing typical establishment thing
And people are voting for some thing as crazy as Donald Trump because they feel that the establishment failed. You can't sell people on the "safe" choice if they already think that adding some chaos to the system would be better than keeping the status quo.

Well even if I do not like the status quo why would I vote for something that is clearly going to be worse?

(That not to mention all that reason there not going to vote for the status quo and just voting for Trump so nothing gets done which is pretty much supporting the status quo anyway if your using that reasoning.)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Legodragonxp on October 15, 2016, 06:54:14 pm
One Supreme Court seat is open, there is a very real chance that two more may open during the next presidential term.

I have to choose between a liar and an *******.

We have an election where the two people being chosen are on the 10% of either end and the 80% in the middle are having to choose WTF?

I think I'll blame Obama and Bush II for all of this. That is a BS answer, but I'm channeling the social media frenzy here...

Doesn't matter, I have made up my mind at this point. Most people have. The next month is just going to be people screaming at the wall.*

-Lego

*when this is over, I'd LOVE to see how much sponsorship money was spent on CNN and the like in the last month.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 15, 2016, 07:09:25 pm
And people are voting for some thing as crazy as Donald Trump because they feel that the establishment failed.

No, it is so much more than this. The media never talks about this. I don't think the establishment has failed.

I think the establishment is actively working against my interests. It's a deeper problem than, "oh, they failed to pass their agenda." Their agenda is opposed to me having a better future. Their agenda is to support their friends and members of the in-group. Their agenda will see that "their people" get all of the bonuses and benefits while I remain here languishing in a worsening reality.

They want to talk anti-terror? Talk the talk, bitches. Talk to me in 20 years when you've got two generations of absolutely marginalized people in a system that doesn't listen to them anymore. Talk to me when what you've done to black people is what you've rolled out to every other group of people. Talk to me when you've got suicide bombings in the street, mass shootings multiple times a day, and a population that now is legitimately something the government would be wise not to trust. Talk to me ****ing then.

Nope. This **** is ****ed. It isn't just about the establishment being inept. It is about the establishment abdicating their responsibility to the people in exchange for favors and a little tickle on the balls. They are working against the majority and warping the minds of the majority to think it is good. That **** doesn't stick. It will spring back into its original shape someday, and the more you wind it up, the more violent the reset will be.

I hate these people because the hyperbole of today will become the truth of tomorrow if we don't stop these putrid human beings and install people that have the interests of the people in mind. And again, I hate them even moreso because of the person I've become in the system stewarded by people I was supposed to be able to rely on. This isn't the life I wanted. I hate being angry at the system all the time. This isn't what I was raised to be a part of and I'm sick of my double-talking elders who have robbed my future telling me that I'm lazy and a piece of ****.

"Just get another job!"

You know what? No. I don't wanna work that much to simply get a whiff of being able to tread water. I'll just off myself when the scales stack too far against me and until then I'll enjoy however much of a ride I have left. **** this country and this world. They don't deserve it. I'll watch you burn. I'm probably not going to vote this year and I'm not sure I even feel like voting ever again if this stupid system continues doing what it does.

**** it. **** them. **** you. And **** me.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 15, 2016, 07:31:50 pm
Hah! Good post. :)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 16, 2016, 04:39:39 am
There is a clear difference however. Trump uses the rhetoric but do not show the willingness to actually pass the reforms that would benefits the populous. He instead seem to be focused on continuing the Reaganomics style supply-side economics that I would say is both the reason why USA now is in such a great deal of debt and why we are seeing such disparity between rich and poor.

Yes. America seem to mirror the Roman Republic in many ways. But following on it path is not the answer. Break old patterns. Find new ways. Make true reforms. If USA want to avoid following in footsteps of Rome then it need to do so much more then just go with Trump (or Hillary for that matter). If anything Trump is undermining the US republic and setting it up for dictatorial rule. Maybe not by Trump him self. But some other Demagogue following in his footsteps. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 16, 2016, 09:54:10 am
I though Wikileaks where reading Clinton's Emails.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 16, 2016, 10:54:31 am
If Trump gets to be president, his goal is more likely to be the best president ever, which could serve the people's and the nation's interests. 

That's not how arrogant egotists work at all!

If Trump becomes president then he'll most likely just believe he *is* the best president ever, whatever he does and whatever the outcome. Wanting to be the best president ever would be the goal of an ambitious person. Trump isn't ambitious, he's an egomaniac. Also the idea that he could serve the people's interests is predicated a bit on his actual ability to do the job, which looks to be fairly minimal, given his total lack of political experience and terrible leadership skills.

Also you make this statement in the same post that you criticise people who claim they know what's in Trump's mind so... I don't know what you're angling at here exactly.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 16, 2016, 12:04:37 pm
There is a clear difference however. Trump uses the rhetoric but do not show the willingness to actually pass the reforms that would benefits the populous. He instead seem to be focused on continuing the Reaganomics style supply-side economics that I would say is both the reason why USA now is in such a great deal of debt and why we are seeing such disparity between rich and poor.

Almost everyone in our system uses rhetoric but does not show the willingness to actually pass the reforms. And besides, Trump has never actually held office so I don't know why you say he hasn't shown a willingness to pass reform when he has never had the power to do so outside of the normal process of political donations. In that respect I imagine he showed quite a lot of willingness to get reforms passed. He was spending his own money, after all.

It is amazing how everyone can read Trump's mind and nobody can read Clinton's emails.   :o

(http://i.imgur.com/IiBEIWU.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 16, 2016, 12:32:09 pm
OK. Here is a issue I have with trump supporters.

We should expect Trump to act in a smiler when he is President has he has done in the past. We can not know he will really act in such a way.

We should not expect him to be true to his word. What says might not actually be what he will do.

The problem is with that sort of reasoning he is just a black box. And we can apply that sort of think about any candidate. But that not my reasoning. I look at is past yes. And is not the best track record he has. In fact is a very poor one. Sure he has money. But he is not a self made man. And money seem to be the only thing he got (And is not like he is the only one that have a head for business when it comes to candidates). And I am also listing to what the man is saying. And that not in his favour ether. Both how he talks about others and what he plans to do in office. When ever he talks about some concrete policy or reform he want to do all I see is how his tinkle down economics policy will just push USA more in to debt and widen the gabs between rich and poor.

Really. Why should I think he is a swell guy?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 16, 2016, 12:46:19 pm
I agree with your entire post, Yokto. Well said.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 16, 2016, 03:18:59 pm
That a issue to with Trump. He is in is self so polarizing that even if he do say something that really should be up for discussion him simply mentioning it can lead to the other side not considering it. So should USA be more open towards Russia? Maybe. But is now that Trump think that then we must totally be harsher towards Russia! Urgh... I hate how polarized politics have become.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 16, 2016, 05:22:24 pm
Further to what Yokto is saying, even if Trump really is saying things that might be effective that doesn't mean he has the first idea on how to implement them.

It's like asking a schoolkid what invention they'd like to create. They all have plenty of ideas (rocket car, time machine, cooking device with different compartments for different vegetables) but a child doesn't have the faintest idea about engineering or how to actually make a rocket car. Trump can talk about changing policy toward Russia but how exactly is he going to implement it? Some crazy suggestion about abandoning NATO and a declaration of his admiration for Putin's strongman leadership style.

If this situation were one of those pointless school elections then Trump would be the one running on the platform of reducing homework, free candy in the vending machines and more asbestos. None of these things are actually feasible but schoolkids can safely vote for pie in the sky because Student Body President has absolutely no power. In real life the kid promising free candy can't deliver.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 16, 2016, 10:34:43 pm
I hope McMullin takes a state.  It'd be appropriate, the last time an independent won a state was 1968 and our politics are getting close to being that messy again.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 17, 2016, 09:03:46 am
Further to what Yokto is saying, even if Trump really is saying things that might be effective that doesn't mean he has the first idea on how to implement them.

I'm just curious about this point because I see it come up a lot.

I don't have any argument or anything with it, but are we really suggesting that Trump wouldn't be able to hire on experienced people to help him navigate this stuff? I'm pretty sure Obama was about as green as they come and he did... well, he did some okay stuff.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 17, 2016, 09:37:11 am
Further to what Yokto is saying, even if Trump really is saying things that might be effective that doesn't mean he has the first idea on how to implement them.

I'm just curious about this point because I see it come up a lot.

I don't have any argument or anything with it, but are we really suggesting that Trump wouldn't be able to hire on experienced people to help him navigate this stuff? I'm pretty sure Obama was about as green as they come and he did... well, he did some okay stuff.

Because Trump is putting up huge barriers to that sort of thing happening. Straight out of the gate he's divisive which means he's already alienated many of the people who have that experience and could work for him with his many outrageous statements and behaviours. His lack of experience in the sphere of politics also means that he's unlikely to actually have the contacts to get the best people for the job. Obama may have been relatively green but he'd been a Senator since 1996 and his previous work as a civil rights lawyer would have had him moving in the political sphere. Finally, people who have worked with Trump paint him as a classic big boss authoritarian guy (I don't think even his supporters would deny this, it's a large part of his appeal) who is used to being told what he wants to hear and is unlikely to cooperate. That last accusation particularly could be levelled against a lot of politicians, including Clinton, but all taken together it doesn't suggest Trump can make it work.

Also, if Trump's strategy as president is just to appoint a bunch of other people to do his job then why should he be president in the first place? Decider in Chief didn't work out all that well.

http://archive.is/qcbW5


I looked this guy up and he just seems to be a twitter account. He's making the same argument as basically all the other never Clintons. You're not giving more credence to him just because he's (apparently) Russian?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 17, 2016, 09:43:48 am
Where have you gone, Joe?

(http://i.imgur.com/SraI3Og.jpg)

Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 17, 2016, 10:34:23 am
I was actually commenting on the quality of the source. Here's another Russian who says the exact opposite! :O
Also he had his ass handed to him by a robot so he's got every reason to be biased against Hillary Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/donald-trump-reminds-me-of-vladimir-putin--and-that-is-terrifying/2016/07/23/36397692-50e5-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.38be80826243

Also, in terms of sources agreeing with what you already believe... don't you think its a bit strange that someone who was apparently involved in Russian "opposition" politics would have the same pro-Trump stance as the majority of Russians including Vladimir Putin. It's not a secret that the Kremlin would very much like Trump to win on the basis that he's basically said he'd be soft on Russia, and would be more likely to weaken America's economy and ability to project force. It's also not a secret that Russia has a massive investment in cyberwarfare, including propaganda. Since the only information I can find out about this guy from google is a twitter account and a facebook page both of which are big on politics and short on personal details, I don't think it's totally unreasonable not to treat it as a credible source.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 17, 2016, 11:09:39 am
Further to what Yokto is saying, even if Trump really is saying things that might be effective that doesn't mean he has the first idea on how to implement them.

I'm just curious about this point because I see it come up a lot.

I don't have any argument or anything with it, but are we really suggesting that Trump wouldn't be able to hire on experienced people to help him navigate this stuff? I'm pretty sure Obama was about as green as they come and he did... well, he did some okay stuff.

Sam touched on it a bit, but Trump's campaign is already evidence that he doesn't hire the best and brightest, and then ignores the advisors he does bring on board and keeps doing his own thing.  Or is that pivot to being more presidential still going to happen?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Brandonazz on October 17, 2016, 03:00:11 pm
Any day now.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 17, 2016, 03:16:30 pm
Well I take Garry Kasparov word over some unknown. Being sceptical and checking sources is not a bad thing. Doing research is not a bad thing. And I think that Sam did the right thing by being sceptical and actually trying to check up on the source.

And yes MasterChiToes. You should not trust CNN ether and check these sources to. :P
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 17, 2016, 09:21:16 pm
A friend wanted me to look into an independent candidate he wants to vote for, and it led me to this list:

http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

Which then led me to the campaign announcement video for Joe Exotic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc-_7RCFArM
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: /lurk on October 18, 2016, 04:33:25 am
Well I'm convinced.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 18, 2016, 08:12:48 am
Sam touched on it a bit, but Trump's campaign is already evidence that he doesn't hire the best and brightest, and then ignores the advisors he does bring on board and keeps doing his own thing.

I'm not convinced he will be able to hire the best and brightest either, seeing as the best and brightest started all of these wars and ruined our society by turning us against one another for a few political points.

I guess I just don't care anymore. Yet again I'm not being represented. I just want the election to be over. And my existential crisis continues.

Hillary will continue the sick system of war for profit and eternal conflict with Eastasia. Trump will pawn-off his responsibilities to Pence and his cronies and we'll see retard conservatives (aka: evangelical Christians) calling the shots. Either way we're going backwards. Yet again we are putting of progress for today's profit.

I get yelled at and written-up for taking shortcuts and putting personal gain before the job at hand. But then again, I'm below the law. Maybe someday I can aspire to be above the law... that's the American Dream, right?

I hope I get to witness humanity destroying itself in my lifetime. We deserve it slowly and painfully.

At least you Europeans can finally take solace in this: after years of putting me down for showing even the smallest bit of pride in my country, that pride has finally died. I'm listless and adrift. Good work guys, you won. :(

The upshot is that I'll get to watch your society get assraped by Muslims before it implodes into a Islamic paradise.

(http://i.imgur.com/KRXjpZY.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 18, 2016, 08:30:51 am
At least you Europeans can finally take solace in this: after years of putting me down for showing even the smallest bit of pride in my country, that pride has finally died. I'm listless and adrift. Good work guys, you won. :(

Well us Eurotrash learned from a series of particularly disgusting blunders from in the 19th and 20th centuries that pride in your nation generally gets used to back up reprehensible acts. Oh wait, apparently we didn't learn that. 100 years Brexit.com. 
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Tesla on October 18, 2016, 12:06:36 pm
yes pat welcome to the postnational world, we're all going to mars
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 18, 2016, 01:18:14 pm
Ah, I see you play Red Faction.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 18, 2016, 03:48:37 pm
Except one just create a new nation. Sure it may not be recognized by the nations of earth. But who cares! We conquered Mars! And we do not have to follow any silly UN rules or such!

(Really. Space law is not law as you usually think. There more like temporarily agreements to avoid USA and USSR to go to war over some silly space related reason.) :P
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: eropS on October 18, 2016, 04:47:33 pm
I think I'm in Pats boat minus the me wanting humanity to perish.

Bernie was the final, desperate gasp of a dying dream, we're done imo
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 18, 2016, 04:52:38 pm
I don't necessarily want humanity to perish.

But we're not making a great case for ourselves with all the major **** we keep pushing off for another generation to deal with.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 19, 2016, 10:04:42 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz7GaQYJ3zA

Is this another Planned Parenthood fiasco or is this real? :\


"barroom talk"

(http://i.imgur.com/MuoKXYa.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 19, 2016, 10:43:28 am
Heh heh, they're really scrambling to control the damage here "He didn't do it, he had a perfectly good reason for doing it, and what he did isn't even illegal".
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on October 19, 2016, 12:57:34 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS40ox_2dqc

Here's a pretty good summary of that stuff.
Watched the actual veritas videos too, and the production quality is pretty cringy but the footage they shot is pretty solid.
Apparantly there will be 2 more videos, wonder what they will be about.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 19, 2016, 04:25:20 pm
STOP PRESSES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiZqFGLAeAc
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 19, 2016, 04:40:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV4L_OHGpyo
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 19, 2016, 04:43:42 pm
Forget the presidential race. It's now a contest to see who can get a Grammy first.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 19, 2016, 07:28:02 pm
Well... this debate...

I think I'm voting for Chris Wallace.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 19, 2016, 08:38:43 pm
You're right, I did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glEiPXAYE-U
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 20, 2016, 10:31:14 am
Though Donald Trump never used teleprompter anyway. [/sarcasm]

But boy all this is such a mess. It all seems to be lies within lies. You can not really tell where there is any truth to anything...

I am actually not used to politicians acting like this. Lying is a rarity from my experience. Not being honest. Sure that happens all the time. But not straight lies. (Or am I getting this all wrong? Is it just the way media reports it?)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on October 20, 2016, 10:36:43 am
wrong
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 20, 2016, 10:40:03 am
shoulda won it.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 20, 2016, 10:41:19 am
wrong

Huh?

(Also the Teleprompter thing is a joke. That was not so clear in my post)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 20, 2016, 10:42:45 am
Celdur is just emulating Trump's highly effective debate style.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Yokto on October 20, 2016, 10:45:30 am
Also might I add that if is true that democrats are basically hiring people to cause trouble in Trump rallies then there not only acting immoral. But there freaking stupid to! That is what you do not want! Trump gain more from those conflicts then anyone else! But then again it would not surprise me considering how idiotic people seem to be acting overall in this mess of a election.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 20, 2016, 04:55:31 pm
https://www.c-span.org/video/?416979-1/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-deliver-remarks-al-smith-dinner

In which Clinton and Trump will try to tell funny, kind hearted jokes about themselves and each other. 8:50 eastern.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 20, 2016, 06:11:48 pm
It's all a dance.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Inkling on October 20, 2016, 06:42:02 pm
Obama and Romney were better at this.  Or at least, the one joke they played on the radio from each this morning was better than the jokes tonight.  You're gonna see clips of Trump bombing and getting booed in the morning.

(http://imgur.com/vpynMRU.gif)

(http://imgur.com/GbQ5PDc.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 21, 2016, 01:25:56 am
That charity dinner was rigged.

Edit: Listened to a bit of it. Hillary (and her speechwriters) are handing Donald his ass. Jesus, it's just one zinger after another.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 21, 2016, 06:12:48 am
Ink, what's the context for the second picture?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on October 21, 2016, 07:14:44 am
thats the exact moment where trump went a little over board.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Ultimatum on October 21, 2016, 09:23:30 am
trump so over board we have the coastguard looking for him
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 21, 2016, 10:39:19 am
thats the exact moment where trump went a little over board.

trump so over board we have the coastguard looking for him

Two non-answers. Anyone have the context of the second image?

I don't doubt it was dumb, but I literally don't know this moment or event. So how about some help?
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 21, 2016, 11:15:04 am
"Hillary is so corrupt..." as the setup for a joke. Although of course I already told you that on steam so this is for the benefit of anyone else who's curious. Shortly after the booing started in earnest.

(http://i.imgur.com/rVGqcNa.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Celdur on October 21, 2016, 12:14:36 pm
That charity dinner was rigged.

Edit: Listened to a bit of it. Hillary (and her speechwriters) are handing Donald his ass. Jesus, it's just one zinger after another.

I listened to both their speeches, and thought both were pretty cringeworthy.

Donald had some fun jabs at the start, but once he gets to the corrupt part, they aren't even really jokes anymore, it's like he's back on the debate stage.
It was some really inapropriate ****, and I don't see how bluntly saying that Hillary hates catholics is going to make people do anything but boo you wether its true or not.

And then Hillary had some good jokes too, and she hid the hard blows in some actual jokes to keep the tone light, but the stuff about accusing trump of being a russian puppet or joking about voter fraud just really didn't sit well with me with all the stuff that's out there.
The whole russia stuff really just sounds like paranoia or deflection seeing as it's baseless acusations in response to actual leaks about her.
I don't know if those jokes were meant to self deprecate her ridiculous accusations or joke about how "obvious" it is that Trump somehow is in bed with russia.
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: PatMan33 on October 21, 2016, 12:16:16 pm
Rich people party!!
Title: Re: 2016 Elections
Post by: Krakow Sam on October 21, 2016, 01:00:26 pm
That charity dinner was rigged.

Edit: Listened to a bit of it. Hillary (and her speechwriters) are handing Donald his ass. Jesus, it's just one zinger after another.

I listened to both their speeches, and thought both were pretty cringeworthy.

Donald had some fun jabs at the start, but once he gets to the corrupt part, they aren't even really jokes anymore, it's like he's ba