Master Index of Archived Threads


2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm Jun 30 2016 12:48 PM

Nate Silver's first projections have been posted: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

Lefty Specialist Jun 30 2016 02:38 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon Jun 30 2016 05:51 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

good god, 1 in 4 future alternative timelines are absolutely fucked.

Edgy MD Jun 30 2016 05:57 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And it's not like the whatever timeline we end up on is as safe as houses.

d'Kong76 Jun 30 2016 08:30 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

132 more days of it all. 132.

soupcan Jun 30 2016 11:04 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

d'Kong76 wrote: 132 more days of it all. 132. Don't kid yourself, no matter who wins this'll never end. Thanks Facebook!

Ceetar Jul 01 2016 01:50 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

soupcan wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: 132 more days of it all. 132. Don't kid yourself, no matter who wins this'll never end. Thanks Facebook! well, in another month or two the 2020 election cycle starts, so.. My favorite part is the endless semantical debates about how Sanders will endorse Hillary and the wording around it. He said he'll vote for her but that apparently isn't the right wording and omg what's he waiting for?

soupcan Jul 01 2016 03:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nate Silver's first projections have been posted: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/ So that poll has Clinton leading 80/20. Meanwhile, The New York Post (I know, I know...) has Trump leading 43/38. Agendas anyone? It's all so fucking stupid.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2016 03:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

No, that poll (and it's not a poll, but a projection) has Secretary Clinton leading 48.8 to 42.0. The 80-20 split represents the likelihood of her winning.

soupcan Jul 01 2016 04:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: No, that poll (and it's not a poll, but a projection) has Secretary Clinton leading 48.8 to 42.0. The 80-20 split represents the likelihood of her winning. Ah. Thanks. There's that pesky reading comprehension thing popping up again.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2016 04:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'd sure love to live in a world where he was down 80-20.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 01 2016 05:14 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

An interesting thing about that FiveThirtyEight map is that the black border around the "closest races" states includes Mississippi and South Carolina, which seems a little hard to believe unless, perhaps, they're thinking that Trump will motivate a large number of blacks to go to the polls to vote against him. But I'm skeptical of how likely that is. Yesterday the black border was around Kansas but not around South Carolina. (And perhaps not around Mississippi, I'm not sure.)

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 01 2016 05:35 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 01 2016 06:05 PM

My favorite part is the endless semantics debates about how Sanders will endorse Hillary and the wording around it. He said he'll vote for her but that apparently isn't the right wording and omg what's he waiting for? He's negotiating. He's got leverage and is using it to get what he wants in the platform and at the convention. And when they strike a deal, they'll have a big event in a swing state, not just announce it in a press release or media interview. (They might do it in a a video, too.) If he REALLY gets what he wants, they'll do a whole series of events in swing states, hopping from Florida to Virginia to North Carolina to Ohio, probably all in the same day. Take all of the polls with a grain of salt. All of them. Trust me, you're not seeing the real, scientific and expensive polls. Many of the polls you see are intended to A) sell newspapers/ratings/web hits for news sites, B) generate attention for the pollsters, who want to be hired for the real, scientific and expensive polls, and C) Nudge coverage to make you think a candidate is doing better that he or she really is doing.

d'Kong76 Jul 01 2016 05:50 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hearing that from an insider just makes the whole process more disgusting to me than it already is. *the preceding was a non-confrontational and non-partisan statement*

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 01 2016 06:02 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:21 AM

.

Lefty Specialist Jul 03 2016 09:59 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Hearing that from an insider just makes the whole process more disgusting to me than it already is. *the preceding was a non-confrontational and non-partisan statement* For me, I wouldn't say it was disgusting as much as it was often frustrating (and at times exhilarating). In your state and local races, pay attention to how much news coverage is spent on polls and ads, and how little is spent on actual issues. When people make outrageous statements, are they asked to support them with facts, or are they just reported with a balancing paragraph from the other side? Well, that's how Drumpf got as far as he did. He's been saying outrageous stuff for a while and the media just covers 'The Controversy' instead of saying, "Hey, wait a minute, you're full of shit." The media doesn't want to do this because they're petrified that if they do, they'll be accused of bias and lose their access. Especially with ratings gold like The Donald.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 04 2016 03:08 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 04 2016 03:37 AM

I guarantee you that this type of stuff didn't start in this election cycle. And I can point to examples on both sides of the aisle of this happening.

Nymr83 Jul 04 2016 03:26 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I guarantee you that this type of stuff didn't start in this election cycle. No, but Trump has perfected it

Lefty Specialist Jul 04 2016 12:01 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I guarantee you that this type of stuff didn't start in this election cycle. And I can point to examples on both sides of the aisle of this happening. False equivalence. The vast majority of the crazy and outrageous comes from one side only.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 04 2016 02:07 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Having dealt with it on a daily basis, I would disagree.

Lefty Specialist Jul 04 2016 05:47 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Appreciate that you have to deal with hostile incoming and most of that will be coming from one side. But nationwide, take a stroll through the crazy and you'll find where most of it is coming from. The virtual breakdown of Congress isn't a Democratic issue. The rise of a charlatan con man to the nominee of a major American party isn't a Democratic issue. Used to be that Democrats and Republicans alike agreed on the basic rules. That's gone out the window. It started in 1994 with Newt and went into overdrive in the Obama years. Excellent, though depressing, reading on the subject (complete with a 2016 update since things have gotten even worse since this was first published in 2012). http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/its-eve ... 1110780473

Edgy MD Jul 04 2016 06:11 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The funny thing is that winks and nods to the truther crowd and his snide dismissals of our defense perimeter and international alliances, Mr. Trump seems more than willing to reach out to some of the lazier-minded left wing elements and try and unite them with his wall-buliders in a great alliance of the angry and indifferently educated.

Lefty Specialist Jul 04 2016 06:28 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, he's going after the 'Thurrr stealin' our jaaaaaabs' vote. Which is ironic since he's got no problem outsourcing himself and spends lots of money fighting unions.

Edgy MD Jul 04 2016 07:48 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Oh yeah, he's full of it, and he's got the lunatic right wrapped up tight, no doubt, despite his obvious hypocritical weaknesses on such topics. I just thought it worth noting that he's used more than a few Whoopie O'Donnell talking points during the campaign as well.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 04 2016 09:01 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Appreciate that you have to deal with hostile incoming and most of that will be coming from one side. But nationwide, take a stroll through the crazy and you'll find where most of it is coming from. The virtual breakdown of Congress isn't a Democratic issue. The rise of a charlatan con man to the nominee of a major American party isn't a Democratic issue. Used to be that Democrats and Republicans alike agreed on the basic rules. That's gone out the window. It started in 1994 with Newt and went into overdrive in the Obama years. Excellent, though depressing, reading on the subject (complete with a 2016 update since things have gotten even worse since this was first published in 2012). http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/its-eve ... 1110780473 I think we're talking about different things. I was looking at it not that the candidates are saying outrageous stuff -- they are -- but that the media doesn't challenge them on it. The standard operating procedure today on behalf of many in the media is to just repeat the outrageous comment and call the other side for rebuttal. I've asked reporters, "Why aren't you challenging them, making them back up that statement?" and I've been told "Go ahead, That's why we're calling you." One reason for this is the 24-hour news cycle, where everyone is trying to post their stories as quickly as possible.

Nymr83 Jul 05 2016 05:10 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: The rise of a charlatan con man to the nominee of a major American party isn't a Democratic issue. Hillary Clinton is a liar, a thief, and exactly the type of rich white person who is immune to the law that your party base claims to hate... unless of course she's one of theirs. the shame is equally on the Democrats for giving us an election between TWO bad candidates - and Hillary isn't just a bad candidate but a BAD PERSON, something neither party has managed to field in a very long time.

Ceetar Jul 05 2016 01:36 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: The rise of a charlatan con man to the nominee of a major American party isn't a Democratic issue. Hillary Clinton is a liar, a thief, and exactly the type of rich white person who is immune to the law that your party base claims to hate... unless of course she's one of theirs. the shame is equally on the Democrats for giving us an election between TWO bad candidates - and Hillary isn't just a bad candidate but a BAD PERSON, something neither party has managed to field in a very long time. I'm not really sure what you mean by thief, but I don't think she's a bad candidate and I don't actually know her so I won't pretend to know if she's a bad person. I mean, I'm not voting for her, but I don't think she'll be particularly bad. Not particularly good either of course. And the Republicans have certainly given us a lot of bad people over the recent elections, particularly as VPs.

Edgy MD Jul 05 2016 01:46 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Secretary Clinton's demerits are clear, though folks will disagree on the size and importance of them. I think they're pretty large. I will not follow with "the shame is equally on the Democrats," though. Mr. Trump's candidacy is just a whole new category of awful. I won't be voting for Secretary Clinton, but I know more than a few loyal Republicans who will be. One put it as, "If I was in the Star Wars Universe, and I had to choose between Emperor Palpatine and Jabba the Hutt, I'd have to go with the emperor, as I would have to choose lawful evil over chaotic evil. The former would leave in place the vestiges of the Republic, trade routes, and an orderly run, if grievously oppressed, society. When an overwhelming desire for freedom returned to the universe there would still be a society to reclaim, rather than a smoldering ruin." I guess it tells you how grown up our electorate is that this guy has multiple graduate degrees and this is the metaphor he goes for. Me? I'd go third party every time. There's Admiral Ackbar. There's Chewie. There's Leia. And I've had my eye on Lobot for a while. That guy just oozes nascent leadership qualities.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 06 2016 07:56 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

LOBOT IS A PUPPET OF CLOUD CITY BUSINESS INTERESTS!!!1! (Also... come now, Namor.)

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 06 2016 02:23 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

You have to go with Mon Mothma, who has solid leadership skills. Oh, sure, she won't get the Bothan vote. But there's not too many of them left after the Death Star plan retrieval effort any way. Here's a shot of her announcement:

Lefty Specialist Jul 06 2016 03:40 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Donald Trump, excellent judge of character: Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy—really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights. They didn't talk. They were a terrorist—it was over. He also tried to kill Bush 41. Make of that what you will.

metsmarathon Jul 06 2016 06:14 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

so, when the email scandal first broke, i was very adamant that it was a bug huge motherfucking deal. i still think it's a big huge motherfucking deal. however, i support the justice department's assertion that it is not criminal. reckless, ill-conceived, and poorly implemented, absolutely, but not criminal. and certainly not to the extent that had merited prosecution in the past. see, here's the thing, and it's important. the server was not set up with the intent to siphon off classified information, or to process classified information, but rather to be able to handle her normal communications. for purposes of convenience, and also of "privacy" and obfuscation, of course, though i'm not willing to go all the way towards presuming some nefarious intent. and she was not the first secretary of state to use a different email than her .state.gov address. the precedent was already established in the organizational culture - no matter how bad an idea that was; if the culture of the state department was not accepting of it, then it would not have been allowed to be set up that way. people tend to like covering their own asses; there would have been whole libraries full of dissent. if nothing has really come out, then the reasonable assumption is that the whole state department thought it was really no big deal. an organizational failure of course, but not specifically her own, and not necessarily indicative of criminal behavior. yes, there are instances of classified information getting into her emails - information that was not marked as classified when it was sent or received, some of it part of email threads. and this is why the server was a bad idea (but still not criminal). because accidental spillage happens sometimes, and the nature of classified information is such that one little detail is all that stands between something being classified and not. and in military circles, that might seem straightforward - "the Dingleflop missile can punch a hole through 38 meters of Elbonian mud armor", but not always - "i just finished running Dingleflop missiles in the Sokovia scenario." i'm sure that when you start getting into diplomatic issues, it's even blurrier, especially when you're trying to carry on a meaningful conversation about actual issues: "look, i don't care that ambassador Flarpsnargle doesn't particularly like the kumquat provision - we need him on board the Snart accords or the Carpathians are out." it speaks to sloppiness, of course, but honestly, that shit happens, and the regular state server was probably full of spillage too. so i struggle with seeing that as particularly criminal, since i highly doubt anyone was actually transcribing classified information into unclassified emails. state needs to clean up its act, and also do a better job of figuring out what is and isn't actually classified. criminal activity is purposefully taking classified information, or purposefully mishandling classified information, or being so reckless as to allow classified information to be exposed to our adversaries. i don't believe clinton did any of these things. i admit that i struggle to find an analogy for the level of reckless mishandling that would need to occur to become criminal, or prosecutable, and the best i can come up with is perhaps, taking a folder of classified data out to a picnic table to read through during lunch on a windy day, and having it blow all around and not being able to find all the papers. that is a greater theoretical breach than what clinton has done. and that could possibly get your clearance taken away, though you likely wouldn't end up in jail. it is still a big deal for me, and with better alternatives, would probably be a deal-breaker for me. but i don;t believe it was done for evil purposes, and i don't think she has evil purposes in mind for our country. i think she's selfish and secretive, and that it can affect her judgement at times, but she's still somebody that i would trust to have, on the whole, the best interests of our country in mind in her actions, and she is someone who i think is capable of governing and leading a nation. i struggle to come up with any viable, realistic alternatives. there may be some in her own party, there may be some independents out there hiding in obscurity, but i don't know who they are. and the party i'm thoroughly accustomed to voting for certainly hasn't presented any. so here we are. i'm still, grudgingly, with her. i don't particularly like her, but i think she'd actually do a pretty good job of running the country. i'm curious, though, what she thinks saddam's most redeeming qualities are. he did have a really bitchin' mustache going, y'know.

themetfairy Jul 06 2016 06:56 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Thank you mm for the awesome analysis.

Lefty Specialist Jul 06 2016 07:35 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ten points for the 'Elbonian Mud Armor' reference.

Edgy MD Jul 06 2016 07:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

If Sandy Berger only got a misdemeanor, and was only stripped of his clearance for three years, I had little reason to believe Secretary Clinton was going down.

Frayed Knot Jul 06 2016 08:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And, in the end, the result is just oh so Clintonian. The FBI investigation -- which she kept insisting (with a straight face) was a "security review" rather than what it was, a criminal investigation -- essentially finds what the detractors said it would: - that she intentionally had an alternate system set up in defiance of the law for the purpose of skirting those rules - that some of the emails were destroyed over and above the ones that she (eventually and in dribs and drabs) turned over so a complete answer could not be found - that there WERE emails SPECIFICALLY MARKED as various degrees of secret / top-secret / classified / whatever, and were AT THE TIME OF THEIR SENDING despite her numerous claims to the contrary and yet, in the country of Cintonia, that somehow all adds up to a win.

metsmarathon Jul 06 2016 08:26 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

i had read that there were no emails marked as classified, nor were the contents specifically indicated as containing classified info, but that in a handful of unmarked emails, classified information was present, either sent to (more likely) or from (less likely, but still plausible, and albeit improper, not explicitly damning) her. and while its not completely excuplatory, i've read that the state department has a nasty habit of just calling everything classified, whether or not it actually is, so that they don't have to release everything right away in response to FOIA queries. in that type of environment, where too much is classified, and it may be difficult to discern what detail makes it so, it can be very easy to let that one detail slip through the cracks. if you see it written in a report, it'll be appropriately marked (or at least it should). but once that data makes it into your brain, you may access that information from your memory, but leave the marking behind. assuming everything is appropriately marked in the first place. all i'm saying is, i can understand how some classified info could get spilled into unclassified email traffic. it appears that, for knowingly processing & transmitting classified data, she used her classified email, as she should have. If it's true that information actually marked as classified - like, the email specifically included the elevated classification level of a piece of data - then i'd like to see the source of that report. because i had read otherwise.

Ceetar Jul 06 2016 08:41 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

All I see is a mess of a system, and Clinton's private email server is hardly the biggest or most important part of said mess. Of course, since no one really talking about this really understands email or digital security, you don't really get an accurate accounting. And how were they possibly going to criminally charge her without charging every single person also on those emails? And every single person that was using a non .gov email?

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 06 2016 08:42 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:21 AM

.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 06 2016 08:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Who made that request? I would think that if Hillary was looking to hide something (which I don't discount at all) she'd want it to stay hidden until after 2020, because she's certainly hoping to be running for reelection that year.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 06 2016 08:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:22 AM

.

Frayed Knot Jul 06 2016 09:59 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: i had read that there were no emails marked as classified, ... 'Marked' was maybe the wrong choice of words, perhaps he said 'identifiable' as classified or some similar such language. Whatever he said, he spoke specifically about how many emails in how many chains, among the ones he was able to review at least, qualified as such, even going so far as the use the phrase "at the time" as she so often did. In any case, when she said -- over and over* again -- that no emails on the Chappaqua Server were known to her to be classified, she was either a) full of shit ('at the time' and every time since) or b) going to the 'depends on what the definition of is is' playbook by claiming that the fact that there was no old-fashioned CLASSIFIED stamp across the top gives her license to claim that that they really and truly weren't (maybe even often enough to where she actually believes it now) or c) Both * and over and over and over and over ...

Ashie62 Jul 07 2016 12:21 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I have to believe the nature of all this is why Sanders won't capitulate. I don't believe she is quite out of the woods yet. It does not pass the "smell" test to me at this point.

Lefty Specialist Jul 07 2016 02:44 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Sanders probably was waiting; there's no other explanation for him not conceding in a race he'd lost pretty decisively. He's supposedly going to endorse her next Tuesday in New Hampshire. But she's definitely out of the woods legally, and I'm guessing Trump sticking his foot in his mouth daily will help her escape long-term political damage.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 07 2016 01:02 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:22 AM

.

Nymr83 Jul 07 2016 01:28 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

criminal activity is purposefully taking classified information, or purposefully mishandling classified information, or being so reckless as to allow classified information to be exposed to our adversaries. i don't believe clinton did any of these things. this is a misunderstanding of the relevant statutes, which require you to act either "knowingly" or with gross negligence - neither standard requires "purposeful-ness"

Ceetar Jul 07 2016 01:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Isn't Sanders officially withdrawing like the Mets officially conceding the 2015 World Series before Selig shows up with the trophy?

Edgy MD Jul 07 2016 01:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

But now President Obama has overseen a corrupted IRS and punished no one; overseen a corrupted DOJ and punished no one; overseen a corrupted EPA and punished no one; overseen a corrupted VA and punished no one; overseen a corrupted FBI and punished no one. And the Republicans keep complaining to the nearest camera, to no effect. In fairness, there were forced resignations in the IRS scandal, but yeah, the FBI recommended and DOJ pursued no charges. In the VA scandal, there were forced resignations and early retirements and firings. (Secretary McDonald said that 60 people had been fired and later backtracked and said it was eight. I don't tend to confuse 60 and eight, but there you have it. The New York Times would write later still that, at most, three employees had been fired.) No criminal charges in the VA scandal, last I checked.

metsmarathon Jul 07 2016 04:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

criminal activity is purposefully taking classified information, or purposefully mishandling classified information, or being so reckless as to allow classified information to be exposed to our adversaries. i don't believe clinton did any of these things. this is a misunderstanding of the relevant statutes, which require you to act either "knowingly" or with gross negligence - neither standard requires "purposeful-ness" 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information: (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— etc. etc. etc. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains... blah blah blah (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts... so on... (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain.. stuff... knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter... (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any... things... 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... (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any.. you know... willfully communicates, you get the idea... f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any.. information... (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer intent, and willfulness are all over the regulation. the only one where intent is not integral to the applicable statute is the gross negligence.

Lefty Specialist Jul 07 2016 05:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ben Shapirio's story was interesting: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437509/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-proves-political-corruption Hey, remember that time they were investigating the hiring and firing of US Attorneys for political reasons and 5,000,000 e-mails were mysteriously 'lost' by the Bush Administration? Or that time Karl Rove outed an undercover CIA agent intentionally to punish her husband for speaking out about the Iraq War? I'm betting Ben Shapiro doesn't remember either.

TransMonk Jul 07 2016 06:41 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Meanwhile...while this week has given Trump a skyscraper-sized amount of material to go on the attack with, he's still playing defense. [fimg=350:sjakefzd]http://i.imgur.com/6olt1ND.png[/fimg:sjakefzd] Putz.

metsmarathon Jul 07 2016 08:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

well, it's definitely not an actual shape that forrealsies snowflakes actually make, that's for certain. i'm waiting for him to retweet a picture of a lucky gammadion next.

Nymr83 Jul 15 2016 02:07 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm sure the clowns on the left are already readying their nonsensical attacks - but Gov. Pence is a damn good VP candidate (too bad he doesn't fix the top of the ticket - but he gives us hope that if Trump gets hit by a car we'll all be ok!)

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 02:17 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, he was a damn good VP candidate. Associating with Mr. Trump's campaign will stain him the rest of his career.

Lefty Specialist Jul 15 2016 11:52 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I guess Pence didn't run away fast enough. :) Signed a 'Religious Freedom' bill (AKA 'OK to discriminate against the Gays' bill). Then he tried to back away from it when everybody cancelled their conventions in Indiana. So he managed to piss off both sides of that debate- not an easy task. Had a 35% approval rating and was in danger of losing re-election in a solidly Republican state. So he may as well jump, he's got nothing to lose. A big plus for Pence, though. He's a favorite of the Koch brothers, who are very publicly sitting out the Presidential election. The Donald may be hoping that this shakes a couple of tens of millions out of that tree.

TransMonk Jul 15 2016 03:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Pence as the pick means that Trump was probably swayed by his "advisors" (his kids and Manafort). I have to think if the decision was totally up to Trump that Christie would have been the pick. Pence may bring a tiny amount of "traditional" conservatives and, as mentioned above, some much needed donor money. But, in the long run, I'm not sure how much impact it will have given the unpredictable quality at the top of the ticket.

Lefty Specialist Jul 15 2016 07:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The new Trump-Pence logo. Late-night comedians are furiously rewriting their monologues as we speak.

Ceetar Jul 15 2016 07:20 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

trumpence. The amount of return on investment on a con job.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 07:36 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hey, America. Let's T-P our own country.

Ashie62 Jul 15 2016 08:49 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump and Pence will do well in November.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 15 2016 09:07 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:23 AM

.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 15 2016 09:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Good luck with that. Actually, I'm kidding, I don't wish that side any luck at all. Trump is a racist orange douchebag fraud whom I can't believe anyone is irresponsible enough to support, and he deserves a thorough thrashing.

Nymr83 Jul 15 2016 09:22 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Good luck with that. Actually, I'm kidding, I don't wish that side any luck at all. Trump is a racist orange douchebag fraud whom I can't believe anyone is irresponsible enough to support, and he deserves a thorough thrashing. Why are you being racist against Orange people?

themetfairy Jul 15 2016 09:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 16 2016 02:08 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Pence is a solid pick, adding Midwestern balance plus state and federal governmental experience and a serious demeanor. He's someone who has been in the conversation about running for president. If he's such a bright guy why is he aligning himself with the biggest joke of a presidential candidate ever?

Edgy MD Jul 16 2016 02:24 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Yup. Ironically but absolutely true is that any credit he brings to the ticket ... is utterly lost the moment he comes to the ticket. The only thing that could bring credibility to Donald Trump's ticket is him abandoning it.

Lefty Specialist Jul 16 2016 12:56 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Pence is a solid pick, adding Midwestern balance plus state and federal governmental experience and a serious demeanor. He's someone who has been in the conversation about running for president. lol. Midwestern balance? He probably just INCREASED his chances of losing Indiana. And that talk of him running for President died when he bollixed his 'OK to hate gays' bill. Supposedly even The Donald was having second thoughts at the last minute. I liked the description I saw of him as 'Sarah Palin without the charisma'.

Frayed Knot Jul 16 2016 02:51 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Plus the first thing Pence did after arriving in New York ... he headed to the Yanqui game with some Trump aide.

Lefty Specialist Jul 16 2016 03:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Safe territory. He was booed at the Indy 500.

TransMonk Jul 16 2016 03:38 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: The new Trump-Pence logo. Late-night comedians are furiously rewriting their monologues as we speak. And this morning, the logo has been edited with the interlocking initials (that look like a hand job) image removed on new fundraising emails. This campaign is a trainwreck.

Chad Ochoseis Jul 17 2016 03:50 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

If this [url]http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/07/cleveland_artists_plan_guerril.html gets any coverage, watch closely. You might just see a Cranepooler.

Ashie62 Jul 17 2016 09:14 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump will work the 1968 law and order playbook.

Lefty Specialist Jul 17 2016 11:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, 1968 is about where Trump is on women in general. And 1968 is about where Mike Pence is on gay rights and a woman's right to choose. So it fits. Will they be broadcasting the convention in black and white, just to set the mood?

Chad Ochoseis Jul 18 2016 03:13 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ashie62 wrote: Trump will work the 1968 law and order playbook. I would put the chances of a 1968-style riot in Cleveland as slightly lower than the chances that the Republicans will dump Trump and nominate Elizabeth Warren. One thing everyone here agrees on, left, right, and center, is that Cleveland has spent the last three quarters of a century getting its ass kicked in, and that this is yet another chance for Cleveland to take advantage of the improving publicity it's finally getting. Nobody wants to blow it. There will be anti-Trump protesters. I'll be one of them. The ones I know are making a point to not act like jagoffs and antagonize the police. There was already a Black Lives Matter march this afternoon, and it went smoothly. The cops have been pretty friendly, at least so far. We've seen a bunch riding by on horseback, and they've made a point of smiling and waving. I biked through downtown this afternoon, and although many streets were barricaded, the cops have been great about letting people know which streets are open. There's some worry about out of town protesters and out of town cops (Cleveland has sworn in a few thousand reinforcements). But that worry is limited. So far, the town looks pretty mellow. We'll see how things are when the convention starts for reals tomorrow.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 18 2016 02:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Dave Hill wrote: "We need to let America know we mean business. Does anyone have Scott Baio's phone number?"- The GOP

Lefty Specialist Jul 18 2016 02:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Chachi. That's where you go when Tim Tebow turns you down.

Edgy MD Jul 18 2016 04:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I got Manziel's agent on line two.

Vic Sage Jul 18 2016 05:05 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Pence is a solid pick, adding Midwestern balance plus state and federal governmental experience and a serious demeanor. He's someone who has been in the conversation about running for president. You and I are having very different conversations, MGIM. A Tea Party leader, Pence: * denies science (rejecting both evolution and climate change, and opposing stem cell research); * has stone-age economic policies (advocates a regressive flat tax and a constitutional amendment to cap federal spending and put us back on the gold standard, opposes increase in minimum wage, and supports privatization of social security); * opposes support for health and child care (opposed prescription drug plan and Obamacare, opposes "No Child Left Behind", opposed Tobacco lawsuit settlement and FDA regulation of tobacco industry); * is highly militaristic (supported Iraq War and surge, supports patriot act); and * opposes a wide range of civil rights (voted to defund planned parenthood and passed unconstitutional restrictions on abortion in his state; opposes the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment and immigration reform; passed and then backed off anti-gay "religious freedom" laws, including opposing both gay marriage and civil unions [as well as "don't ask, don't tell"], supports conversion therapy, and voted against hate crimes bills and employment non-descrimination bills). Pence even disagree with Trump on a few key issues, including his support of the Iraq War and Free Trade agreements, when Trump's trashing of all free trade agreements has been a cornerstone issue of the campaign... 2nd only to Trump's consistent appeals to nativist nationalism and racism. And did you see the way Trump kept talking over and talking for Pence on the 60 MINUTES interview, offering non-answers and contradictions while Pence sat there with a terrified smile and a nervous chuckle? Yeah, this is going to go great.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 18 2016 05:14 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Fuck Mike Pence.

Lefty Specialist Jul 18 2016 05:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

That 60 Minutes interview was scary. Pence barely got a word in edgewise. Trump may not be the only one having second thoughts about the Vice-Presidential pick. Great article in the New Yorker about Trump's ghostwriter on The Art of the Deal. He says flat out he's a sociopath only interested in self-aggrandizement, he has absolutely no span of attention for anything other than himself and that he's scared shitless someone like Trump could potentially have access to the nuclear launch codes. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... -tells-all

Edgy MD Jul 18 2016 07:00 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I like to think I'm patient and not a hitter, but those moments in interviews, when he's just babbling out nonsense, and the interviewer senses a pause, and attempts to interject a followup for clarification, and he snaps "Ex-CUSE me!" at the interviewer, I want to reach into the screen and throttle him. I don't know how they can keep their hands at their sides. What a horrible way to talk to somebody you're trying to make an impression on. Has anybody put together an "Ex-CUSE me!" master reel? He must've done this 500 times, if you count the debates.

Edgy MD Jul 19 2016 01:45 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

With regard to Baio, it's always important to have Chachi present, to make the shark jumping official.

Frayed Knot Jul 19 2016 02:06 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: I like to think I'm patient and not a hitter, but those moments in interviews, when he's just babbling out nonsense, and the interviewer senses a pause, and attempts to interject a followup for clarification, and he snaps "Ex-CUSE me!" at the interviewer, I want to reach into the screen and throttle him. I don't know how they can keep their hands at their sides. What a horrible way to talk to somebody you're trying to make an impression on. At this point I'm beyond annoyed with both candidates to the point where I can't even listen anymore, so I skipped the '60 Minutes' piece entirely just because I knew it would do little but cause me to bang my head against the wall and, yes, want to punch him through the TV set. And although Hillary obviously as obnoxious as Donald, there was a short interview with CBS's 'Face the Nation' chief John Dickerson in Sunday's NY Times where he derided a typical Hillary spiel to legitimate questions with phrases like "self-serving, freeze-dried, prepackaged, soft-focus, propaganda".

Nymr83 Jul 19 2016 03:38 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

too much work to watch the Trump Coronation pre-game ceremonies tonight - did Colbert really crash the stage or was that a planned act?

Lefty Specialist Jul 19 2016 11:57 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: too much work to watch the Trump Coronation pre-game ceremonies tonight - did Colbert really crash the stage or was that a planned act? He did that early, while they were still setting up. "I know I don't belong here, but neither does Donald Trump!"

Lefty Specialist Jul 19 2016 11:59 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And the hits keep coming. Melania: "These accusations about my speech hurt not only me, but also hurt my children Sasha and Malia".

Edgy MD Jul 19 2016 12:34 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Whoever wrote the speech, her argument that you should "treat people with respect" is going to get her kicked off the campaign forthwith.

Ashie62 Jul 19 2016 11:56 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump goes over the top, congrats.

Edgy MD Jul 20 2016 12:29 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

... to Russia.

Lefty Specialist Jul 20 2016 01:06 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ashie62 wrote: Trump goes over the top, congrats. Big deal. Trump goes over the top constantly.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 20 2016 01:43 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hansel is the best. edit: wrong thread but whatever.

Edgy MD Jul 20 2016 02:13 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

A HOLY SHIT! passage from The New York Times: One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. 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.

Lefty Specialist Jul 20 2016 03:04 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Donald doesn't want to do any of the hard work of governing. That's obvious from his lack of specificity on, well, just about anything. We're just going to make it 'the greatest' or 'unbelievable', but there's no plan to actually get there. And if there IS the vague outline of a plan, it shifts constantly anyway. So of course he's going to outsource governing to someone else. He wants to run the White House like he runs Mar-a-Lago. He can be the Great Man who hobnobs with world leaders and celebrities while the grunts do the work he could care less about. Bush was that way, letting Cheney become arguably the most powerful vice-president ever. But Trump would take it to a whole new level. At least Bush would engage on the issues of the day (rightly or wrongly). Trump simply has no interest unless it's about him.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 20 2016 03:20 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

No doubt the Cons are desperately trying to convince themselves a know-nothing president would be what's best for their agenda. I guess the question becomes who would run the Shadow Government best.

Edgy MD Jul 20 2016 03:38 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Yeah, but it's the baldfaced open-ness about it all that's so eye-popping. Most guys in such a position at least pretend to be in charge. President Bush II called himself "The Decider."

metsmarathon Jul 20 2016 05:15 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

wouldn't subverting the whole electoral process by electing an absentee president tend to run against the whole notion of "what would the founding fathers do?" that is claimed to be the underpinning of their whole political philosophy?

Edgy MD Jul 20 2016 09:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Guys Who the GOP Somehow Missed Out on as Speakers: [list:2khtong2][*:2khtong2]Richie Ingonito[/*:m:2khtong2] [*:2khtong2]John Rocker[/*:m:2khtong2] [*:2khtong2]Nuge[/*:m:2khtong2] [*:2khtong2]Gary Busey[/*:m:2khtong2] [*:2khtong2]Mitch Williams[/*:m:2khtong2] [*:2khtong2]Actually, they could have had a an entire evening program of white relief pitchers. John Rauch.[/*:m:2khtong2][/list:u:2khtong2] Go.

TransMonk Jul 20 2016 09:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Courtesy the Onion...

MFS62 Jul 21 2016 01:49 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And the hits keep coming. Melania: "These accusations about my speech hurt not only me, but also hurt my children Sasha and Malia". You have to cut her some slack. The degree she holds is from Trump University. (They gave it to her in order to prove they gave out at least one) I can't wait for this Bund meeting to be over. What night will David Duke speak? Later

Edgy MD Jul 21 2016 02:51 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

TransMonk wrote: Courtesy the Onion... Yeah, my friend just suggested this would be a great place for a 1993 Phillies reunion. Has any pennant winning team ever been so populated by douchey white heroes to idiot America? And while I can't be certain of this, as I ask, I'm including pre-integration teams. I'm including Cap Anson teams!

d'Kong76 Jul 21 2016 02:58 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I wonder if Daniel Murphy owns a Make America Great Again cap.

Ashie62 Jul 21 2016 09:42 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

LMAO

Ashie62 Jul 22 2016 02:40 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ashie62 wrote: Trump will work the 1968 law and order playbook. Geez Trump, you are plagarising me tonight.

metsmarathon Jul 22 2016 03:07 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

sweet mother-bleepin' jeezus, trump just backed out of NATO. literally, the only thing keeping russia from usurping the entire continent of europe is NATO, and the promise of american retaliation against any such aggression. if the blatant racism, sexism, fascism, and authoritarianism doesn't turn you off to the man, at least let this do the fucking trick. he is a blithering idiot topped with a psychodelic chia pet, and is categorically unfit to be the leader of our goddamned nation. its... its just not fucking funny anymore. seriously. give me a choice between him and sara palin, and i'd go with the dingbat!

Nymr83 Jul 22 2016 04:13 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: sweet mother-bleepin' jeezus, trump just backed out of NATO. literally, the only thing keeping russia from usurping the entire continent of europe is NATO, and the promise of american retaliation against any such aggression. NATO is like international welfare: Europe stays safe on the American taxpayer's dime. Trump is right that they don't pay enough or do enough for their own defense - sure they needed our help after WW2, but they've come to be too dependent on that help. Of course this doesn't make Trump any smarter - with all the darts he has thrown blindfolded, one was bound to be on target.

metsmarathon Jul 22 2016 04:52 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

america stays safe by using europe's land and people and armies as a buffer. we ain't doing it just for their benefit. it does not help us any little bit for russia to expand across europe, even if not a single one of our soldiers bloodies his nose in the effort. nato is really really REALLY important to our national security. even so much as bluffing to withdraw from it is damaging to those same interests. america is great, and we've got the most powerful military the world has ever known, but my god, man, without our allies, we're a smoldering husk of what once was.

Edgy MD Jul 22 2016 12:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

That all should be obvious. I thank you for stating it nonetheless. And I'm happy NATO has re-asserted its presence in Eastern Europe in recent weeks. And of course the one time it was necessary to invoke NATO Article V, it was US calling other nations to OUR aid.

metsmarathon Jul 22 2016 12:15 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Russia literally just annexed a significant portion of another sovereign nation, simply because there was no threat that anybody would stop them. Do you think Crimea would still be part of the Ukraine, if Ukraine had been part of NATO? We are the only check against Russian and Chinese expansion. And it is our treaties and our promise to defend other nations that keeps that check balanced.

Edgy MD Jul 22 2016 01:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Some friend of my brothers offered the pretty obvious and not particularly funny joke while watching the debate that it was "Springtime for Hitler and Germany!" Then later in the speech, Mr. Trump gave his numbskull anti-NATO spiel, and I realized more soberly that the next line was far more true, that it was winter for Poland and France.

Lefty Specialist Jul 22 2016 01:49 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: NATO is like international welfare: Europe stays safe on the American taxpayer's dime. Trump is right that they don't pay enough or do enough for their own defense - sure they needed our help after WW2, but they've come to be too dependent on that help. Of course this doesn't make Trump any smarter - with all the darts he has thrown blindfolded, one was bound to be on target. NATO is one of the reasons there hasn't been a world war in 71 years. It's not like splitting the check at dinner. We pay the most and do the most because we set it up for our benefit as much as Europe's. For Trump to say we'll abandon alliance partners unless they pay more is mindbogglingly dangerous. He's scaring the hell out of JOHN BOLTON, fer chrissake. He's throwing darts blindfolded all right. What he's hitting is decades of American credibility. So let's review. He wants to 'negotiate better terms' on the US national debt (most of which we owe to ourselves, by the way). To undermine the full faith and credit of the US in this way would lead to a complete worldwide financial collapse. He wants to 'negotiate better terms' on our alliances. Not just NATO, but other places around the world like South Korea. This would embolden China, Russia, North Korea and would probably lead to conflict around the globe. It's really hard to overestimate the damage this guy could do.

Edgy MD Jul 22 2016 01:58 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And despite his fantasy of being the collections agent in chief, he himself has made a career of running up debt and not paying.

Ashie62 Jul 22 2016 02:05 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Most of you will feel better after the Dem convention in Philly. I would think many people today feel similar to the day after Barry Goldwater gave his convention speech in 1964. These are unique times. For those that are adamant about a Hillary win I would suggest to vote for her and spread the word. What you don't want to do is call foloowers of the other side dumber and stupid or such as they will only dig in more.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 22 2016 02:45 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ashie62 wrote: What you don't want to do is call foloowers of the other side dumber and stupid or such as they will only dig in more. Which they would, being stupid and all.

Ashie62 Jul 22 2016 04:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Wouldn't you be more interested in the events in Turkey?

Edgy MD Jul 22 2016 08:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mr. Trump just doubled down on Senator Cruz's father's link to Lee Harvey Oswald. He — and I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP — defended the credibility of the National Enquirer.

Nymr83 Jul 22 2016 09:47 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Wikileaks just put out a bunch of emails showing how in bed the DNC was with Hillary - thinking up ways to attack Sanders. I would love to see the RNC's inboxes and what they were saying about Trump up until the moment they were stuck with him

Nymr83 Jul 23 2016 12:27 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

uh oh.. did Trump let the cat out of the bag that he expects to lose? On Cruz not endorsing him: He [Cruz] should have done it, he would have been in better shape in four years so he is admitting the Republicans will need a candidate in 4 years, not 8? or is he admitting that even if he wins he will be such a disaster that there will be serious primary challenges in 4 years? dope!

Frayed Knot Jul 23 2016 01:09 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump's already 70 y/o and would turn 71 less than 1/2 way through his first year in office (y'know, if and when). Now I've been wrong about him at each and every step through this campaign but there are multiple reasons to think, age just being one of them, that he'd be a one-term Prez if he should happen to win.

Lefty Specialist Jul 23 2016 02:14 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hillary picks Tim Kaine for her VP. Safe, boring, competent choice that will excite nobody. But against the existential threat that Trump poses, maybe boring isn't so bad.

Nymr83 Jul 23 2016 02:35 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Hillary picks Tim Kaine for her VP. Safe, boring, competent choice that will excite nobody. But against the existential threat that Trump poses, maybe boring isn't so bad. This was a very wise decision to show the moderate voters that she is not as bat-shit crazy as her opponent - if she had picked Elizabeth "Sarah-Palin-of-the-left" Warren she would have been sending the opposite message. Safe, Boring, and Competent is EXACTLY what someone like Hillary - and someone running against a nutjob - needs.

Edgy MD Jul 23 2016 04:53 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: Wikileaks just put out a bunch of emails showing how in bed the DNC was with Hillary - thinking up ways to attack Sanders. I would love to see the RNC's inboxes and what they were saying about Trump up until the moment they were stuck with him I imagine it didn't end after they realized they were stuck with him. The idea the Debbie Wasserman Shultz and her staff were in the bag for Secretary Clinton shouldn't surprise anybody. Here's another newsflash: I think Breitbart.com likes Mr. Trump. Don't tell!

Nymr83 Jul 23 2016 05:32 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

well, lets not hold the DNC to standard of Breitbart. we all knew they were overtly helping Clinton - but, well, here is the proof. Does Sanders make a stink of it? or shut up and realize that at this point he just needs to be anti-Trump and let it go?

Lefty Specialist Jul 23 2016 11:27 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: well, lets not hold the DNC to standard of Breitbart. we all knew they were overtly helping Clinton - but, well, here is the proof. Does Sanders make a stink of it? or shut up and realize that at this point he just needs to be anti-Trump and let it go? He lets it go. He accused the DNC of being in the tank for her months ago, and everybody knew they were. DWS is already out as the head of the party anyway. Much ado about nothing. The Kaine pick isn't exciting, but it'll be one more enticement for non-crazy Republicans to cross over.

Frayed Knot Jul 23 2016 10:20 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

So what does it say about Tim Kaine that Hillary announces her pick after the traditional news hours on a Friday night? I mean, yeah, in our current 24 hour news cycle/social media world that sort of stuff doesn't mean quite as much as it used to. But still, that's when politicians generally release news that they want to be buried and forgotten by the time people are paying attention to life again come Monday.

Lefty Specialist Jul 24 2016 01:13 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

It was done on Friday because that was the day after the Trump convention ended. It was scheduled to be announced at 11 AM but they held off because of the incident in Munich. So nothing particularly nefarious there. Trump held off announcing Pence because of the incident in Nice.

MFS62 Jul 24 2016 11:55 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: Wikileaks just put out a bunch of emails showing how in bed the DNC was with Hillary - thinking up ways to attack Sanders. I would love to see the RNC's inboxes and what they were saying about Trump up until the moment they were stuck with him The heck with that. I want to see what was on the servers of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Later

apmorris Jul 24 2016 11:11 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD Jul 24 2016 11:15 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Wow, how long has it been, apmorris?

apmorris Jul 24 2016 11:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2016 12:54 AM

Two years? ps. I *did* attend the Syndergaard two homer v. Dodgers game here in Hell.

Edgy MD Jul 25 2016 12:51 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Welcome Backman. Burn that photo.

Lefty Specialist Jul 25 2016 02:48 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ah, the Marla Maples years.

Frayed Knot Jul 25 2016 06:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

So with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being forced to resign over this email leak (I thought she already HAD resigned - well maybe now she'll resign twice) she won't be the one to 'Open' the convention as it gets underway as she's obviously going to be (and already has been) the target of many boo birds within the party. I think it would be cool if the progressive wing could force her into a naked penance walk around the arena as the 'Feel the Bern' crowd chants, 'Shame!, Shame!' at her.

Ceetar Jul 25 2016 06:36 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

maybe they should've stored these emails on a private server.

Lefty Specialist Jul 25 2016 07:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Frayed Knot wrote: So with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being forced to resign over this email leak (I thought she already HAD resigned - well maybe now she'll resign twice) she won't be the one to 'Open' the convention as it gets underway as she's obviously going to be (and already has been) the target of many boo birds within the party. I think it would be cool if the progressive wing could force her into a naked penance walk around the arena as the 'Feel the Bern' crowd chants, 'Shame!, Shame!' at her. She basically was installed by Obama. Hillary, as the nominee, gets to install her own head of the DNC. While the appointee technically has the job until the election is over, realistically the new nominee's person gets to call the shots from the convention onward. So DWS was already out in all but name anyway. One of her last official acts was to have been to gavel-in and gavel-out the convention.

d'Kong76 Jul 25 2016 07:59 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: maybe they should've stored these emails on a private server. I think that's not kosher, well I mean if you or I were to do it. So Bernie has to give a speech? Sheesh, wouldn't want to be him right now...

Ashie62 Jul 25 2016 08:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Speaking of gavel, its' about that time in Philadelphia.

Ashie62 Jul 25 2016 08:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Michael Moore. 5 reasons Trump will win. One being a rust belt Brexit of sorts. [url]http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289053-michael-moore-5-reasons-trump-will-be-president

Nymr83 Jul 26 2016 12:46 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Al Gore skipped the convention. I'm not sure how common this is - There were no Bushes to be found in Cleveland - but the dude spent 8 years in the White House with the nominee's husband - pretty big slap in the face there. Is there any chance we can all just wake up tomorrow to a Biden-Kasich race?

Lefty Specialist Jul 26 2016 01:43 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Pretty much everybody who could be is at the Democratic convention. Elected Republicans ran away from the Trump convention in droves. First Night Trump: Scott Baio. Hillary: Sarah Silverman. Advantage Hillary.

Edgy MD Jul 26 2016 02:12 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nominally, but ... I could do without politicians leaning on actors to put a veneer of glamour on their policies.

Ceetar Jul 26 2016 02:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: Nominally, but ... I could do without politicians leaning on actors to put a veneer of glamour on their policies. It's a TV Show.

Edgy MD Jul 26 2016 02:24 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

That I could do without.

Ceetar Jul 26 2016 02:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD Jul 26 2016 02:55 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

One day, you're going to stop talking down to folks such as myself, right?

d'Kong76 Jul 26 2016 03:02 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I didn't watch the convention (I had some paint I had to monitor the drying process of) but a fb friend of mine complained with the seeming absence of American flags and stuff. This is still America, right?

Edgy MD Jul 26 2016 03:04 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

d'Kong76 wrote: I didn't watch the convention (I had some paint I had to monitor the drying process of) but a fb friend of mine complained with the seeming absence of American flags and stuff. This is still America, right? I'm sure that was FB spin. Patriotic symbolism mostly comes through the form of images being flashed on giant screens. Get contrasting shots of one convention while digital flags are being projected and another while ... something else is being projected, and you can pretend you drew distinctions. But it's cherry picking silliness. Flag shmag. If you isolate the part of the Republican convention where the RNC band played “Station to Station,” you can pretend that all Bowie fans should be backing Trump, but that would be doubly silly.

metsmarathon Jul 26 2016 03:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Nominally, but ... I could do without politicians leaning on actors to put a veneer of glamour on their policies. It's a TV Show. it's a tv show, in that it's shown on tv, but it has a greater purpose than simply to entertain.

Ceetar Jul 26 2016 03:24 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Nominally, but ... I could do without politicians leaning on actors to put a veneer of glamour on their policies. It's a TV Show. it's a tv show, in that it's shown on tv, but it has a greater purpose than simply to entertain. Mostly symbolic and mostly internal to the party.

metsmarathon Jul 26 2016 03:33 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

so... i just saw an ad for trump, perhaps you've seen it too. "aspire for greatness", it says, with a picture of trump wearing one of his dumbass hats (he really just ran for president so he could sell an ass-ton of hats, didn't he?) and in the lower half, it has a photo of the space shuttle lifting off. uh.... guys... trump has expressed no interest in actually funding space exploration, and is as anti-science as they come.

d'Kong76 Jul 26 2016 03:40 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The best commercial so far is Hillary's where the kids are sitting around watching tv and Chump is bbbyyy this and bbbyyy that. I didn't look, it's probably on youtube by now...

TransMonk Jul 26 2016 03:43 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: Al Gore skipped the convention. I'm not sure how common this is - There were no Bushes to be found in Cleveland - but the dude spent 8 years in the White House with the nominee's husband - pretty big slap in the face there. The post above is a joke, right? I have seen no such endorsements of Trump from W. Bush or his daddy. In fact, quite the opposite.

d'Kong76 Jul 26 2016 06:46 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist Jul 27 2016 12:16 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Yeah, but he asked the convention to nominate her by acclamation. You know, just like Ted Cruz did for Drumpf. Bernie's a big boy and was classy about it. Too bad the Russians will never leak the internal RNC memos. Can you imagine the e-mails that were flying around about Trump? But they've fallen in line behind their dream team.....

d'Kong76 Jul 27 2016 12:32 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I don't really care, and will likely stop clowning around soon. It's just another sign that Hillary is corrupt. No way she didn't know what the party was up to. Believe what y'all want, I feel bad for Bern who is a good egg in my book.

Ashie62 Jul 27 2016 12:41 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Nominally, but ... I could do without politicians leaning on actors to put a veneer of glamour on their policies. It's a TV Show. it's a tv show, in that it's shown on tv, but it has a greater purpose than simply to entertain. I'd rather watch reruns of the Big Bang Theory, no disrespect BBT!

Ceetar Jul 27 2016 02:30 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I watched reruns of Gilmore Girls myself.

Edgy MD Jul 27 2016 03:35 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Any faith in the idea that the hack was done on behalf of shadowy Russian interests with a stake in elevating Donald Trump to the presidency?

Ceetar Jul 27 2016 03:55 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: Any faith in the idea that the hack was done on behalf of shadowy Russian interests with a stake in elevating Donald Trump to the presidency? I doubt it, I don't think there was anything super damning in there that I've seen. Not to get in Putin's head, but would he really want Trump? Seems like he'd have preferred a less wild and more calculating leader that he could better manipulate. Unless he's such a meglomaniac that he doesn't realize that all it'd take is one joke about Trump's hand size to get him to threaten to nuke Russia.

metsmarathon Jul 27 2016 04:46 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

bullies look up to bigger bullies, and big bullies like to string along littler bullies to tamp down the competition. trump would be too busy eating out of the palm of putin's hand to worry about how big his own were. besides, as much of a wildcard as trump must be seen, he's also surely seen by russia as either a) thoroughly willing to be putin's sub, or b) certain to bring about the utter collapse of their greatest adversary, or c) both.

d'Kong76 Jul 27 2016 04:54 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The unabridged version (there's a shorter one airing too)... [youtube:26muff7j]mrX3Ql31URA[/youtube:26muff7j]

metsmarathon Jul 27 2016 05:14 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

that is a terrific ad right there. also, the cover image looks eerily like the µmms...

d'Kong76 Jul 27 2016 05:29 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

It's brilliant, it really captures his assholishness!

Edgy MD Jul 27 2016 05:46 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Of course, it ironically exposes children to the terrible toxicity of his flaming anus rhetoric in its own way.

Edgy MD Jul 27 2016 06:11 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And today it's revealed that he apparently thought, up until this afternoon, that Secretary Clinton's running mate was former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean. It's just a big dumpster fire.

Lefty Specialist Jul 27 2016 07:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Any faith in the idea that the hack was done on behalf of shadowy Russian interests with a stake in elevating Donald Trump to the presidency? I doubt it, I don't think there was anything super damning in there that I've seen. Not to get in Putin's head, but would he really want Trump? Seems like he'd have preferred a less wild and more calculating leader that he could better manipulate. Unless he's such a meglomaniac that he doesn't realize that all it'd take is one joke about Trump's hand size to get him to threaten to nuke Russia. Gee, Trump thinks NATO's outdated. His people got just one plank in the Republican platform eliminated, the one that said we'd help Ukraine. His campaign manager used to work for one of Putin's cronies. Cyber experts already strongly suspect it was a hack from the Russian security services. Does Putin want an incompetent US president who's already conceded Eastern Europe to him? Da. You bet your babushka he does. I'm betting that we haven't seen the last of this mischief. We'll see more 'leaks'. I'd bet they've got some juicy Clinton foundation stuff that they're waiting to spill. And I'm sure there'll be some stuff from the official State Department e-mail that'll be embarrassing to her. But I doubt if you'll see any internal Trump Organization e-mails anytime soon. Or RNC e-mails saying "How do we stop this asshole?"

cooby Jul 27 2016 07:24 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: And today it's revealed that he apparently thought, up until this afternoon, that Secretary Clinton's running mate was former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean. It's just a big dumpster fire. Dumpster fires attract crowds :(

Ceetar Jul 27 2016 07:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Russian officials hacking Americans sounds like exactly the thing Trump would threaten to bomb Russia over if it was asked right or the hack touched him in some way.

Edgy MD Jul 27 2016 07:40 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: But I doubt if you'll see any internal Trump Organization e-mails anytime soon. Or RNC e-mails saying "How do we stop this asshole?" I think some current or former RNC staffers might volunteer to release those voluntarily. Another thing you might want to see but likely won't is Candidate Trump's tax returns.

Lefty Specialist Jul 27 2016 11:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Boy, must be fun to be this stupid and have people still cheer you on. MIAMI — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has taken a shot at Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, for doing a terrible job as governor in New Jersey. Trump said at a Wednesday press conference in Miami that Kaine still isn’t popular in New Jersey. Kaine was governor of Virginia. Trump may have confused Kaine (KAYN’) with former Republican New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean (KAYN’), who led the state while Trump was building his casino empire in Atlantic City.

Nymr83 Jul 28 2016 02:11 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Boy, must be fun to be this stupid and have people still cheer you on. MIAMI — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has taken a shot at Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, for doing a terrible job as governor in New Jersey. Trump said at a Wednesday press conference in Miami that Kaine still isn’t popular in New Jersey. Kaine was governor of Virginia. Trump may have confused Kaine (KAYN’) with former Republican New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean (KAYN’), who led the state while Trump was building his casino empire in Atlantic City. No wonder Trump thinks he's terrible - he confused him with the shmuck who let Trump "build his casino empire" haha

Edgy MD Jul 28 2016 01:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm starting to pick up some disappointment in my social media streams among Howard Stern aficionados, that the show is seemingly deliberately laying off Trump.

Ashie62 Jul 28 2016 09:30 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Tom Kean has a speech impediment!

Lefty Specialist Jul 29 2016 02:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hillary nailed it. I didn't think she had it in her; she's not the greatest speaker. But she pulled it off. It's impossible to have a starker contrast between conventions. For the Republicans, America was a dark and scary place full of boogeymen. Democrats basically had Ronald Reagan's 1984 convention- Morning in America was pretty much the theme. They had more military moments, and John McCain got more respect from Democrats than Republicans. The Bernie dead-enders were obnoxious, but they got drowned out in the end. They even got the balloons to drop on time. And hey, no winery managers. Trump is a target-rich environment, and he got hammered pretty good. It'll be interesting to see how much of a bump she gets.

Ashie62 Jul 30 2016 02:42 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

She did well. Her organization, money and ground game should easily carry the day.

RealityChuck Jul 30 2016 03:51 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

She also has a much easier path to victory: she can count on over 200 electoral votes from the start.

MFS62 Jul 31 2016 01:36 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Any faith in the idea that the hack was done on behalf of shadowy Russian interests with a stake in elevating Donald Trump to the presidency? Not to get in Putin's head, but would he really want Trump? Seems like he'd have preferred a less wild and more calculating leader that he could better manipulate. Unless he's such a meglomaniac that he doesn't realize that all it'd take is one joke about Trump's hand size to get him to threaten to nuke Russia. Crack a book. Hitler and Stalin entered into a pact, too, before they went to war. And I can't think of a better analogy for these two. And his insulting of the parents of the slain soldier and calling what he has done in his life "sacrifice" is beyond reprehensible. Later

Lefty Specialist Jul 31 2016 03:31 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Putin flatters Trump, and Trump loves people who flatter him. He's the easiest person in the world to manipulate. And if you annoy him, he responds excessively and irrationally, like he did to a Gold Star mother and father, like he did to John McCain, and countless others who offend the thin-skinned bully.

Frayed Knot Jul 31 2016 04:59 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I finally realized that the guy Trump reminds me of is Howard Cosell; the egos; the thin-skinned reaction to criticisms; the idea that criticism can only result from personal hatred*; the lauding of everyone on his side as 'brilliant', 'classy', or 'smart', the put-down of everyone not as some form of dumb, past their time, or simply jealous of of his brilliance. There are differences of course, if anything I think Cosell was a lot smarter than Trump but also probably more paranoid. But there's that same: I'm smarter than you, and the fact that you can't see I'm smarter than you is proof that I'm smarter than you, and that you hate me is based on your realization that I'm more accomplished than you, attitude that seems to pervade almost every statement each makes/made. Both also talked for years about running for office but then always (until now) brushed it off saying either that it was beneath them or that too many insider forces were aligned against them (out of fear and personal jealousy of course) to allow it to happen. * they have that one in common with Hillary

Lefty Specialist Jul 31 2016 05:47 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

While both Hillary and Trump may take criticism personally, only one lashes out like a seven-year-old. Earlier this year, Hillary was grilled for 11 hours by a House committee determined to find something they could (figuratively) hang her with. Imagine Donald Trump subjected to the same treatment. Twitter doesn't have enough bandwidth. The comparison with Cosell fails in that Howard was a very knowledgeable man about a lot more than the world of sports. He could hold his own in any area and could respond intelligently to any argument. Trump probably hasn't read a book since The Art of the Deal.

Frayed Knot Jul 31 2016 06:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Trump probably hasn't read a book since The Art of the Deal. I doubt he read that one.

MFS62 Jul 31 2016 08:30 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Frayed Knot wrote: I finally realized that the guy Trump reminds me of is Howard Cosell; the egos; the thin-skinned reaction to criticisms; the idea that criticism can only result from personal hatred*; the lauding of everyone on his side as 'brilliant', 'classy', or 'smart', the put-down of everyone not as some form of dumb, past their time, or simply jealous of of his brilliance. Add bigot to that list and you've got Mike Francessa. Later

Edgy MD Jul 31 2016 10:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I never knew how much of Cosell was an act. But how much of Trump is an act that has gotten carried away. A child's like that's taken on a life of it's own that the kid can't cop too because they whole town believes him. Anyhow, amazing that you can compare Trump to Cosell and not bring up hair.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 31 2016 11:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I mean, every day, it's fresh hell, but still, it bears noting: what kind of an unbelievably cruel moron picks a public fight with a grieving military family?

Lefty Specialist Jul 31 2016 11:45 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

An incredibly cruel moron who 1) knows that the Republican establishment won't condemn him (and they haven't). 2) has a hard-core of supporters who cheer him on anyway. 3) doesn't even understand the concept of shame, 4) knows that he dominated another news cycle, which in his mind equates to victory. Next up: shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue. Preferably a Muslim or a Mexican. Film at 11.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2016 12:50 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I really hate the "I'm not saying it but other people are" tactic in politics. That's cowardly and no reporter worth his or her salt should let a candidate get away with that. “Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?” Home run for Mrs. Khan. Grand slam. Speaker Ryan needs to come to the mound and give Mr. Trump the hook.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 01 2016 12:56 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:24 AM

.

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2016 01:13 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Like the Putin stuff, this is a non-issue meant to distract you from the stuff that really matters. And that would be...?

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 01 2016 01:24 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:24 AM

.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 01 2016 01:40 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

not for nothing but the fact that a nation is considering electing a cruel racist foolish ignorant asshole matters very much.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 01 2016 01:43 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:25 AM

.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2016 02:48 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Sure she has issues. A pile of them. But he is unlike anything we've ever seen on the national stage. There is utterly nothing not negative about him. And wanting to steer the conversation to real issues is fine. But it's not like Donald Trump doesn't spend 20 hours a day avoiding anything resembling an issue, and the other four hour embarrassing every blinking American by demonstrating a fourth-grade bully's grasp of issues. I have my issues. I care about them. Deeply. But the US is three outs away from electing a destructive fascist demagogue. One that is deep in bed with Russia and Vladimir Putin. I openly admit that I've made every other issue secondary in the face of that.

TransMonk Aug 01 2016 12:35 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Yeah, this is a two issue presidential race for me. The first issue is doing anything to keep Trump from being president. The second is about not nominating any more socially conservative Supreme Court Justices. As far as Gary Johnson goes, the college kids need to look harder at the "socially liberal" line the Libertarians are trying to sell. Gary Johnson does not want to do much about terrorism (leave the Middle East and end government aid), Social Security solvency (privatize and/or opt-out) or finding a realistic immigration plan (come on in!). He may want to make weed legal, but the main Libertarian principal seems to be to make the rich (white men) richer and to not care much about anything (or anyone) that doesn't support that principal.

sharpie Aug 01 2016 01:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Neither of my kids would have anything to do with the likes of Gary Johnson.

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2016 01:22 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The $20 trillion in national debt, for one. Most of which we owe to ourselves. If you've got treasury bonds in your 401K you're an owner. Trump would like to 'negotiate down' that debt, which of course is lunacy. If he could, he'd destroy the full faith and credit of the US. But he can't, so we're prevented from that anyway. It just proves how stupid he is. We've borrowed that money at historically low rates, and it's not a drag on the economy. We're not Greece, and it's impossible for us to become Greece. We have a sovereign currency, for one thing. As for the deficit, which contributes to the debt, it was $438 billion in FY 2015, which is down two-thirds from the $1.4 trillion FY 2009 deficit (the last Bush budget). The US has had a national debt since 1835, and you're not going to pay it all off, ever. And even if you wanted to reduce it, you've have to drastically cut services and raise taxes. No, you can't cut your way there alone. Terrorism. Hillary's already sounding pretty aggressive on this, and she helped catch that bin Laden feller. Terrorism can't ever be defeated, per se. There's always been terrorism. We can work to minimize it by being smart and savvy, and a big help would be banning the sale of military weapons to civilians, something that interestingly Republicans oppose. Banning Muslims, well there's that pesky Constitution Mr. Khan whipped out of his jacket pocket. And the San Bernadino and Orlando shooters were born and bred Americans. 168 Americans were killed by a red-haired Good Ole Boy in Oklahoma City. Oh, and pissing off a billion Muslims is not a really good terrorism strategy. Social Security solvency. This one's easy. Raise the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, only the first $118,500 of income is taxed. Lift that cap and Social Security is solvent pretty much forever. Yes, it's really that easy. It might annoy millionaires, but they'll get over it. And even if we don't lift the cap, the trust fund is currently solvent until 2037. A realistic immigration plan that is somewhere between building a wall and complete amnesty. Hey, we had one of these in 2013. Remember the 'Gang of Eight'? Remember when the Republican Party's 2012 post-mortem said to pass immigration reform to get the issue off the table? Remember when Marco Rubio and John McCain were on board? Remember when that Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill passed the Senate 68-32? And remember when the Republican House declared it dead on arrival and never even voted on it? I think we've discovered the obstacle there. Sure, it's easier to talk about non-issues. Trump's a problem in that area. He just lurches from controversy to controversy, generally about stupid stuff. It'd be nice to have a discussion of the issues but he doesn't want it and is incapable of having it. Say what you want about Hillary, at least she knows what's going on beyond her own nose. And she's certainly capable of discussing policy and issues until the cows come home. The problem is, it's hard to discuss things when you've got a screaming toddler in the background. The Supreme Court is paramount. It's the only reason Republicans will be holding their nose to vote for Trump in the first place. My son, who's 20, wants no part of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. Johnson's a temporary refuge for disappointed Republicans, but when they dig a little deeper most of them run. And Jill Stein is not a landing spot for too many Bernie supporters either. As for Bernie supporters going to Trump, well, as the kids say, lol. I have problems with Hillary. She's not my ideal choice by a long shot. But faced with the alternative, omigod.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2016 02:12 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Yeah, I was going to say this. The fact that Mr. Trump is proposing, to great applause from supporters, a blanket ban of Muslims from entering this country. And Mr. Khan's speech was in opposition to this, I have no problem saying this dispute is over a real issue.

seawolf17 Aug 01 2016 03:35 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

LEFTY SPECIALIST FOR PRESIDENT

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2016 03:43 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Talk about a job I wouldn't want for all the tea in China. I'm not qualified, but at least I'm aware of that fact, which puts me one up on the Donald. It's one thing to have a debate on the issues. That'd be great and there are a lot of serious things to discuss. The problem is that it's hard to have a substantive debate with someone who's completely unprepared to discuss the issues in any rational way. And while I think that Trump is laying the groundwork for weaseling out of the debates ("The NFL sent me a letter"), I think there's a real danger for Hillary in a debate setting. Now, she has more knowledge of domestic and international affairs in her pinky than he has in his whole body, but that won't help against Trump's asymmetrical warfare. He'll lie his ass off, and if she tries to correct those lies, there'll be no time to get her points across. She can't fall into that trap. What she needs is a line to hone in on. Reagan had it against Carter when he said, "There you go again, Mr. President". Biden had it when he dismissed Rudy Giuiliani as "Noun, verb, 9-11". Chris Christie did the same thing to Marco Rubio in the primary debates. She needs a statement that says he's full of shit without rebutting him point by point. This is essential. Then she can get onto her points. There'll be no substance from Trump. Hillary will have to provide it all, and to do that she'll have to avoid getting bogged down in his abuse and name-calling.

TransMonk Aug 01 2016 03:58 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I think Hillary should set up a staff to fact-check Trump's lies (with cites and sources) in real-time during the debates. That way, instead of trying to combat his inaccuracies during debate time, she can simply direct viewers to a simple URL that they can visit once the debate is over to review the facts on Trump's claims. "Well, Donald, that's just not true. I would encourage Americans to visit www.2016debatefacts.com for full details on the what Mr. Trump is alleging concerning [insert issue here]."

Ceetar Aug 01 2016 04:07 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

TransMonk wrote: I think Hillary should set up a staff to fact-check Trump's lies (with cites and sources) in real-time during the debates. That way, instead of trying to combat his inaccuracies during debate time, she can simply direct viewers to a simple URL that they can visit once the debate is over to review the facts on Trump's claims. "Well, Donald, that's just not true. I would encourage Americans to visit http://www.2016debatefacts.com for full details on the what Mr. Trump is alleging concerning [insert issue here]." That wouldn't work anyway. The majority of his supporters aren't really looking for facts. They'll see that as Hillary dragging her feet on trying to actually fix problems or move forward. They'll just see it as "Well, if that doesn't work, he'll try something else. At least he's looking for solutions!" If there's anyone actually watching the debate undecided, she should probably just treat it as a platform to discuss what she wants to get done and talk about that. If there's any chance Trump gets elected, it'll be because Hillary fails to convince people that she'll be even a status quo president so that they don't desperately seek a third party or don't vote at all.

metsmarathon Aug 01 2016 05:12 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

having voted republican in every presidential election that i was able, i find every issue wherein donald trump displays himself to be categorically unfit to lead this nation to be an important issue. interestingly, isidewith pegs me at nearly 100% in full agreement with hillary, with trump as my polar opposite. i forget where i stand with prominent independents, but once i cull the list of anti-vaxxers i don't really have much of a place to go. interestingly, i'm not sure exactly how much my political leanings have changed over the years (i've always been somewhat socially liberal), but it's clearer and clearer that there's not a damned thing for me in the republican party. i mean, i like war and all that (i'm thoroughly pro-defense) but i find the republican stance on most foreign policy matters of import to be laughably childish, of late. as edgy says, the Khan issue is an actual important issue, or maybe three or four all wrapped up into one. trump is a hateful, cruel, ignorant bigot. a bully. a blustering blowhard. who knows nothing of foreign policy and diplomacy, and who exhibits no leadership skills nor the temperament or competence to govern. as far as the merits of hillary clinton... well... if you asked me if i trusted her, i would have to say 'probably not' in that she always seems to be hiding... something... but i trust her to govern, and to lead. i certainly cannot say the same of her principal opponent, nor can i say it about any of the alternatives. her best chance in the debates is to, as obama put it, go high. for hte undecided voters, she shouldn't need to make a case against trump - he does an excellent job of that himself - rather, she needs to make the case as to why she should earn their precious votes.

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2016 06:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, Hillary is about as right-wing a candidate as the Democrats could put up. She's more hawkish on defense than Obama, picked a running mate who's personally anti-choice, is cozy enough with the banks that Elizabeth Warren held off a long time before endorsing her, and is far from being a progressive's dream on a number of issues. She could easily be a Republican from the days before Reagan drove everything to the far right. And she makes no bones about trying to appeal to those Republicans who are having their WTF moments. But she's going to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will pull things to the left and because of that I can deal with the rest of it. Republicans need to have a real meeting after this election to figure out where they go from here. They tried to rejigger their primary rules to favor an establishment front-runner and instead they got Trump, who essentially hijacked the party. But the issue goes beyond the mechanics of the primaries. They've been exposed as a party that, like the Fox News copter on the Simpsons, is "Not Racist but #1 With Racists". It's an ugly side that can't be swept under the rug and will have to be dealt with, especially since demographics are not in their favor. Barack Obama got 39% of the white vote in 2012 yet won pretty convincingly. Trump's a danger because he's an authoritarian, something we're not used to in this country. He's also the least qualified candidate for the presidency since, well, forever. He's a test to the system. I hope we pass.

themetfairy Aug 01 2016 06:33 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Trump's a danger because he's an authoritarian, something we're not used to in this country. He's also the least qualified candidate for the presidency since, well, forever. He's a test to the system. I hope we pass. Amen!

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 01 2016 07:05 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:25 AM

.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2016 07:24 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I have no problem with saying worst ever. Worst ever for a major party, certainly. The idea that he won the primary, therefore he's qualified, is circular logic, and the kind Trump loves to use, always citing his polling, which he clearly delights over. I deserve your support because, look, people support me. I'm an important because I've been on the cover of Time. None of these is a quality. He has no virtue or quality or trait or line on his CV that recommends him to the presidency. He's destroyed the Republican Party and threatens the Republic. History has made clear what happens when a nation turns to a fascist demagogue with an ubermensch complex. It ends in death and humiliation and rubble. And usually relatively soon, in the great scheme of things. What history has never shown is what happens when the world's greatest nuclear superpower ever turns to one. If he has a real chance to win (and I agree, he does) we should all be in shit-our-pants panic mode. I am.

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2016 07:59 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The thing that disturbs me most is the 'normalization' of Trump. Like he's just another in a long line of candidates. He's not, and can't really be compared to them. Imagine if Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or George W. Bush or John McCain said and did the things he's said and done. They'd be toast, and deservedly so. That Trump is NOT toast concerns me greatly. It means that there's a hard-core of Americans, my fellow citizens, who actually GO for this stuff. It means that the media doesn't have the guts to really make him answer tough questions and not let up until they get an answer. Les Moonves said it best when he said regarding Trump: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." He's such catnip for the news shows that they can't get enough of him. And that's truly scary.

seawolf17 Aug 01 2016 08:00 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: The thing that disturbs me most is the 'normalization' of Drumpf. Like he's just another in a long line of candidates. He's not, and can't really be compared to them. Imagine if Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or George W. Bush or John McCain said and did the things he's said and done. They'd be toast, and deservedly so. That Drumpf is NOT toast concerns me greatly. It means that there's a hard-core of Americans, my fellow citizens, who actually GO for this stuff. It means that the media doesn't have the guts to really make him answer tough questions and not let up until they get an answer. Les Moonves said it best when he said regarding Drumpf: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." He's such catnip for the news shows that they can't get enough of him. And that's truly scary. I've been saying that for months. Regardless of who wins in November, this disgusting underbelly of America isn't going anywhere. And THAT is almost as scary as President Trump.

Vic Sage Aug 01 2016 08:01 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm not a Trump guy, but he's hardly the least qualified candidate ever. One could argue that the current occupant had a handful of years in a state Legislaure, gave a good convention speech and two years in the U.S. Senate, all of which were spent running for president. And I think that lack of experience hurt him. The fact that he beat Hillary last time is another indication of her weakness. Heck, this time she barely beat a socialist who isn't even a Democrat, and did so only because the national party rigged it in her favor. We can make fun of Trump all we like, and there is much to make fun of. But he beat a crowded field of experienced, popular and well-funded challengers -- all of whom where focused on knocking him out. Clinton won because the national party cleared a path for her. When I wear my nonpartisan political anaylist cap and look seriously and the strengths and challenges of each, he's got a real chance to win. The Dem strategy is going to be to make him even more unlikeable than their candidate is perceived to be, which is not dealing from a position of strength You couldn't find that particular cap if it bit you on your ass. You've just compared a man who is (a) an attorney with an understanding of civil law, (b) who spent years working with non-profits to help underserved communities, (c) ran and won a state-wide senate campaign, and then (d) drafted, debated and voted on federal legislation, with a guy who was (a) born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple, (b) who has never done anything related to governmental service, except to lobby for his own corporate interests, or (c) done anything for society, other than line his own pockets, and (d) with fascist tendencies that are only modulated by his own ignorance of what that means. Anybody not getting the truly nonpartisan threat posed by a Trump candidacy (much less a Trump presidency) is either too stupid to engage in a conversation or is just willfully partisan, thinking this is just like any other election of Dems v GOP, as opposed to the existential threat it is to American democracy.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 01 2016 08:04 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:25 AM

.

seawolf17 Aug 01 2016 08:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

But seriously. Vic has the best insults. The best. You see Mets Guy's insults up there? They're a disaster. Everybody loves Vic's insults. They're the best. Thousands of peo-- TENS of thousands of people line up to have Vic insult them.

Ceetar Aug 01 2016 08:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

_IF_ Trump is the downfall of American democracy he's a symptom, not the disease.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2016 08:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Winning the primaries has nothing to do with his qualifications. Well, I'm not sure why'd you'd note it. It's the only thing you've listed in his favor. And there absolutely is nothing else to list. He's an atomic fart in a rupturing space suit. Ceetar wrote: _IF_ Trump is the downfall of American democracy he's a symptom, not the disease. Maybe, but his candidacy is the clear and present danger to the health of the Republic. I say we avoid that crisis forthwith. I'm thinking long and hard about a new scenario. He gets elected, is sworn in, jumping the gun on Justice Roberts, saying "I do" three times before Roberts is done talking, turns to the nation to present his inaugural address, stares at it, decides to go off book, and just talks so batshit crazy that section four of the 25th amendment is immediately (and for the first time!) invoked. That would be great. But there's a problem. The cabinet hasn't been fully approved yet, so there aren't enough hands on deck to sign off on his removal. And there's this long, miserable slog as his few remaining loyal staff get wind of this potential palace coup and he refuses to nominate anybody until they've taken an oath of loyalty to him. So some departments go years without cabinet secretaries. And this crazy, powerless president has nobody willing to do his bidding, except for generals, who he fires on an almost daily basis.

metsmarathon Aug 01 2016 08:35 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

That is very certainly the case. But while we're waiting to have our leg amputated, let's take a Tylenol to dull the pain. Trump is symptomatic and symbolic of something very wrong with the fabric of our nation. Let's hope - nay, ensure! - that the next president works tirelessly for o mend that fabric, rather than tugging violently at the seams, while splashing gasoline all over it and holding a lit match.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 01 2016 08:49 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:26 AM

.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2016 08:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I certainly understand you say you're not a Trump guy. And I don't think you'll get an argument with the notion that he has a real chance to win. I interpreted ... We can make fun of Trump all we like, and there is much to make fun of. But he beat a crowded field of experienced, popular and well-funded challengers -- all of whom where focused on knocking him out. Clinton won because the national party cleared a path for her. ... as a statement that his qualifications are somehow underestimated. if you only mean that is chances of winning are underestimated, well, not around here they're not. Not in my house. We're scared shitless. Huddled up in the corner with blankets and protein pills.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 01 2016 09:05 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:26 AM

.

Nymr83 Aug 02 2016 12:05 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I don't understand how your entirely correct point - that Trump did a much heavier job with far less than Hillary in the primaries, so don't underestimate him - gets attacked as if you were endorsing him or his views.

Edgy MD Aug 02 2016 12:27 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I didn't attack anything. I disagreed that "he's hardly the least qualified candidate ever." I say that as an independent voter. A nauseated and horrified independent voter.

Lefty Specialist Aug 02 2016 01:33 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hey ladies, don't worry, he's an equal opportunity offender. 6:15 p.m. Donald Trump is suggesting that if his daughter Ivanka were the victim of workplace sexual harassment she should find another job. Trump, in an interview published Monday in USA Today, continued to defend his friend Roger Ailes, who was ousted from his position atop Fox News after charges of serial sexual harassment. The Republican presidential nominee said it was “sad” that women were “complaining” about Ailes. Trump was then asked about his own daughter. He replied: “I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case.”

Vic Sage Aug 02 2016 07:20 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: I don't understand how your entirely correct point - that Trump did a much heavier job with far less than Hillary in the primaries, so don't underestimate him - gets attacked as if you were endorsing him or his views. Nobody is arguing with the assertion that Trump had a tougher road. But Metsguy also said: I'm not a Trump guy, but he's hardly the least qualified candidate ever. One could argue that the current occupant had a handful of years in a state Legislature, gave a good convention speech and two years in the U.S. Senate, all of which were spent running for president. And I think that lack of experience hurt him. and then he said: ...When I wear my nonpartisan political analyst cap... ...on which i called "bullshit," and on which i continue to call bullshit. The only argument one can make against the self-evident fact that Trump is the least qualified candidate ever to be put forward by a major political party (and to then assert that Obama was even in the same universe of under-qualified as The Drumpf when he ran) is a thoroughly partisan one, or one made by a moron. I don't for a moment think MGiM is mentally deficient in any way, and i'm sure he's a wonderful person, but he doesn't get to sit there and call himself "non-partisan" under these circumstances without leaving himself open to a challenge on that point.

Edgy MD Aug 02 2016 08:38 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I have to admit that I can't objectively say how fundamentally bad John Beckenridge was as a presidential candidate in 1860—whether he was merely fundamentally wrong on the great issue of his time or whether he was wrong and crazy. I also don't know if his would be considered a "major party" candidacy in the modern sense, following the Democratic party's split at the convention, leaving the relatively new Republican Party as the only major team on the field.

Lefty Specialist Aug 02 2016 08:41 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump's less qualified than Wendell Willkie in 1940 (he was at least a lawyer, even though he'd never held political office). Less qualified than Eisenhower in 1952, who had extensive foreign policy experience (ask the Germans). Obama's qualifications are light-years ahead of Trump's, as were W's. Ulysses S. Grant was a drunkard with no political experience, but he at least led an army to victory. Like Trump, he was familiar with bankruptcy. Chester Arthur in 1880 may have been less qualified, as he was the Tax Collector for the port of New York before being chosen as Garfield's vice-president. He only became president because Garfield was shot a few months later, so he doesn't quite count.

Ceetar Aug 02 2016 08:55 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Qualified of course, does not equal 'good president'. and unqualified does not equal bad one. In fact, being unqualified is actually something that draws voters to Trump. Those that want to see government addressed with a fresh set of eyes instead of endless streams of politicians playing a chess game with each other. It's not just a promotion to the next level in a corporate ladder. Of course, Trump is not actually a smart person, a leader, a good businessman, or even a good person. But give me a candidate that's an intelligent person and is interested in moving society forward, and of course is willing to work with smart advisors to navigate diplomatic waters and other such 'insider' things. For instance, I'd probably vote for Elon Musk if he were to randomly throw his hat in the ring tomorrow over Hillary, and I don't give a crap that he's not 'qualified'.

Edgy MD Aug 02 2016 09:42 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

When declaring his lack of qualifications, we mean to speak to those areas also, not merely relevant experience. Chester Alan Arthur had experience in leadership in military and governance that Mr. Trump could only dream about. And, as a candidate, no one could have claimed more relevant experience than him, as he was president before he ever was a presidential candidate.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 02 2016 10:26 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Insults and personal attacks should be limited to the red light forum.

Lefty Specialist Aug 03 2016 12:25 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

My apologies to President Grant.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 03 2016 02:13 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Vic's said what I dropped in to say. I'll add this-- qualifications aren't just the things you put on your CV. The man doesn't read books. Outside of teleprompters and tweets, he barely reads, full stop. Like, ever.

Edgy MD Aug 03 2016 03:01 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

My takeaway from that page was these two tweets: [fimg=150]https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1264935685/jh_400x400.jpg[/fimg] John HarwoodVerified account @JohnJHarwood longtime ally of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager: "Manafort not challenging Trump anymore. Mailing it in. Staff suicidal." [fimg=150]https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/723730577610911744/95Ub9VEW_400x400.jpg[/fimg] Ali VitaliVerified account @alivitali Ali Vitali Retweeted John Harwood A Trump campaign source, in reax to this, tells me "it's all true" and "way worse than people realize."

Vic Sage Aug 03 2016 03:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Insults and personal attacks should be limited to the red light forum. i've said you are a nice person, with no mental deficiencies... how is that an insult? I've simply challenged your description of yourself as non-partisan. You are clearly partisan. That's not a personal attack; its an attack on your argument that you are somehow neutral when you create a false equivalency between Trump and Obama. and Ceetar, all those things you say of Elon Musk are indeed qualifications. You've confused "qualifications" with "experience".

Lefty Specialist Aug 03 2016 03:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, I don't want Trump bailing out too [u:ybmy4x1p]early[/u:ybmy4x1p]. It'd be like Godzilla stopping before he got to Tokyo.

Ceetar Aug 03 2016 03:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Vic Sage wrote: and Ceetar, all those things you say of Elon Musk are indeed qualifications. You've confused "qualifications" with "experience". Well, yes, but there's a lot of overlap in those two within the political machine. And of course, they become subjective if you're speaking of qualifications not experience. Technically speaking, Trump is as qualified as Hillary from a "35 and born in the USA" standpoint. But then Trump is hardly even close to the least qualified candidate ever. I'd argue there's a lot more relevance to being rich and in the business world for decades to being a politician/president these days than promoting military leaders to the position.

Vic Sage Aug 03 2016 03:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

sigh. if 35 and a citizen was what we're talking about, then i guess I'm qualified too. But you know that's not what we're talking about. Rich is a qualification? How? Particularly since his wealth is inherited. He has created no wealth of his own. Economists have shown that, based on his many failed ventures, he would have more wealth now if he had just put his daddy's money in a savings account and never did a thing. Which goes to the "qualification" of being in the "business world." Capone was in the business word, too, and showed the same sense of ethics and scruples. I wouldn't call it a qualification. Too many people thinking running a for-profit enterprise is the same as being president, but its really really really not. Running a business is about serving the bottom line (generally your own bottom line). Running a country is about serving the people. It's about the business of Politics, not the politics of business. And miliitary leaders are in fact proven leaders. While not ideal presidential material, some of our best have been, from Washington to the unfairly maligned Eisenhower. At least Generals have a sense of duty and public service. I can't for the life of me think of anyone less qualified to act for the betterment of all than a megalomaniacal narcissist in service only to himself, with a paper trail of failure and fraud stretching back throughout his entire professional life.

Vic Sage Aug 03 2016 03:51 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

what's frustrating is how inept a candidate Clinton is, that she can't really capitalize on this dangerous baffoon's daily self-destruction. I don't like her much, either, but at least she's on the spectrum of basic human competence and decency. Still, she can't build a substantial lead on this nitwit. If the Republicans were smart, they'd find a way of disqualifying Donald and let Spence take the top of the ticket, with Ryan or some other normal conservative taking the VP slot. With Trump out of the way, all the Republicans would come home with great relief, and the campaign would become about the ongoing (and successful) demonization of Hilary. I think she'd get crushed against Spence/Ryan. Luckily, the Republicans don't have the balls to do it.

sharpie Aug 03 2016 04:22 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I think Clinton is putting him away. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... ecast/#now Somehow disqualifying Trump and putting Pence at the top of the ticket would backfire as the Trump supporters would freak the hell out. What Vic said regarding Trump's qualifications. Even if he were a successful businessman (Ross Perot), I don't think that is a qualification to be President.

Ceetar Aug 03 2016 04:28 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Vic Sage wrote: I wouldn't call it a qualification. Too many people thinking running a for-profit enterprise is the same as being president, but its really really really not. Running a business is about serving the bottom line (generally your own bottom line). Running a country is about serving the people. It's about the business of Politics, not the politics of business. And miliitary leaders are in fact proven leaders. While not ideal presidential material, some of our best have been, from Washington to the unfairly maligned Eisenhower. At least Generals have a sense of duty and public service. . There's a lot more to president today than being a strong leader, but when was the last time a general even ran? Like I said, we're quibbling over the definition of qualification. You just said that is IS for Musk and ISN'T for Trump? Leaving aside the actual quality of job they've done. (I bet the average Trump voter doesn't realize how much of a scammer he is) Running a business, while about the bottom line, is also about serving the people what they want. The President is about serving the people what they _need_. And most people aren't really voting for the 'best president' it's a mess of a whole lot of things, very few of which are "who will actually do the best job". The mess of a two-party system only exacerbates this. Once you've come to the conclusion that neither candidate with a real chance to win is a good candidate, you might as well pick another criteria to vote along.

Edgy MD Aug 03 2016 04:49 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: Like I said, we're quibbling over the definition of qualification. Yeah, well, throw down any qualification you want. Mr. Trump is unqualified. Nobody likes fighting for the unjustly maligned more than I do. De Aza. Cuddyer. But Mr. Trump hasn't been unjustly maligned. He's been unambiguously malignant. For decades. No obscuritanist definition of "qualified" will redeem him.

Vic Sage Aug 03 2016 05:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

sharpie wrote: I think Clinton is putting him away. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... ecast/#now I'm not comforted by such data. I don't think everybody who will pull the lever for Trump will have told a pollster that they intend to. Many would be embarrassed about it, but are going to do it anyway. And i think the white rust-belt states hit hardest by trade agreements, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, are going to be exemplars of this, and could have a huge impact on electoral college outcome. Somehow disqualifying Trump and putting Pence at the top of the ticket would backfire as the Trump supporters would freak the hell out. Yes, but its also possible that the GOP would gain back a lot of their ranks, perhaps even as many as they lose. But even if it was a net deficit, they'd also get the disaffected Democrats and Independents who are voting for Hilary only because they feel like they have no other choice, or were not going to vote at all. It would become a referendum on Hilary, and if the GOP could put forward some low profile professionals who seem sane and competent, it'd be such a relief to so many that they could crush her.

Vic Sage Aug 03 2016 05:20 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

i do think, however, that if the GOP were to disqualify Trump at this point, the 2nd Amendment would take on a whole new meaning (or actually regain its original meaning), and i think some really horrible tragic shit would go down that even the NRA couldn't buy themselves out of.

Frayed Knot Aug 03 2016 05:22 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Indeed, Hillary's whole campaign is mostly going to come down to two things: - I have ovaries - I'm not him And she's probably better off emphasizing point 2

Ceetar Aug 03 2016 05:26 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Indeed, Hillary's whole campaign is mostly going to come down to two things: - I have ovaries - I'm not him And she's probably better off emphasizing point 2 none of those things will get me to vote for her. Maybe if she does some of that "pushing left" thing that was supposedly going to happen by Bernie staying in the race. Tell me you're going to seriously push for affordable/cheap/free college for everyone, or improve Obamacare, or something.

TransMonk Aug 03 2016 05:46 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

LOL

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 03 2016 05:49 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:27 AM

.

Vic Sage Aug 03 2016 06:20 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 03 2016 06:21 PM

*avi*

Vic Sage Aug 03 2016 06:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Indeed, Hillary's whole campaign is mostly going to come down to two things: - I have ovaries - I'm not him And she's probably better off emphasizing point 2 none of those things will get me to vote for her. Maybe if she does some of that "pushing left" thing that was supposedly going to happen by Bernie staying in the race. Tell me you're going to seriously push for affordable/cheap/free college for everyone, or improve Obamacare, or something. what she'll do is appoint a supreme court justice who'll preserve civil rights (and maybe even reverse CITIZENS UNITED). That's enough reason.

Lefty Specialist Aug 03 2016 06:39 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The problem with the Donald Trump campaign is Donald Trump. He's completely unable to resist taking the bait. The best thing he could do is delete his Twitter account, but he can't. He won the Republican primaries but only captured about 45% of the vote overall. So he wasn't as enormously popular as he imagines he is. But no matter. If Trump were to withdraw at this point, he would spend the rest of his life with the big red 'L' on his forehead. He'd rather take the entire Republican party down with him than voluntarily do that. That's what his talk about that 'the election is rigged' is all about. Even if he loses, he can say it was because it was rigged. That way he gets to dispute the big red 'L' for the rest of his life. I think, barring something cataclysmic, Hillary wins by a healthy margin. Are there people who'll pull the lever for him in the privacy of the polling booth? Sure. But after being able to say pretty much anything and get away with it, I think it's all beginning to FINALLY catch up to him. Attacking the Khans was the break point for a lot of people. He's going to have a 'Come to Jesus' meeting in the next few days with some prominent supporters like Rudy and Newt (what, no Scott Baio?) and they're going to try to get him to calm down. It might even work for a couple of days. But he won't be able to resist. It's like watching a psychological experiment play out in public, in real time. It'd be fascinating if it weren't so horrifying. The Clinton campaign has been smart enough to goad him and then step out of the way. That's how you beat him. Their biggest weapon is Donald Trump himself. Is this the way a presidential campaign should be fought? Of course not. And would a better candidate have a good shot at knocking off Hillary? Ab-so-lutely. But you wage the election campaign you have, not the one you want.

Ceetar Aug 03 2016 06:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Vic Sage wrote: what she'll do is appoint a supreme court justice who'll preserve civil rights (and maybe even reverse CITIZENS UNITED). That's enough reason. It's not for me. Maybe she will, maybe she won't. Of course, no matter who gets appointed the court will probably be better than it was last year. On the other hand, the appointment should've already happened, and still should, before January. But no, the government is a clusterfuck disaster and I'm supposed to believe Hillary is going to fix that? seems unlikely.

Lefty Specialist Aug 03 2016 06:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

It's a lot more likely with a strong Democratic Senate, one that can't obstruct Supreme Court nominees from even getting a hearing. So the clusterfuck can be solved. The only reason things are held up now is Republicans. Fewer Republicans, fewer problems. :)

TransMonk Aug 03 2016 06:57 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

A single President will never fix a clusterfuck government. Nor should we expect them to. It's not their sole job. This is a point that Donald Trump does not (or will not) understand. It is quite possibly the most dangerous thing about him.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2016 06:59 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: But no, the government is a clusterfuck disaster and I'm supposed to believe Hillary is going to fix that? Everybody! Grab a kool-aid and join hands!! Don't stop thinking about tomorrow Don't stop, it'll soon be here It'll be, better than before, Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone Eight more years! Eight more years! Eight more years!

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2016 07:02 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Everyone needs to be patient with Chump. There's no way he's not going to push the wrong button one too many times and step in some shit that he won't be able to clean from his boots before November. He does it almost daily. Patience.

Ashie62 Aug 03 2016 09:35 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I am expending my energy on our local politics where anyone can make a difference.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2016 09:55 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

For your sake, hope you have some dough and connections because without both you ain't making a difference in any political arena. Kiddie pool to ocean blue, follow the $$; it's over there by the extraordinarily-large pile of bullshit. And with that, I'm done here until after Election Day. May everyone's dream come true. #SHaMs2016 #LGM #YGB #CRCEMA

MFS62 Aug 04 2016 12:17 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

When Trump makes that petulant "O" with his lips, he looks like the front end of an orange Edsel. Later

Lefty Specialist Aug 04 2016 12:41 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 Aug 04 2016 01:30 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

haha

metsmarathon Aug 04 2016 12:58 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: There's a lot more to president today than being a strong leader, but when was the last time a general even ran? The President is about serving the people what they _need_. And most people aren't really voting for the 'best president' it's a mess of a whole lot of things, very few of which are "who will actually do the best job". Once you've come to the conclusion that neither candidate with a real chance to win is a good candidate, you might as well pick another criteria to vote along. i'm a little confused as to what you're actually looking for in a president, ceets... do you want a strong leader for president, and if so, how do you define that leadership? do you want someone who will do the best job, or just someone with whom you mostly agree? if you've decided that you don't mostly agree with either candidate, what other criteria are you personally looking to use? are there discriminating policies that you look to? or some other characteristic or quality? and finally, what do you think the job of the president truly is, if you could elaborate further than "giving the people what they _need_"?

Edgy MD Aug 04 2016 01:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: There's a lot more to president today than being a strong leader, but when was the last time a general even ran? Well, 2008 Republican standard bearer Senator John McCain retired from the military as a naval captain, which is no small thing. General Wesley Clark ran as a Democrat in 2004. Admiral James Stockdale famously ran for vice president with the Reform Party in 1992.

metsmarathon Aug 04 2016 02:01 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

for those unawares, naval captain is the equivalent rank to colonel, which is one step below (brigadier) general. and, yes, no small thing. buzz aldrin, john glenn, ed mcmahon, robert e. lee, and teddy roosevelt all attained the rank of colonel.

Ceetar Aug 04 2016 03:39 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: i'm a little confused as to what you're actually looking for in a president, ceets... and finally, what do you think the job of the president truly is, if you could elaborate further than "giving the people what they _need_"? I'm not sure I truly know what I'm looking for either, but I know it's not being presented to me. I know I want someone that's a hell of a lot more progressive than either of these two. I want someone that's going to (try) to push the country forward in education, science, and civil liberties. Not incrementally. Seriously. The Affordable Care Act ultimately ended up as what's probably a nice incremental step, but that's the sort of thing I like to see. Granted, that shifts towards the legislative branch. Re-open borders with Cuba. Friendly relationships with foreign powers. these sorts of things. And friendly in the trade and communication sense, not in the "Sure, we'll give you arms and randomly bomb people for you" sense. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like someone a lot like Obama. The president has a lot of jobs. He's supposed to help make the government run smoothly* by being one branch of it. In that sense, what do I think the government is for? To protect us. To build a happy and healthy society. And to keep making that society better and better. To make sure everyone has a shot at a happy life without being run roughshod over by people that have inherited an advantage.

Edgy MD Aug 04 2016 05:19 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Among those who ran in this election cycle: [list:28w6vba2][*:28w6vba2]Secretary Jim Webb also retired from the Navy holding the rank of captain, and was awarded the Navy Cross. [/*:m:28w6vba2] [*:28w6vba2]Governor Jim Gilmore served as an army intelligence officer, though I can't suss out what rank he achieved. [/*:m:28w6vba2] [*:28w6vba2]Senator Lindsey Graham served 33 years in the US Air Force, including active duty and reserves, retiring as a full colonel. [/*:m:28w6vba2] [*:28w6vba2]Governor Rick Perry also served in the US Air Force as a pilot from 1972-1977, leaving at the rank of captain. He flew relief missions, so I guess that counts as experience in giving the people what they need.[/*:m:28w6vba2][/list:u:28w6vba2]

Lefty Specialist Aug 04 2016 05:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

No one can do the leaps and bounds you want. A truly progressive candidate won't make it in this country, not yet anyway. Bernie had a nice run but he'd have lost to anyone but Trump (and maybe even him), and some of Bernie's ideas and his lack of focus on international affairs made me uncomfortable. The Affordable Care Act made it through by the skin of its teeth with 59 Democratic Senators and a solid Democratic House majority. That tells you how hard it is to get big change in this country. I think Hillary will be an incremental president. She'll be limited, because I don't think even Trump can make Republicans lose the House. But at least with a Democratic Senate (Which Trump CAN certainly make happen), she can get the courts moving in the right direction. And every time a Republican gets in, some of that progress gets lost or reversed. A President Cruz would have been a disaster in that sense. He's gearing up for 2020 too, so don't get too used to making progress, even if it's incremental, because he'll be back for more and there won't be any Trump in his way this time.

Ashie62 Aug 04 2016 09:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

If Trump drops out of the race what happens?

Frayed Knot Aug 04 2016 10:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well first comes a big honking week-long party. Then we'll decide something after that, but first things first.

Lefty Specialist Aug 04 2016 11:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ashie62 wrote: If Trump drops out of the race what happens? Chaos. But it won't happen. Do you seriously think he's going to give this all up because he's a few points behind with three months to go? He goes from adoring crowd to adoring crowd. Why would a narcissist like him give that up? Other narcissists are jealous of HIM. He's on the biggest high of his life. This is the validation he craves. He's not going anywhere.

Ashie62 Aug 04 2016 11:41 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I saw a poll on Politico showing Arizona and Georgia going blue.

Ceetar Aug 05 2016 03:17 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Ashie62 wrote: If Trump drops out of the race what happens? Chaos. But it won't happen. Do you seriously think he's going to give this all up because he's a few points behind with three months to go? He goes from adoring crowd to adoring crowd. Why would a narcissist like him give that up? Other narcissists are jealous of HIM. He's on the biggest high of his life. This is the validation he craves. He's not going anywhere. yeah. Even if he isn't/wasn't serious about being president, he wants the attention and the headlines and the coverage. And now he's one of two instead of one of 30+ (not that the media covered anyone but these two with near the fervor) I still think this end with Trump doing a "If _I_ were president" reality type talk-show on Fox news bashing everything Hillary does.

Edgy MD Aug 05 2016 03:33 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I wouldn't rule it out. Like Roger Clemens bailing on Game Six in the 1986 World Series, there are any number of self-mythologizing jerks in this world who insist they are gamers/winners/champs, while constantly planning a strategy that allows them to exit at a point that allows them a plausible claim at winner status, while not actually winning. It happens all the time. Cowards who lie to themselves so loudly that they believe their own bullshit. And Donald Trump is a coward.

Ceetar Aug 05 2016 03:37 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't rule it out. Like Roger Clemens bailing on Game Six in the 1986 World Series, there are any number of self-mythologizing jerks in this world who insist they are gamers/winners/champs, while constantly planning a strategy that allows them to exit at a point that allows them a plausible claim at winner status, while not actually winning. It happens all the time. Cowards who lie to themselves so loudly that they believe their own bullshit. And Donald Trump is a coward. "I expect a rigged election"

Lefty Specialist Aug 05 2016 11:23 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The 'rigged election' stuff is perfect Trump. He either wins or the election is 'rigged'. He can't possibly lose. Psychiatrists must be having a field day with all this. Dozens of books will be written. It's just one new poll, but the Marist poll has him down 15, losing African Americans 93-2, losing women by 20, losing non-whites by 69 points. Other polls have him losing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan by 11 and 9 points respectively. He's losing New Hampshire by 17. These are the places where he's supposed to be strongest. It's early, and a lot can happen. Things generally don't lock into place until after Labor Day. But the trends aren't good for Trump.

seawolf17 Aug 05 2016 01:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't rule it out. Like Roger Clemens bailing on Game Six in the 1986 World Series, there are any number of self-mythologizing jerks in this world who insist they are gamers/winners/champs, while constantly planning a strategy that allows them to exit at a point that allows them a plausible claim at winner status, while not actually winning. It happens all the time. Cowards who lie to themselves so loudly that they believe their own bullshit. And Donald Drumpf is a coward. "I expect a rigged election" This. There's no way he quits on his own accord, because that automatically brands him as a "loser," which in his world is the worst of all possible things. He'd rather lose and then blame it on someone else.

Edgy MD Aug 05 2016 01:49 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm not sure how my post changed his name to "Drumpf" there. But Governor Palin has certainly managed to build a career by quitting and then blaming somebody else for it.

seawolf17 Aug 05 2016 01:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure how my post changed his name to "Drumpf" there. My bad. That was my browser.

Centerfield Aug 05 2016 01:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Food for thought. He is so outlandish now, that if he moderates himself in the next three months, it will be enough for moderate Republicans to rally around him ("Sure, he used to be crazy, but now that he's stopped attacking families of fallen veterans, we think he's going to be ok.") His supporters are like a cult, and will not pull back no matter how much he hedges now. So if he comes across a little more sympathetic, maybe he bridges that gap quickly.

Frayed Knot Aug 05 2016 01:57 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And if we bring this wild hyena into our suburban home maybe he'll start acting like a domesticated dog and all the neighborhood children will like and pet him.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 05 2016 01:58 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:28 AM

.

cooby Aug 05 2016 02:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Centerfield wrote: Food for thought. He is so outlandish now, that if he moderates himself in the next three months, it will be enough for moderate Republicans to rally around him ("Sure, he used to be crazy, but now that he's stopped attacking families of fallen veterans, we think he's going to be ok.") His supporters are like a cult, and will not pull back no matter how much he hedges now. So if he comes across a little more sympathetic, maybe he bridges that gap quickly. Cult is right. And stupidity. Last night my husband went so far as to post on his Facebook page that anyone voting for trump could unfriend him right now (Jr hi, I know but passions run deep here) and some dumb broad said ' oh but I could never vote for someone who should be a federal defendant' Really, dumbass? So trump to you is better than that? I told her that without calling her dumbass. I don't know her anyway so I should

Edgy MD Aug 05 2016 02:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure how my post changed his name to "Drumpf" there. My bad. That was my browser. That's OK. I've tried to stay away from nicknames mice elf. I find that once you play that card, the opposition you are making your plea to will stop listening. And if I've got to use a nickname, I prefer Il Douche.

themetfairy Aug 05 2016 04:02 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: It's just one new poll, but the Marist poll has him down 15, losing African Americans 93-2, losing women by 20, losing non-whites by 69 points. The Marist Poll rules! (Yes, I'm biased. My son worked for them while he was in school.)

Edgy MD Aug 05 2016 06:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Losing African-Americans by 91 points. I wonder what the pollsters said when they got one of those two percent. "Wait ... seriously? Did you understand the question? Is our connection good?" Sobering to think that there's somebody on the staff charged with closing that 91-point gap.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 05 2016 08:39 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Someone pointed out with the "margin or error" built into these polls, Trump could actually be -3% with that particular demographic. Although I have 1 black fb friend who's a big-ass Trump supporter.

Ashie62 Aug 05 2016 09:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump's response to sexual harrassment? 'Quit your job."

Lefty Specialist Aug 06 2016 09:55 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Someone pointed out with the "margin or error" built into these polls, Trump could actually be -3% with that particular demographic. Although I have 1 black fb friend who's a big-ass Trump supporter. Polls are pretty consistent on this: WSJ/NBC News Poll: 1 percent (Clinton, 91 percent) Marist Poll: 2 percent (Clinton, 93 percent) Fox News Poll: 4 percent (Clinton, 87 percent) I think it's safe to say your FB friend is really lonely and probably shunned by the rest of their family. Even Mitt Romney got 6% of the black vote in 2012, and he was, you know, running against an actual black person.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 07 2016 01:03 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:28 AM

.

Nymr83 Aug 07 2016 02:15 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Remember, take the polls with all kinds of grains of salt. Anyway, my daughter had me take an online quiz that has you answer questions on issues -- many of them! -- and then matches you with the positions of the candidates running. Now, remember, this is based solely on the positions -- nothing about a canidate's character, issues, alleged crimes, tanning spray use or coarse statements. Just on positions. Apparently I match up with Gary Johnson on 83 percent, Trump 73 percent, Hillary 65 percent and Jill Stein 6e percent. Didn't see that coming. I would consider myself very moderate. Congratulations on matching up with the adult in the room!

TransMonk Aug 07 2016 02:06 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I always thought not being an adult was Johnson's biggest folly. It seems to me that true conservatives have more in common with a lot of Johnson's stances than Trump's. Why aren't they defecting in bigger numbers? [youtube:33j03dsr]0Psp0A-zJgU[/youtube:33j03dsr]

Lefty Specialist Aug 07 2016 02:39 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Why don't Republicans flock to Gary Johnson? Because he's pro-choice, wants to eliminate the Fed, opposes the death penalty,wants to legalize marijuana and cut the defense budget by 40%. Why don't Democrats flock to him? Because he wants to eliminate corporate taxes, raise the Social Security eligibility age to 70, wants to eliminate Obama care, wants to replace public schools with vouchers, and believes that the budget should be balanced immediately. So, something to hate for everybody.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 07 2016 02:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Remember, take the polls with all kinds of grains of salt. I'm not so sure about that. Sure, there are individual polls that may be biased or misleading, but the overall consensus of the polls has been pretty accurate. When was the last time we were surprised by the result of a presidential election? Maybe 1980? And in that case, it wasn't the winner who was was surprising, but the margin of victory.

Chad Ochoseis Aug 07 2016 11:24 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

TransMonk wrote: I always thought not being an adult was Johnson's biggest folly. It seems to me that true conservatives have more in common with a lot of Johnson's stances than Trump's. Why aren't they defecting in bigger numbers? I don't think there are many true conservatives left, and it's too bad for all of us. I don't generally agree with the Johnsons, McCains, Doles, Kemps, and even Reagans of the world, but at least they offered up ideas that they believed were for the benefit of the country. The Republican Party of today isn't conservative; it's the party of rich white guys doing what they can to be sure that they stay rich and their country stays theirs. Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not so sure about that. Sure, there are individual polls that may be biased or misleading, but the overall consensus of the polls has been pretty accurate. When was the last time we were surprised by the result of a presidential election? Maybe 1980? And in that case, it wasn't the winner who was was surprising, but the margin of victory. I believe the polls, but I also believe that it's a long time between now and November. I remember spending the summer of 1988 in Europe guaranteeing a Dukakis victory to anyone who cared enough to listen to the opinion of some 23-year-old American grad student in philosophy. Hey, he was destroying Bush in the polls!

Benjamin Grimm Aug 08 2016 01:02 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I agree that the polls are accurate and that things can change, perhaps dramatically, over the next three months.

Nymr83 Aug 08 2016 01:27 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Why don't Republicans flock to Gary Johnson? Because he's pro-choice, wants to eliminate the Fed, opposes the death penalty,wants to legalize marijuana and cut the defense budget by 40%. Why don't Democrats flock to him? Because he wants to eliminate corporate taxes, raise the Social Security eligibility age to 70, wants to eliminate Obama care, wants to replace public schools with vouchers, and believes that the budget should be balanced immediately. So, something to hate for everybody. Also something to like for everyone - at least if you are convinced that the other options are a crook and a loon. remember also that, if we end up with a split between the House/Senate he probably gets to do almost none of the things he wants - but unlike Trump and Hillary he'd probably be willing to talk about compromise as opposed to using Executive power unconstitutionally to get his way. there is merit in that.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 08 2016 01:51 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 15 2016 01:29 AM

.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 08 2016 02:29 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, yeah, I don't think you need to be any kind of an insider to know that. But however the polls are used or spun, that doesn't mean that they're inaccurate. Again, some are inaccurate, but in aggregate they tend to get it right the vast majority of the time.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 08 2016 04:36 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

[youtube:30x5bgo9]tLSy8Tl2bjs[/youtube:30x5bgo9]

MFS62 Aug 08 2016 01:31 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I thought I was using hyperbole when I called Trump Rallies Bund meetings. But this is scary. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2741887 Later

Nymr83 Aug 09 2016 02:18 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

There are plenty of things Trump does to metaphorically hang himself, really no need to act like bad people liking him is such a big deal. I bet all the Arab Dictators love Clinton, they are the #1 contributors to her foundation after all.

Edgy MD Aug 09 2016 04:05 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

So two things suggested recently are disturbingly compelling. 1) If and when Secretary Clinton becomes president, Russia could have lots of blackmail material hanging over her head. 2) If the GOP had nominated Senator Rubio, he'd be in a pretty good position right now, no?

Nymr83 Aug 09 2016 04:54 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

If the GOP had nominated Rubio or Kasich I feel they'd be running away with this thing right now. Joe Biden would probably have about a 40 point lead against Trump in the polls. I read a great quote the other day that I think is true - "If the Election is about Trump, Hillary Wins. If the Election is about Hillary, Trump wins. Both candidates want to make everything about Trump."

batmagadanleadoff Aug 09 2016 05:03 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: If the GOP had nominated Rubio or Kasich I feel they'd be running away with this thing right now. Thank god for the crazy Republican base. And I do mean crazy. They reap what they sow. Party of Lincoln, my ass. If Abe Lincoln were alive today, he'd be running away from the GOP farther and faster than anyone else. It's the party of the Southern Strategy and dog-whistle politics and Jim Crow and crazy science debunkers and other things I don't feel like mentioning so as not to make any more enemies than I need to have.

Nymr83 Aug 09 2016 05:07 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm crazy? you're an idiot.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 09 2016 05:10 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: I'm crazy? you're an idiot. Maybe, but not so much of an idiot to have voted for Trump in the Primary. Can't say the same for the plurality of the GOP base. They voted for Trump and are therefore crazy idiots as far as I'm concerned.

Edgy MD Aug 09 2016 10:51 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm not sure any bloc truly represented "the base" this election. Mr. Trump emerged from a truly divided field that refused to really coalesce around him, even as alternatives fell away. At any rate, I'm certainly not thankful that anybody has put us this close to such a terrible situation.

Lefty Specialist Aug 09 2016 12:41 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: If the GOP had nominated Rubio or Kasich I feel they'd be running away with this thing right now. Joe Biden would probably have about a 40 point lead against Trump in the polls. I read a great quote the other day that I think is true - "If the Election is about Trump, Hillary Wins. If the Election is about Hillary, Trump wins. Both candidates want to make everything about Trump." Rubio or Kasich wouldn't be running away from Clinton, but they could be leading. Their campaigns wouldn't be the shitshow the Trump campaign has been. But then again, they lost to Trump, didn't they? Republicans aren't crazy. Most of them didn't vote for Trump and a large group of them are extremely uncomfortable with him. Die-hard Trumpsters, yes, they're crazy and impervious to facts. Probably half just hate Hillary so much they'd vote for Satan himself. Those people are beyond redemption and they're his base, the ones who show up to rallies with red hats. But there's not enough of them to win. Biden, who I like, has a tendency to, well, go off message at times. He was too old at 73 to make a run now anyway. Trump can't reform or reboot. You could see that having to stay on script at the Detroit Economic Club yesterday was killing him. The clock is ticking until the next weird offensive tweet. As for any blackmail info that the Russians have, remember that Hillary Clinton is the most heavily scrutinized person EVER. They've been after her for 25 years now. I doubt they can find anything new that hasn't already been found by generations of opposition researchers. The Russians aren't the only ones who know how to hack. That doesn't mean they're not going to try. The DNC hack was a warning shot, and Julian Assange of Wikileaks has come right out and stated that he hates Hillary and wants her defeated regardless of the cost to, like, the planet. So I'm expecting an 'October Surprise' of some sort. But the DNC hack in the final analysis was much ado about nothing. They hated Bernie? Gee, who knew? (An RNC hack would have been MUCH more entertaining) But with Trump, the adage applies to 'never get in the way when an opponent is punching themselves in the face'. Hillary can just let Trump be Trump. He can't resist. Meanwhile, she can work behind the scenes, cranking up a massive voter registration and get-out-the-vote operation which helps not only her but Democrats down-ticket. She has people to orchestrate things like 50 National Security experts writing that Trump is dangerous, or having noted Republican fundraiser Meg Whitman endorse her. All she has to be is the adult in the room. That's how she wins.

Edgy MD Aug 09 2016 08:38 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

And ... Mr. Trump totally just hinted that gun owners should kill a future President Hillary Clinton in order to prevent her judicial appointments.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 09 2016 09:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Really? What did he say? And why do you always refer to him as "Mr. Trump"? Are you auditioning for a job with the New York Times?

Edgy MD Aug 09 2016 09:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I guess I am. "If she gets to pick her judges," Trump said, "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

Benjamin Grimm Aug 09 2016 09:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Maybe he's just suggesting that they kill the judges!

Lefty Specialist Aug 10 2016 12:10 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, Mature Donald' lasted for a whole day. Awesome. If Hillary had said this, there would be multiple Congressional investigations tomorrow morning. When people 'joke' about killing a presidential candidate in front of a lot of people, that's usually occasion for a visit from the Secret Service folks.

TransMonk Aug 10 2016 12:22 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Meanwhile, HRC is up double digits in Pennsylvania. It's the only poll that matters. Trump has a few narrow paths to victory in the Electoral College...but they ALL involve winning PA.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 10 2016 12:26 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

It's not quite that simple. He could lose Pennsylvania and win the election if he gets Ohio and Florida. But that map on 538.com keeps getting bluer and bluer.

Nymr83 Aug 10 2016 12:46 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Meanwhile, HRC is up double digits in Pennsylvania. It's the only poll that matters. Trump has a few narrow paths to victory in the Electoral College...but they ALL involve winning PA. that is not really true. one other way off the top of my head is to start with the 2012 electoral map and give Trump the following states: Ohio, Flotida, Virginia, Nevada he is closer in all of those states than he is in PA right now. lefty wrote: Biden, who I like, has a tendency to, well, go off message at times. He was too old at 73 to make a run now anyway. against Trump? neither of those concerns is a blip on the radar! certainly i was using a little hyperbole when i said "40 percent", but i certainly think he'd be doing better than Hillary - As a conservative I don't like the policy positions of most Democrats, but i don't mistrust Biden as I do Hillary. I doubt I'm even close to being alone in that.

TransMonk Aug 10 2016 01:12 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump holding all the Romney states is a tall order. I'll maintain that he needs PA. Bad.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 10 2016 02:02 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe he's just suggesting that they kill the judges! Nah. HRC'd just go ahead and nominate their replacements. Maybe Trump thinks the 2A is the Free Speech Amendment.

Chad Ochoseis Aug 10 2016 02:13 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

He could win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada instead of Pennsylvania (and, of course, flip Florida and Ohio and hang on to all the Romney states) and wind up at 269-269. And he could steal the electoral vote in northern Maine and win outright. Nate Silver has a nice diagram here - scroll down to the winding path section. Not that any of this is going to happen while he's struggling to hang on to Georgia and people are talking about Utah as being in play. Screw it. When this (metaphorical, friends, metaphorical) bloodbath is over, I want the electoral map to look like Nixon-McGovern in reverse. This orange piece of racist offal shouldn't get a single electoral vote from anyone, anywhere.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 10 2016 02:16 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump’s campaign sought to quell the controversy with a statement that blamed the “dishonest media” for misinterpretation. And Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, said Trump was talking about the clear election choice for pro-gun voters, not encouraging [gun] violence against Clinton. “Of course not,” Pence said in an interview with NBC Philadelphia. “Donald Trump is urging people around this country to act consistent with their convictions in the course of this election.” A repulsive take, but not unexpected. Anybody here in the mood for some Godwin's Law? Because I'll tell you, these GOP scumbags would back Adolf Hitler for President if only they were assured that Hitler would nominate their kind of Supreme Court justices.

Nymr83 Aug 10 2016 02:48 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe he's just suggesting that they kill the judges! Nah. HRC'd just go ahead and nominate their replacements. Maybe Trump thinks the 2A is the Free Speech Amendment. Trump doesn't like free speech either. he wants to change the slander/libel laws so people cant say mean things about him. Fortunately, a Republican-controlled Congress would never allow that - they'd risk getting sued by Hillary if they couldnt say whatever they wanted about her anymore.

Lefty Specialist Aug 10 2016 12:26 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Chad Ochoseis wrote: He could win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada instead of Pennsylvania (and, of course, flip Florida and Ohio and hang on to all the Romney states) and wind up at 269-269. And he could steal the electoral vote in northern Maine and win outright. Nate Silver has a nice diagram here - scroll down to the winding path section. Not that any of this is going to happen while he's struggling to hang on to Georgia and people are talking about Utah as being in play. Screw it. When this (metaphorical, friends, metaphorical) bloodbath is over, I want the electoral map to look like Nixon-McGovern in reverse. This orange piece of racist offal shouldn't get a single electoral vote from anyone, anywhere. Trump just needs to be Trump and he'll take care of that. Like MGIM says, we need to take the polls with a grain of salt right now. I think they may actually be worse for Trump than it seems. There are a lot of people who say they're never going to vote for Hillary but won't have the guts to actually pull the lever for Trump. They'll stay home or will avoid voting for the top of the ticket. When people are mystified why there aren't more elected Republicans defecting from Trump, remember that the Paul Ryans of the world know that if Trump were to win, he wouldn't be interested in the hard work of governing. They could pass their wish list and he'd sign it. They're counting on his laziness and inattention. That being said, seeing places like Georgia and Arizona being in play warms the cockles of my heart. Utah would just be the cherry on top of the whipped cream. There are still blood-red states that'll vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, but the demographics are beginning to take their toll. It's one of the reasons that the recent string of victories for voting rights in state after state is so important. Trump needs to be crushed, but he's performed a public service by exposing the nasty underbelly of the Republican party. They'll try to pretend it's not there, but 'the monster is out of his cage'. Any future Republican who wants the nomination is going to have to cater to the racist, xenophobic minority that's been unleashed. Whoever runs in 2020 will try to stitch back the old fabric of the coalition; rich white guys (tax cuts)and poor white guys (God, guns and foreigner hatred), but it'll be an uneasy fit. Trump let something loose that won't be easy to put back in the bottle. My fear is that someone else won't be such a narcissistic doofus and will find a better way to exploit it down the road.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 10 2016 01:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Here's one somewhat plausible way that Trump can win the election while losing Pennsylvania. It's a narrow path, especially since just about any of the states that are red on this map would flip the election to Clinton if they were switched to blue. http://www.270towin.com/maps/Np6kV I expect that Hillary will win at least one of the states that are red on this map. Like Nevada, for example. It only has six electoral votes, but if you turn Nevada blue, Clinton wins.

Nymr83 Aug 11 2016 04:32 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Here's one somewhat plausible way that Trump can win the election while losing Pennsylvania. It's a narrow path, especially since just about any of the states that are red on this map would flip the election to Clinton if they were switched to blue. http://www.270towin.com/maps/Np6kV I expect that Hillary will win at least one of the states that are red on this map. Like Nevada, for example. It only has six electoral votes, but if you turn Nevada blue, Clinton wins. More interestingly, if you flip New Mexico, which Trump might expect he will lose if the state has many brand-new Mexicans, you get a tie!

Lefty Specialist Aug 11 2016 12:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I don't see how Trump can win if he's up against the Founder and Co-founder of ISIS. Yes, it's the Stupid Trump Comment of the Day, the one that makes you forget all the previous Stupid Trump Comments of the Day. Trump accuses President Obama of being the 'founder of ISIS' Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump accuses U.S. President Barack Obama of being the "founder" of the Islamic State militant group and Hillary Clinton as being its "co-founder." Donald Trump is now accusing President Barack Obama of founding the Islamic State group that is wreaking havoc from the Middle East to European cities. "In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama," Trump said Wednesday during a raucous campaign rally outside Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "He is the founder of ISIS." He repeated the allegation three more times for emphasis. Trump also pointedly referred to the president by his full legal name: Barack Hussein Obama.

MFS62 Aug 11 2016 12:47 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Same birther stuff, now being taken to the exponential level. I watched news tapes of that speech. Look at that crowd. A Zombie would starve there. Later

Lefty Specialist Aug 11 2016 01:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm still trying to figure out what the 'many respects they honor President Obama' are. Commemorative coins? A three-day weekend? Sales at Best Buy?

MFS62 Aug 11 2016 04:54 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what the 'many respects they honor President Obama' are. Commemorative coins? A three-day weekend? Sales at Best Buy? Bobble Head Day. Later

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2016 11:09 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I love great magazine covers. [fimg=474:3j9264ii]https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/trump-melt-final.jpg?quality=75&strip=color&w=840&strip=color[/fimg:3j9264ii] PS. The presentation of this mag cover for your perusal is purely aesthetics-based and politically neutral.

Edgy MD Aug 12 2016 04:18 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, I've been tracking him, and he's clearly reached an important goal of his. "We have millions, 5 million people coming out to vote out of nowhere. It's never happened before. I've been on the cover of TIME Magazine just about, I think it was four times now. I'm on this week also. Four times now in the last few months and a lot of it is because of this. They've never seen this happen before." —DT, March 7 "I've been on the cover of TIME Magazine more times than less." —DT, March 14 Can you imagine? She was Person of the Year. I was supposed to be Person of the Year on TIME Magazine. She beat me out and she destroyed Germany. Can you believe this? That's not good. I wonder if TIME Magazine had that one to do over again what they'd say. I think we'll be in much better shape. Well, they've treated me nice. I've been on the cover a lot. —DT, April 5 "I've been on the cover of TIME magazine 5 times in a short period of time." —DT, June 10 “It’s been a movement. I’ve been on the cover of TIME Magazine so many times. And the cover of everything. I feel like a super model, except like times ten. Okay? It’s true. I’m a supermodel. I’m on the cover of these magazines. I’m on the cover of the biggest magazines I don’t even know about and I can’t even read the story because if I did, I wouldn’t get any work done. I’ve never seen anything like it. And it’s not about me, I’m like, I am doing a good job as a messenger, but I’m a messenger.” —DT, June 20

batmagadanleadoff Aug 12 2016 04:26 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: Well, I've been tracking him, and he's clearly reached an important goal of his. "We have millions, 5 million people coming out to vote out of nowhere. It's never happened before. I've been on the cover of TIME Magazine just about, I think it was four times now. I'm on this week also. Four times now in the last few months and a lot of it is because of this. They've never seen this happen before." —DT, March 7 "I've been on the cover of TIME Magazine more times than less." —DT, March 14 Can you imagine? She was Person of the Year. I was supposed to be Person of the Year on TIME Magazine. She beat me out and she destroyed Germany. Can you believe this? That's not good. I wonder if TIME Magazine had that one to do over again what they'd say. I think we'll be in much better shape. Well, they've treated me nice. I've been on the cover a lot. —DT, April 5 "I've been on the cover of TIME magazine 5 times in a short period of time." —DT, June 10 “It’s been a movement. I’ve been on the cover of TIME Magazine so many times. And the cover of everything. I feel like a super model, except like times ten. Okay? It’s true. I’m a supermodel. I’m on the cover of these magazines. I’m on the cover of the biggest magazines I don’t even know about and I can’t even read the story because if I did, I wouldn’t get any work done. I’ve never seen anything like it. And it’s not about me, I’m like, I am doing a good job as a messenger, but I’m a messenger.” —DT, June 20 Wow. That's how Junior High Schoolers talk, right?

metirish Aug 12 2016 12:45 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

American Experience on PBS this week had in depth looks at JFK and LBJ ,really excellent docs. Interesting to see how Kennedy being catholic was played out when he ran for President .

Frayed Knot Aug 12 2016 12:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Wow. That's how Junior High Schoolers talk, right? The still immature ones, yeah.

Chad Ochoseis Aug 12 2016 03:12 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I love great magazine covers. [fimg=474]https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/trump-melt-final.jpg?quality=75&strip=color&w=840&strip=color[/fimg] PS. The presentation of this mag cover for your perusal is purely aesthetics-based and politically neutral. I liked his second album - the one with DIY on it - much better.

Edgy MD Aug 12 2016 03:19 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, if that's not the post of the month, I don't know what.

Lefty Specialist Aug 12 2016 03:29 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Okay, so you say something stupid. There are people that are willing to help you reframe it, try to put it in context, give you the opportunity to walk it back. But no. Later, in an interview with the radio host Hugh Hewitt, Mr. Trump was given an opportunity to clarify, but did not budge. “You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Mr. Hewitt suggested, leaving Mr. Trump an opening. “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.” Mr. Hewitt replied, “But he’s not sympathetic to them,” referring to President Obama. “He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.” “I don’t care,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that, that was the founding of ISIS, O.K.?” Bear in mind that Hugh Hewitt is as right-wing as they get and even HE's not going to say Obama is the founder of ISIS. He tries desperately to help and gets batted away, Of course, today he says it was sarcasm. So is it ALL sarcasm? There's really no way to judge any more. Does he mean anything he says? How far off the rails does he have to go before he gets locked up for his own protection?

Fman99 Aug 12 2016 04:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Amazing to me is that 40% of the people polled in this country are still going to vote for this crackpot.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 12 2016 04:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Of course, today he says it was sarcasm. So is it ALL sarcasm? There's really no way to judge any more. Does he mean anything he says? How far off the rails does he have to go before he gets locked up for his own protection? He's been doing whatever the hell he wants to do his whole life. Since he was in grade school. With practically no boundaries. Even his parents couldn't control him. That's precisely why Trump's father sent DJT off to military school as a teen. He's never answered to anybody and has been getting his way forever. Not getting his way the way an ordinary citizen might get his or way, but getting his way like only a Master of the Universe could get his way. The only thing I can say for him is that he probably hasn't killed scores of people like Bob Durst probably did.

cooby Aug 12 2016 04:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Fman99 wrote: Amazing to me is that 40% of the people polled in this country are still going to vote for this crackpot. Amazing, alarming, and confounding.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 12 2016 05:00 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I think Trump is going to lose. I still have an underlying fear that he'll win somehow, but I don't think it will happen. But there are two things I find myself wondering about: 1. If, as it currently looks, he'll lose by a fairly wide margin, will he actually do the traditional thing and call Hillary to concede? It's hard to picture him doing that. I can easily see him petulantly refusing to make that call just so that Hillary won't be able to give her victory speech until everyone on the East Coast has gone to bed. If that was the case, if I was Hillary, I'd give the speech anyway. 2. If he wins, what will the transition be like? Will the Obamas do the usual thing and welcome the Trumps to the White House prior to the Inauguration? After all the vitriol, such a meeting would be awkward at best. If I was Obama, I'd consider doing what John Adams did when Thomas Jefferson was inauguration: slip out of town before the ceremony and avoid any contact with the president-elect.

TransMonk Aug 12 2016 05:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Amazing to me is that 40% of the people polled in this country are still going to vote for this crackpot. I thin most of that 40% would actually be voting against Hillary...but as far as evils go, the mileage definitely varies, I guess. 1. If, as it currently looks, he'll lose by a fairly wide margin, will he actually do the traditional thing and call Hillary to concede? It's hard to picture him doing that. I can easily see him petulantly refusing to make that call just so that Hillary won't be able to give her victory speech until everyone on the East Coast has gone to bed. If that was the case, if I was Hillary, I'd give the speech anyway. Hillary doesn't need his concession to declare victory in a speech, especially if it is a blowout. 2. If he wins, what will the transition be like? Will the Obamas do the usual thing and welcome the Trumps to the White House prior to the Inauguration? After all the vitriol, such a meeting would be awkward at best. If I was Obama, I'd consider doing what John Adams did when Thomas Jefferson was inauguration: slip out of town before the ceremony and avoid any contact with the president-elect. The chance of a DJT victory grows more microscopic by the day. But, theoretically, if I was Obama, I'd get a copy of my birth certificate, place it on my desk in the Oval Office and then take a massive shit on it and leave it for Trump.

metsmarathon Aug 12 2016 05:30 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Okay, so you say something stupid. There are people that are willing to help you reframe it, try to put it in context, give you the opportunity to walk it back. But no. Later, in an interview with the radio host Hugh Hewitt, Mr. Trump was given an opportunity to clarify, but did not budge. “You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Mr. Hewitt suggested, leaving Mr. Trump an opening. “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.” Mr. Hewitt replied, “But he’s not sympathetic to them,” referring to President Obama. “He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.” “I don’t care,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that, that was the founding of ISIS, O.K.?” Bear in mind that Hugh Hewitt is as right-wing as they get and even HE's not going to say Obama is the founder of ISIS. He tries desperately to help and gets batted away, Of course, today he says it was sarcasm. So is it ALL sarcasm? There's really no way to judge any more. Does he mean anything he says? How far off the rails does he have to go before he gets locked up for his own protection? ISIS goes back to the Bush Administration, and even before then, i believe. before it was ISIS it was ISI, and only added the S after it added Syria to it's Iraq... does trump even know anything about [crossout]ISIS[/crossout] really, anything?

Edgy MD Aug 12 2016 05:33 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

ISIS goes back more or less to the nineties. Ask Bartolo Colón. He knows. While Trump deserves all that (the shit and the birth certificate) and more, stinky transitions are a bad and dangerous precedent, and President Obama probably knows that better than most. Normative and graceful transitions, high in protocol but generally informal in appearance, are how we acknowledge that the Republic is healthy and still under the rule of the people, no matter how foolish. That is why the outgoing president and first family have the crucial last duty of graciously welcoming the incoming, no matter how heated and bitter the campaign that got them there, no matter how opposed their agenda is. That is why the Chief Justice smiles when giving the oath of office to a president who offends his sense of the separation of powers, and follows with a warm and hardy handshake. That President Nixon left with a wave rather than a perp walk, that President Johnson was sworn in in the presence of his predecessor's blood-soaked widow — these are probably two really important and under-appreciated days in the survival of our increasingly fragile union. So I absolutely would expect President and Mrs. Obama to grin until it hurts, hug the new first family on the way out the door, warmly wave to the media, and then go off somewhere and get trashed like the rest of us.

themetfairy Aug 12 2016 05:42 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Are you saying that Bartolo Colon is the founder of Isis?

TransMonk Aug 12 2016 08:05 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: While Trump deserves all that (the shit and the birth certificate) and more, stinky transitions are a bad and dangerous precedent, and President Obama probably knows that better than most. Agreed completely. I'm guessing Obama would be as gracious as possible in a theoretical transition. He is a better man than I would be.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 12 2016 08:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I think so too. Me, I'd be very tempted to John Adams my way out of town. And I know that Hillary can give her victory speech without Trump having conceded, but that hasn't been how it's been done. I think that this year, though, she'll have to do it if she wins because Trump either won't concede or will play games with her to try to derail her victory speech.

Nymr83 Aug 12 2016 08:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

maybe he will even claim to be the real winner and give his own victory speech!

Edgy MD Aug 12 2016 08:57 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

DT trails Clinton 91% to 1% among blacks in the latest NBC/WSJ poll. He's starting to show up fourth in some polls (McClatchy, anyhow) among younger voters, behind Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, as well as Secretary Clinton. FOURTH!

Lefty Specialist Aug 12 2016 09:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

ISIS is an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. It's been around since about 2006. But Obama did take time out of his duties as an Illinois state senator to found it. [/SARCASM!] The real reason that Obama withdrew our troops from Iraq is because his predecessor, George W. Bush, signed a status of forces agreement in 2008 that the Iraqis were quite insistent that we honor in 2011. And so we did. That's how stuff is done in the real world. That won't stop Trump's blabbering, he's fact-proof. I suppose in that situation he'd just do whatever he wanted, or what Vladimir told him to do. [/KINDA SARCASM!] The Bushes were actually quite gracious to Obama when he came in, so I would expect that he'd return the favor to whoever the next president is. Even Cheeto Jesus. Barring an apocalyptic nightmare the dimensions of which I cannot comprehend, I'm pretty comfortable that Hillary will win. Trump's just proven himself to be such a horse's ass that even the Fox News addicts are getting the message. She's competitive in places like South Carolina, for god's sake. A poll today had her up 9 in North Carolina and 13 in Virginia and Colorado. Yeah, I know, grain o'salt. But the preponderance of evidence is starting to build. Republicans are shitless about the down-ballot effects. Just put your opponent's name and Trump's in the same sentence and watch the magic happen. Oh, and Hillary just released her latest tax return (she'd already released about 30 prior years). The Times had a speculative piece that Drumpf paid no taxes last year. Bupkis. The big zero. Nada. Sure would like to see what's going on there. Some people say it's because he donated a large amount of money to NAMBLA. I mean, how do we know, amirite? I hear a lot of people saying that, I don't know. But that would be really disgusting and pathetic. A sad day. [/IMPERSONATION!]

Frayed Knot Aug 12 2016 11:47 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The thing about these politicians' tax returns is that many are wary about revealing how much they earned, both from in-gov't and from outside sources, all while touting their 'sacrifice' of being nothing more than a humble public servant. In Trump's case I suspect part of his reluctance is a release of his records will reveal that maybe his net worth and profitability of his various interests are less than what many think (and what he often implies) thereby taking the shine off of his major claim to fame.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 13 2016 04:17 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Chad Ochoseis wrote: I love great magazine covers. [fimg=474]https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/trump-melt-final.jpg?quality=75&strip=color&w=840&strip=color[/fimg] PS. The presentation of this mag cover for your perusal is purely aesthetics-based and politically neutral. I liked his second album - the one with DIY on it - much better. CNN devotes an entire post to the most provocative Trump magazine and tabloid covers and leads with Time's Trump Meltdown. Here are two: [fimg=444]http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/ifxvqkn6vr1bixefy1za.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=555]http://www.instituteforcivility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/philly-daily-news-500x446.png[/fimg] See the rest at: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/ ... -election/

Ashie62 Aug 13 2016 08:31 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump tweeted that if Hillary won PA it would only be because she cheated. huh?

Lefty Specialist Aug 13 2016 10:12 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump tweeted that if Hillary won PA it would only be because she cheated. huh? Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Friday said the only way he will lose Pennsylvania will be if “cheating goes on,” intensifying his claims that the election system is rigged and that it will work against him in November. At his second Pennsylvania rally of the day, Mr. Trump said he is concerned that he will be cheated out of a win in the crucial swing state, suggesting that the state’s lack of a voter-identification law will allow people to “come in and vote five times” and hand the election to his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. “We have to call up law enforcement, and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everybody watching. Because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state, especially when I know what’s happening here, folks…[Mrs. Clinton] can’t beat what’s happening here,” Mr. Trump said in Altoona, Pa. There have been 31 documented instances of in-person voter fraud in the US between 2000 and 2014, out of over one billion votes cast. Let that sink in for a bit. In-person voter fraud is virtually unheard of, and pretty hard to do even if you were willing. No one votes five times, anywhere. At least not in the United States. Even if you're right-wing professional asshole James O'Keefe, and you intentionally try to commit voter fraud to show how 'easy' it is, you can't pull it off. Helps that he's incompetent and a real jerk about it, but still. http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/colu ... /87993508/ Hillary has a 9.2% lead in the polling averages in Pennsylvania. He's not winning it, but his talk about a 'stolen election' is only going to fire up the crazies. I want Hillary to run the score up on him so bad that he takes his name off his buildings and goes into exile in Kazakhstan.

Edgy MD Aug 14 2016 12:08 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

We had a lot of bogus folks on the voter rolls in DC. I guy down the block from me was a hotshot in the Statehood Party, and he had his dog registered to vote. I don't know if he actually voted under his dog's name, but everyone on the street knew about it, and eventually a reporter outed him. We also had a voter named "Hugh G. Rection." I don't know if the level of voter fraud is meaningful, but I'm slow to say only having 31 documented cases means it's necessarily that rare. That said, Donald Trump is wanker.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 14 2016 12:32 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Yeah but how come it's always Democrat voters that are supposed to be cheating on Election Day? This all coming from, you know, the party of [crossout]Lincoln[/crossout] Watergate and the Brooks Brothers Riots and the Acorn Scandal and who knows what the hell they've gotten away with Diebold that the general public doesn't know about?

Lefty Specialist Aug 14 2016 01:19 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I'm guessing a lot more that 31 people who were legally registered to vote have been prohibited from doing so by laws that have been described by judges as 'targeting minorities with surgical precision'. In North Carolina they literally did research on the types of ID white voters were more likely to have and which types of ID minority voters were more likely to have, then structured the law to allow the former and disallow the latter. Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. And Trump wants to recruit his own 'poll watchers' to make sure not too many of those brown people vote, just like they did in the good old days. Mr. Trump, who is trailing Mrs. Clinton by double digits in Pennsylvania in a recent NBC/WSJ/Marist poll, also encouraged voters to “go around and look and watch other polling places and make sure it’s 100% fine.” Yeah, that should go well.

Edgy MD Aug 14 2016 02:54 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I understand. I'm just not sure at what point a legitimate standard for voter identification becomes voter suppression. Both parties have poll watchers watching the sign-in process at polling stations, and in the accounts I've read (from poll watchers), it's been a lot of energy expended and few real conflicts. So it seems whatever fraud that's out there hasn't been caught by folks trained to spot it. But obviously Trump has sold a lot of fantasies already.

Lefty Specialist Aug 15 2016 02:39 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, this is pretty funny. A Breitbart-commisioned poll finds the REAL leader to be.....um, Hillary Clinton. Clinton Leads In Breitbart Poll Conducted As Rebuke To MSM Surveys ByAllegra KirklandPublishedAugust 15, 2016, 10:29 AM EDT Aiming to address a recent slew of “mainstream media” polls showing Hillary Clinton holding a decisive lead over of Donald Trump, Breitbart News conducted its own survey. But the conservative news site came up with similar results. In a poll out Sunday from Breitbart and Gravis Marketing, Clinton led a four-way contest with 42 percent of the vote to Trump’s 37 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson earned 9 percent of the vote, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein received 3 percent. Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow explained in a statement accompanying the survey that the site would launch its own series of polls to provide “an accurate assessment” of the 2016 race. “It’s an open secret that polls are often manipulated and spun to create momentum for a particular candidate or issue,” Marlow said. “Breitbart News Network’s first national poll marks the start of a major initiative to give our readers an accurate assessment on where the American people stand on the key topics and people of the day — without the mainstream media filter.” As NBC, Bloomberg, Quinnipiac University and Monmouth University have showed Clinton leading in both national and state surveys in recent days, Trump supporters have lobbed charges of “skewed” polls released by a media that favors Clinton. Yet Clinton’s lead in those polls, which ranged between six and twelve points, is not so far from the five-point advantage she held in Breitbart's survey.

Nymr83 Aug 16 2016 01:36 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

That's how bad Trump is. LISTEN UP FELLOW REPUBLICANS - YOU DON'T NEED TO STAND FOR THIS SHIT - There are a pair of former Republican governors running on a real life ticket! Just ignore the orange guy!

Benjamin Grimm Aug 16 2016 02:50 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Twelve more weeks.

Ceetar Aug 16 2016 02:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Twelve more weeks. Baseball season ends first.

Edgy MD Aug 17 2016 01:54 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I just figured out a way for him to exit and hold on to his pride. He withdraws, claiming credible death threats have been made on his family members (specifically, his daughters) by leftist extremist terrorists.

Nymr83 Aug 17 2016 01:54 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: I just figured out a way for him to exit and hold on to his pride. He withdraws, claiming credible death threats have been made on his family members (specifically, his daughters) by leftist extremist terrorists. Illegal Female Islamic Mexicans?

MFS62 Aug 17 2016 01:58 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I just figured out a way for him to exit and hold on to his pride. He withdraws, claiming credible death threats have been made on his family members (specifically, his daughters) by leftist extremist terrorists. Illegal Female Islamic Mexicans? Illegal Female Islamic Mexican Reporters. Later

Edgy MD Aug 17 2016 01:58 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Good God, yes. Anti-Constitution, pro-Sharia jihadists, also.

Edgy MD Aug 17 2016 02:03 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Basically, people will accept all sorts of bullshit rationalizing in the name of protecting one's blonde, white daughters.

metsmarathon Aug 17 2016 12:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

to be clear, these Illegal Female Islamic Anti-Constitution, pro-Sharia jihadist Mexicans want to rape his daughters and turn them lesbian, not simply kill them.

Lefty Specialist Aug 17 2016 12:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Or he could say that Ivanka was kidnapped by Putin's girlfriend. http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in ... girlfriend

Fman99 Aug 17 2016 12:52 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: to be clear, these Illegal Female Islamic Anti-Constitution, pro-Sharia jihadist Mexicans want to rape his daughters and turn them lesbian, not simply kill them. Dammit, they stole my movie idea! In my movie, though, it's not rape, it's just naughty time.

TransMonk Aug 17 2016 01:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Donald Trump Attempts To Salvage His Campaign With Leadership Shakeup Donald doubling down on the dumb. Kellyanne Conway is just horrible. I'd be very surprised if this helps pull his poll numbers out of their tailspin. This moves seems much more likely to cement the numbers where they are...or worse. I do believe the campaign will put Hillary in the cross-hairs now, which is something Trump's campaign has not been able to effectively do over the past few weeks because Trump can't get out of his own way.

Lefty Specialist Aug 17 2016 02:19 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Wow. If you thought things were ugly before, you ain't seen nothing yet. Bannon runs Breitbart 'News'. He's a master conspiracy theorist. And Kellyanne Conway is the person you get when you need a crazy Republican for balance on a talk show. Add to that the rumors that Roger Ailes is coming aboard as well, and you've got the perfect mix of evil slime. Jeez, Hillary better strap on the hip waders because it's gonna get really deep really fast. I didn't think I could be instantly nostalgic for the calm, comforting stylings of Paul Manafort, but I am. You have to wonder if Trump, knowing he can't win, is trying to break the country apart. Because this is going to get nasty.

Edgy MD Aug 17 2016 06:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, this definitely puts Manny Ramirez on the list of people I'd sooner vote for as president over Trump.

MFS62 Aug 18 2016 12:31 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Wow. If you thought things were ugly before, you ain't seen nothing yet. Bannon runs Breitbart 'News'. He's a master conspiracy theorist. And Kellyanne Conway is the person you get when you need a crazy Republican for balance on a talk show. Add to that the rumors that Roger Ailes is coming aboard as well, and you've got the perfect mix of evil slime. Speaking of evil slime, Karl Rove and the Swift Boaters were busy? Later

Lefty Specialist Aug 19 2016 07:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Naked Trump showed up in Union Square Park yesterday. Don't Google it. You've been warned.

Chad Ochoseis Aug 19 2016 10:25 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

BOC to Sam Biederman of the NYC Parks Department. "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small," said Sam Biederman, a parks spokesman.

cooby Aug 19 2016 10:33 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lol. And you know he said it with a twinkle in his eye

MFS62 Aug 20 2016 12:22 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Naked Trump showed up in Union Square Park yesterday. Don't Google it. You've been warned. No big thing. Later

Lefty Specialist Aug 20 2016 08:58 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

So after the governor told him to stay away, Trump went to Louisiana to get in the way of relief efforts. He spent 49 seconds on a photo op unloading 6 boxes from a truck. Boxes of Play-Doh. (Yes, really) Then he left, having made Louisiana Great Again.

Nymr83 Aug 22 2016 06:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Is Hillary really so bullet-proof that she doesnt feel the need to distance herself from Huma Abedin?

sharpie Aug 22 2016 06:40 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: Is Hillary really so bullet-proof that she doesnt feel the need to distance herself from Huma Abedin? ...who has done nothing objectionable other than marry a guy with a sex-addiction problem.

Nymr83 Aug 22 2016 07:36 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

sharpie wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Is Hillary really so bullet-proof that she doesnt feel the need to distance herself from Huma Abedin? ...who has done nothing objectionable other than marry a guy with a sex-addiction problem. ...and write for a Saudi Arabian publication that blames women for being raped and he US for 9/11 among other things?

Lefty Specialist Aug 23 2016 01:31 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Wrong. Show one thing she wrote for them. She's also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hillary's lesbian lover who only married Anthony Weiner to cover it up. So sayeth the Breitbart folks. Is Donald Trump so bulletproof that he can take foreign policy advice from Michelle Bachmann?

Nymr83 Aug 23 2016 03:53 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Trump is a dangerous egomaniac - and since nobody here disagrees with that, lets get back to Hillary being one too. and i'm not wrong, but i suppose since you only watch the ClintonNewsNetwork you wouldn't know any better.

Lefty Specialist Aug 23 2016 11:05 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Being an egomaniac is practically a requirement for running for president. You're basically saying you can run the most powerful nation in the world better than anyone else. That requires a pretty robust ego. Trump's or Clinton's ego doesn't bother me. His unfitness, utter lack of concern about anything that doesn't directly benefit him, and management style are dangerous. I've met a lot of people like him. But then I moved on to middle school. I've said it before- Hillary's not my ideal candidate. But she won't blow up the world in a fit of pique. Given a Democratic Senate and a far less Republican House, she'll ge able to get a few things done. My expectations are low, but I can live with that considering the Republican alternative is sheer unbridled terror.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 23 2016 12:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Eleven weeks!

Ceetar Aug 23 2016 02:44 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Eleven weeks! until the start of the 2020 election cycle.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 23 2016 02:58 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

No doubt. I'm sure that on November 9, Ted Cruz is going to wake up either in Iowa or New Hampshire.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 23 2016 03:57 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm wrote: No doubt. I'm sure that on November 9, Ted Cruz is going to wake up either in Iowa or New Hampshire. That's great news. Let the crazy branch run another unelectable politician.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 23 2016 05:09 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: No doubt. I'm sure that on November 9, Ted Cruz is going to wake up either in Iowa or New Hampshire. That's great news. Let the crazy branch run another unelectable politician. With that group, I bet Curt Schilling can make a strong showing in their 2020 Primaries.

themetfairy Aug 23 2016 07:00 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: No doubt. I'm sure that on November 9, Ted Cruz is going to wake up either in Iowa or New Hampshire. That's great news. Let the crazy branch run another unelectable politician. Seriously. If Cruz was at all likable he would have run away with the nomination. But everyone hates him!

Lefty Specialist Aug 23 2016 08:13 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm wrote: No doubt. I'm sure that on November 9, Ted Cruz is going to wake up either in Iowa or New Hampshire. New Hampshire. He's already won Iowa once. He's The Thing That Wouldn't Leave, and he'll be back, smarmier than ever, in 2020. One possible savior, if you will, Rick Perry is making noises about running against Cruz in his Senate primary in 2018. A defeat there would probably kneecap Mr. Congeniality permanently, one would hope.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 23 2016 08:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Maybe. But losing a Senate seat hasn't stopped Rick Santorum from running for President. Rick Perry! Gah! I wish these Texans would just stay in Texas.

themetfairy Aug 23 2016 08:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I just saw my first Trump television ad (on a Philly station). In a nutshell, if Hillary Clinton is elected America will be overrun with dangerous Syrian refugees who will skip the line to get Social Security and other benefits. Donald Trump, OTOH, will keep these people out. Donald Trump approved of this mesage.

Nymr83 Aug 24 2016 12:25 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

themetfairy wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: No doubt. I'm sure that on November 9, Ted Cruz is going to wake up either in Iowa or New Hampshire. That's great news. Let the crazy branch run another unelectable politician. Seriously. If Cruz was at all likable he would have run away with the nomination. But everyone hates him! When a sitting US Senator fails to get the endorsement of any of his Senate colleagues until the only alternative is Donald Fucking Trump - "hate" is probably not an exaggeration.

Nymr83 Aug 24 2016 12:28 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Being an egomaniac is practically a requirement for running for president. You're basically saying you can run the most powerful nation in the world better than anyone else. That requires a pretty robust ego. Trump's or Clinton's ego doesn't bother me. His unfitness, utter lack of concern about anything that doesn't directly benefit him, and management style are dangerous. I've met a lot of people like him. But then I moved on to middle school. I've said it before- Hillary's not my ideal candidate. But she won't blow up the world in a fit of pique. Given a Democratic Senate and a far less Republican House, she'll ge able to get a few things done. My expectations are low, but I can live with that considering the Republican alternative is sheer unbridled terror. I prefer Hillary over Trump too, because I think he might be genuinely nuts. Though of course I'd prefer a Republican Senate with her to keep liberals off the court. But why can't her flaws - and questionable associations - be called out too? the people she is friends with are a million times worse than that reverend Obama took so much flak for.

Lefty Specialist Aug 24 2016 01:01 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, we've had a conservative court for 30 years, so it's about time for a change. Hillary hasn't been called out for her flaws? Seriously? Fox has been calling out her flaws, real and imagined, for 20 years. Sean Hannity is saying she's been dying or has a brain disease. Trump picks right up on it, naturally. He'll have more details right after he gets to the bottom of Obama's fake Hawaiian birth certificate.

Nymr83 Aug 24 2016 02:56 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: Well, we've had a conservative court for 30 years, so it's about time for a change. Hillary hasn't been called out for her flaws? Seriously? Fox has been calling out her flaws, real and imagined, for 20 years. Sean Hannity is saying she's been dying or has a brain disease. Trump picks right up on it, naturally. He'll have more details right after he gets to the bottom of Obama's fake Hawaiian birth certificate. Hillary, on this board, does not get called out nearly enough for her flaws. this thread is a 16 page Trump-bash. Yes, Fox calls her out - but most of the media hasn't, at least since it became apparent who she was running against. Hannity? I don't really care what he thinks. It would certainly be nice if she was more forthcoming about her medical history (and many, many other things) - maybe when Trump releases his tax returns :)

Lefty Specialist Aug 24 2016 12:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Only 16 pages of Trump-bashing? We're obviously not working hard enough. I'm not worried about Donald's physical health. It's his mental health that concerns me.

Edgy MD Aug 24 2016 12:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: It would certainly be nice if she was more forthcoming about her medical history (and many, many other things) - maybe when Trump releases his tax returns :) This is what I'm mixing it up over with Trump supporters now — an obviously baseless campaign to suggest a vast conspiracy covering up the secretary's seizure disorder. Assemble a few out-of-context photos and video clips, add some wild speculation and junk science, and she's clearly very sick, and possibly dead. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has released a mysterious letter from a doctor that was obviously written by himself.

Nymr83 Aug 24 2016 01:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy - 1. I take Trump's mental instability to be a given 2. I would welcome his physical incapacitation if in office. therefore I am not as interested in his records, though he certainly should produce them

Ceetar Aug 24 2016 01:43 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I personally hope we DON'T here more about Hilary's medical history and I hope she protects the privacy of personal medical records especially as president. It's becoming a bigger and bigger issue and she's struck me as one of those "give up some privacy for illusion of security" people. Personal privacy is becoming a gray area in an increasingly data-connected age, but not protecting the privacy of medical and genetic information can easily be something that sets us back as a society. She's been serving the country capably for years, and has shown no obvious signs of being unable to continue doing so. That's all we need, we don't need every half-educated quack commenting on how she's going to drop dead at every moment based on a misunderstanding of some blood test she took once.

Edgy MD Aug 24 2016 02:48 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

We have a long record of candidates' personal physicians releasing "fitness to serve" reports, and we've had the basic decency not to delve deeper. Let's stay there. I can say a lot of things about Franklin Roosevelt, but the he was the consensus top president of the 20th century, was deeply handicapped and doing everything he could to hide it, and that's fine by me. We all have the right to present our best face to the world, or alternatively, be open about our challenges. In fact, it's part of governing. Let us know if (1) they are mentally deteriorating or impeded, or (2) currently diagnosed with a fatal malady. The rest — the plantar fasciitis and the Graves disease and the irritable bowels — I'm fine with not knowing.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 24 2016 03:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

SCREW U "DOCTER" I NO SHE'S HAD A STROKE CUZ I SAW IT ON THE INNERNETS

Edgy MD Aug 24 2016 03:31 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

"Tough news, Mr. Trump. While we've made some headway in our whispering campaign about Secretary Clinton's health, in our most recent poll, "Stroke-Addled Hillary Clinton still leads you by 34 points."

Ashie62 Aug 25 2016 03:45 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I like the idea of a medicare "buy in" at age 55. It would take a dem. congress to make it so.

Vic Sage Aug 25 2016 02:04 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

i don't understand the big issue about the health of the candidate. President Bartlett hid his MS throughout his campaign and halfway through his presidency. And even as he declined he was still the best president this country ever had.

Ashie62 Aug 25 2016 02:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

She just looks tired from flying around the country and world at age 67. It ain't easy.

Lefty Specialist Aug 26 2016 02:12 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ashie62 Aug 26 2016 04:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The healthcare system needs to be fixed. Marketplace subsidized polices are still pricey after the subsidy and offer limited coverage. The middle class simply waits until they get sick to by in. This is in addition to a flood of people rolling into the expanded medicaid programs in 38 states. Insurers cannot stay solvent with a customer base with a limited number of healthy premium paying clients. I have no answer for this as insurers drop out of the system i.e. Aetna other than to say I would be ok with a single payor system. The U.S. is so big it would be tougher to install than in Europe. Best of health to all.

Lefty Specialist Aug 26 2016 07:45 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Aetna (who did this out of spite because the Obama administration wouldn't approve their mega-merger with Humana) is making the case for a public option at the very least, and single payer or Medicare for All at best. The public option certainly got to be an easier sell, and Hillary's for it. Of course, Republicans will do everything they can to block it. Solution? Fewer Republicans. If Costa Rica can pull it off, I think the US can. The insurance racket greatly distorts health care in this country. Buying into Medicare at 55 would be a nice start. Being in a certain age bracket I know a lot of people who are terrified they'll lose their jobs with 5 or 10 years before they can go on Medicare. Another good thing to do would be to include kids up to 18 as well. The long-term effects could be dramatic for the future health of millions. Poor people skimp on health care for their kids which can affect them for a lifetime. And don't get me started on the pharmas, as my niece needs those EpiPens that just shot up 600% in the past year for no reason other than they could get away with it. One thing that REALLY needs to be done is to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs. The fact that Congress expanded Medicare (Part D) but prohibited negotiating these prices is a scandal, and that needs to get fixed ASAP. It would literally save tens of billions each year.

Ashie62 Aug 26 2016 09:06 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

We are pretty close on this. Yes Aetna came out and said the "only way we will stay in the marketplace anywhere is if the DOJ approves our merger with Humana." I do believe many smaller insurers have gotten pounded due to the unexpected effect of the elimination pre-existing condition mark-ups and denials. Under this law I believe you have to have offer something affordable better than the "heart attack" insurance offered to the healthy and young. We may get fewer Republicans and a shot a some pharma reform from Congress. At minimum I would like to see some transparency in the price negotiations of drug makers, pharmacy benefit managers and the government on pricing. It sucks when public drugmakers have a fiduciary responsibilty to reward their shareholders and a moral responsibilty to forward health in the name of progress. They generally contradict at some point.

TransMonk Aug 26 2016 09:17 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Healthcare is a big deal for me as I work for a small company that does not offer group coverage. It is my choice to work for them and it is somewhat built into my compensation, but by going for health insurance on my own along with pre-existing conditions I have, health insurance for my three person family costs us as much as our mortgage each month. Our premiums have increased year after year and we are constantly moving to higher and higher deductibles to offset, which should not be the answer. Additionally, my plan through the ACA only offers full coverage if I am obtaining services in the southern portion of my state. If I need care on the road it will be a big deal. The irony is that other than my annual physical each year, I have not had a need to visit the doctor in the past three years. However, there's no way I would go without coverage as I would break my leg (or worse) the next year.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 26 2016 09:26 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Oh, yeah, you definitely need to have health insurance. This year my healthy 19-year-old son suddenly had an illness that ran up over a quarter million dollars in medical charges. Our deductible is higher than I'd like it to have been, but the $6,000 this is going to end up costing us is a lot less than it would have been otherwise! (And he's doing okay now, by the way!)

TransMonk Aug 26 2016 09:55 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Glad to hear he's doing well. I hear you, though. I have $6000 in the bank just in case we need it for the deductible (we call it the insurance-insurance)...but yes, it's better than $250K+.

Ashie62 Aug 26 2016 11:54 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Grimm, I hope your son is on the mend. Be well.

Ashie62 Aug 27 2016 12:17 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Ashie1 won total disability one year into Cancer. The first $250,000 was out of pocket until medicare catastrophic was hit and has run up to 7 million dollars. Thats just not right.

Nymr83 Aug 28 2016 11:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

One thing that REALLY needs to be done is to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs. The fact that Congress expanded Medicare (Part D) but prohibited negotiating these prices is a scandal, and that needs to get fixed ASAP. It would literally save tens of billions each year. thats one place we strongly agree - it is criminal that Congress won't allow the taxpayer funded program to take advantage of its large buying power to negotiate in the free market. i'd go even further and appoint someone whose sole job it is to negotiate and who only gets paid based on how big a discount they get.

Lefty Specialist Aug 29 2016 01:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, that's illegal. :) Congresses of both sides have had a chance to fix this and haven't. Big Pharma has their hooks in both parties, sadly. An interesting thing about Trump is that he says he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare but he doesn't really seem to have his heart in it, except to use it as a bullet point in speeches. Repealing and replacing is hard work and he doesn't seem too interested in that. Of course, it would also require a plan, which Republicans have been saying is coming any day now for about 6 years. Everything Trump says can basically be distilled down to these three components: Scream we have a problem (crime, healthcare, terrorism, jobs, the DH, you name it). Say, "Only I can fix it." Give no details on how he'll fix it but just say, "It's gonna be great." Rinse and repeat. And the media just sits there and treats him like any other candidate. Nobody pins him down and says, "OK, HOW are you going to do it?" He only goes on Fox News these days because they won't challenge him, just let him bloviate and clean up the mess for him later.

Edgy MD Aug 29 2016 01:26 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, there was that autopilot assertion that he would take down the lines between the states, to create competition. That's ... like a plan.

Lefty Specialist Aug 29 2016 03:22 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: Well, there was that autopilot assertion that he would take down the lines between the states, to create competition. That's ... like a plan. Ah, the Race to the Bottom plan. Of course insurance companies wouldn't race to the state that has the weakest regulation or anything.