MR

For some, it is more a when Hilary wins scenario, either way if/or she wins what does she do differently than Obama? I read several articles last fall and winter speculating that Obama really wanted Biden to run because O and his people (Valerie Jarrett, etc) see Biden as O's 3rd term, where the Clintons are despised by the Obama people. If she is that much different than O, in what way do you think?

It all depends if the democrats can win back control of congress. If they can't then it will be more of the same do nothing bullshit.

What if Trump wins?

yulog wrote:What if Trump wins?

America will be great again. Duh.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

yulog wrote:What if Trump wins?

America will be great again. Duh.

Correct...

We'll be great when compared to the other third world countries the US will be lumped in with.

ebake02 wrote:It all depends if the democrats can win back control of congress. If they can't then it will be more of the same do nothing bullshit.

I agree with that. Democrats need to come up with a real strategy to break that obstruction.

Monker wrote:

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

yulog wrote:What if Trump wins?

America will be great again. Duh.

Correct...

We'll be great when compared to the other third world countries the US will be lumped in with.

Clinton-promoted policies like NAFTA turned this country into a customer service minimum wage nation. Doubt Trump could do much worse.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Clinton-promoted policies like NAFTA turned this country into a customer service minimum wage nation. Doubt Trump could do much worse.

Yes, he could, he could end NAFTA and other trade agreements, put on 30% tariffs on various nations for various products, start trade wars, all of which would cause runaway inflation and put the economy back to the Jimmy Carter years.

Monker wrote:Yes, he could, he could end NAFTA and other trade agreements, put on 30% tariffs on various nations for various products, start trade wars, all of which would cause runaway inflation and put the economy back to the Jimmy Carter years.

The risk of "runaway inflation" is as likely to happen as the millions of well-paying jobs that NAFTA allegedly created. You keep parroting the establishment line. Meanwhile, Trump will keep re-writing the rules.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Monker wrote:Yes, he could, he could end NAFTA and other trade agreements, put on 30% tariffs on various nations for various products, start trade wars, all of which would cause runaway inflation and put the economy back to the Jimmy Carter years.

The risk of "runaway inflation" is as likely to happen as the millions of well-paying jobs that NAFTA allegedly created. You keep parroting the establishment line. Meanwhile, Trump will keep re-writing the rules.

You're wrong. When you put a tax on imports, it increases the price of those products. That is inflation. If Trump tries to bring back entire industries and tax those industries imports so our products can compete, then that is a huge amount of inflation. Anybody with even a partial brain should be able to see that. And, it will start trade wars where we won't be able to export, and more tariffs on other imports causing even more inflation.

Trump has no rules...he just makes shit up as he goes. Most of the time I don't think he even knows what he's talking about and is just repeating some line he read the internet. He is not this brilliant guy that he and others thinks he is. He is just a spoiled rich dude with a narcissistic personality disorder who thinks he knows more than he does, never admits when he is wrong, never apologizes but blames everybody else instead, says he is a counter puncher but is really the asshole who will do anything to 'win', he is a racist, misogynist, bigot, fascist, has no real respect for government, liberty, or democracy and only sees power in the Presidency.

Monker wrote:You're wrong. When you put a tax on imports, it increases the price of those products. That is inflation. If Trump tries to bring back entire industries and tax those industries imports so our products can compete, then that is a huge amount of inflation. Anybody with even a partial brain should be able to see that. And, it will start trade wars where we won't be able to export, and more tariffs on other imports causing even more inflation.

Trump has no rules...he just makes shit up as he goes. Most of the time I don't think he even knows what he's talking about and is just repeating some line he read the internet. He is not this brilliant guy that he and others thinks he is. He is just a spoiled rich dude with a narcissistic personality disorder who thinks he knows more than he does, never admits when he is wrong, never apologizes but blames everybody else instead, says he is a counter puncher but is really the asshole who will do anything to 'win', he is a racist, misogynist, bigot, fascist, has no real respect for government, liberty, or democracy and only sees power in the Presidency.

To quote Reagan, "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." Truthfully, you don't know what will happen if Trump reverts to protectionist policies. Protectionists like Perot and Buchanan are treated like lepers by "serious" economists (who mostly are opinion columnists pretending to be economists) who are wrong year after year. Same with Austrian goldbugs like Ron Paul. The fact that Trump endorses such unconventional thinking is good news. On a related note, the State department just blocked the release of more Hillary emails on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I know where Trump (and Bernie) stand on the TPP and similar job-destroying trade deals. How about your candidate? And what is she hiding?

The_Noble_Cause wrote:To quote Reagan, "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

To quote YOU, "I am the most liberal person on this forum."

Obviously, you are pretty damn ignorant.

Truthfully, you don't know what will happen if Trump reverts to protectionist policies.

It is simple common sense that if you put taxes and tariffs on imports that it will increase the prices of those products in the US. You do understand that when prices go up, that is inflation, right? When he talks about 30% taxes on products, that is ABSOLUTELY going to contribute to inflation and be a negative force on the economy in general. Since those type of actions will probably spark a trade war (which Trump doesn't mind), the demand for exports will go down. The US could end up in a situation like Cuba or N. Korea. You do realize what happened to communist countries who tried to be self-contained economies with very little exports or imports, correct? That is the type of economy Trump is preaching for.

The fact that Trump endorses such unconventional thinking is good news.

It would be if he had a brain in his head instead of corn mash. He has no idea what he is talking about and just makes shit up as he goes. As long as it increases his popularity, he doesn't care. He loves to prop up his intelligence, but his grammar seems to be the equivalent of a 12yr old. He is no where near as smart as he has convinced people. I don't care what schools he went to.

On a related note, the State department just blocked the release of more Hillary emails on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I know where Trump (and Bernie) stand on the TPP and similar job-destroying trade deals. How about your candidate? And what is she hiding?

I really don't care.

First of she's not "my candidate"...Hillary is simply the person I feel is going to win. It has simply been obvious to me from the very, very early stages of this game.

Second, before you critique somebody, you better worry about Trump and his real issues, and the fragile state of the Republican party. And, you should worry about the vote being split. I have seen Johnson getting up to 10% of the vote in some polls. If he gets some backing ($) behind him, he could be a real issue for Trump. If the Republicans can't even stabilize their own turf, it won't matter what Clinton had done, or does....she will win. And, the pathetic thing is, many Republicans don't even care at this point...they would rather simply attack Hillary than prop up Trump the Tyrant. I'm sure KC and FF already have their "Trump was a bad candidate" excuses already written and ready to be copy/pasted into this forum for years to come.

Monker wrote:To quote YOU, "I am the most liberal person on this forum."
Obviously, you are pretty damn ignorant.

Reagan was referring to know-it-all, elitist, Democratic establishment assholes like YOU.The type that raise their pinkies to the sky as they sip their chai soy lattes while browsing Grindr on their IPhones. NOT independent progressives. Reagan won over independent-minded blue collar liberals (aka Reagan Democrats). Trump will win them too.

Monker wrote:It is simple common sense that if you put taxes and tariffs on imports that it will increase the prices of those products in the US.

Economics doesn't work like that. Many principles of economics run counter to common sense. It's for this reason voters get outraged when liberal economists advocate for more government spending to get an economy out of debt. The very idea is counter-intuitive, like so much of econ 101. You have proven yourself to have no credibility on any issue ("Hillary had permission to use a private server!") so I really don't care what you believe. I'm just here to call out your lies.

Monker wrote:It would be if he had a brain in his head instead of corn mash. He has no idea what he is talking about and just makes shit up as he goes. As long as it increases his popularity, he doesn't care. He loves to prop up his intelligence, but his grammar seems to be the equivalent of a 12yr old. He is no where near as smart as he has convinced people. I don't care what schools he went to.

Trump's off-the-cuff approach is the key to his appeal. Meanwhile, Hillary is as scripted as an episode of Cheers. Hard to win when you have less humanity and warmth than the robot in Short Circuit. I look forward to Trump kicking her ass.

Monker wrote:I really don't care.

Of course you don't. Because as you have proven repeatedly, you are a whore with no principles besides "winning." No matter the cost.

Monker wrote:First of she's not "my candidate"...Hillary is simply the person I feel is going to win. It has simply been obvious to me from the very, very early stages of this game.

Riiight. That's why every post you attack Trump on his policies while making up sweeping defenses of Hillary or giving her a pass ("I don't care"). Your record of lies is included below. Any newcomers to this forum or thread will know what a slimy, belly-wriggling, shit maggot you are. Reader beware -

Monker wrote:That's just not true. She had permission to use it.

Monker wrote:Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.
What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified".

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Monker wrote:To quote YOU, "I am the most liberal person on this forum."
Obviously, you are pretty damn ignorant.

Reagan was referring to know-it-all, elitist, Democratic establishment assholes like YOU.The type that raise their pinkies to the sky as they sip their chai soy lattes while browsing Grindr on their IPhones. NOT independent progressives. Reagan won over independent-minded blue collar liberals (aka Reagan Democrats). Trump will win them too.

I am not a Democrat. I will never be a Democrat. I am not part of any "establishment".

YOU are the one who proudly claims to be a Democrat and the most liberal person on the forum.

Monker wrote:It is simple common sense that if you put taxes and tariffs on imports that it will increase the prices of those products in the US.

Economics doesn't work like that. Many principles of economics run counter to common sense. It's for this reason voters get outraged when liberal economists advocate for more government spending to get an economy out of debt. The very idea is counter-intuitive, like so much of econ 101.

YES IT DOES work like that. Next you are going to start arguing for supply economics because it runs counter to common sense as well. Tarrifs increase inflation due to very basic and simple economics:

Tariff Effects
The additional tax, or tariff, on imported goods can discourage foreign countries or businesses from trying to sell products in a foreign country. The additional taxes make the foreign import either too expensive or not nearly as competitive as it would be if the tariff didn't exist. This can lead to fewer choices of goods and a lower quality for consumers. The amount of chocolate, fruits and vegetables, and automotive parts you have to choose from are all subject to the effects of tariffs.

Domestic producers benefit by ultimately facing reduced competition in their home market, which leads to lower supply levels and higher prices for consumers. As you can see from the graph below, S0 and D0 represent the original supply and demand curves, which intersect at (P0, Q0). St shows what the supply curve is with the introduction of the tariff. The market then settles at (Pt, Qt). Less of the good is produced, and consumers pay higher prices.

When a consumer does purchase a higher-priced imported good with a tariff imposed on it, the consumer now has less money to spend on other things. This forces consumers to either buy less of the imported good or less of some other good, ultimately lowering the purchasing power of consumers.

You have proven yourself to have no credibility on any issue ("Hillary had permission to use a private server!") so I really don't care what you believe. I'm just here to call out your lies.[/i]

You have proven that you believe anything Trump says...even when what he says is grossly exaggerated and dangerously wrong.

Trump's off-the-cuff approach is the key to his appeal.

Yeah, so much so that Republicans rebelled against him due to his Mexican Judge comments.

It's the key to his appeal to over zealous angry idiots who want to blame Mexico, China, and Muslims for everything...and have no idea what can be done to really solve those issue, besides "build a wall" and ban religions. In the process he has alienated everybody in the Obama coalition which helped Obama win TWICE....by large margins. Trump can't win with angry white men alone and his one African American man that he seems to think he owns. It will never happen.

Then there is the fact that he was scripted for his Tuesday speech....and THAT is what the Republican establishment wants, the RNC wants, and THAT is the Trump that will unify the party. The off the cuff, shoot from the hip, Trump is not going to get the support of the party....that Trump will get the CRITIQUE of the Republican party. Even Republican leaders who support Trump are critical of his rhetoric, like Newt Gingrich. People like Paul Ryan may "endorse" him but are not going to be silent when he acts like an asshole and is an embarrassment to the party as a whole.

So, good luck with your toned down, boring, Trump...which is what the Republican establishment and RNC wants.

Meanwhile, Hillary is as scripted as an episode of Cheers. Hard to win when you have less humanity and warmth than the robot in Short Circuit. I look forward to Trump kicking her ass.

It makes no difference what Clinton does. At this point all she has to do is show up and she'll win.

Monker wrote:I really don't care.

Of course you don't. Because as you have proven repeatedly, you are a whore with no principles besides "winning." No matter the cost.

I have never said that or acted in that way. I have simply said, from way early in the beginning, that Clinton will win. That IS what is going to happen. No Democrat, Republican, or independent has come up with any strategy that I see as being able to defeat her.

Monker wrote:First of she's not "my candidate"...Hillary is simply the person I feel is going to win. It has simply been obvious to me from the very, very early stages of this game.

Riiight. That's why every post you attack Trump on his policies while making up sweeping defenses of Hillary or giving her a pass ("I don't care"). Your record of lies is included below. Any newcomers to this forum or thread will know what a slimy, belly-wriggling, shit maggot you are. Reader beware -

Monker wrote:That's just not true. She had permission to use it.

Monker wrote:Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.
What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified".

Oh, two things. That's it? Not very impressive when you are accusing somebody who has been on this forum for 15yrs. The first one I already talked about and I'm not going to address again. The second is obviously taken out of context to change the meaning to imply something I wasn't saying. The full context is:

[quote="The_Noble_Cause]
WRONG. You may as well argue that Bill did not use Monica's puss as a humidor. Currently, only 2000 emails have been retroactively classified - out of more than 30,000! Why don't you just lay your cards on the table and admit you are here to do Hillary's bidding. HACK!
[/quote]

You said there was no difference between what Patraeus did and what Clinton did. YOU just stated above the difference.

Patraeus gave books containing information he KNEW was classified to his biographer. He ADMITTED it was classified when he gave it to her. He passed on classified information to a private citizen, and ADMITTED to that citizen that it was classified.

Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.

What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified". Unless she KNEW she was handling classified information, and it can be PROVEN she knew, then there is no case against her. Patraeus not only knew the books contained classified information, but TOLD OTHERS that they did...including the recipient...and he passed it on anyway. THAT is a HUGE difference.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

What I said there is an absolutely TRUE statement which you hacked up to change the meaning. What Patraeus did was completely different and easily proven as passing on state secrets. I added caveats to what I said about Clinton...if those things can be proven, then she's guilty.

That is like the fourth or fifth lie (you lie so much that I lost count) about me that you have passed onto this forum.

Monker wrote:I am not a Democrat. I will never be a Democrat. I am not part of any "establishment".

Riiiight. Is that why you are on here repeating DNC talking points verbatim ("she had permission!")?

Monker wrote:YOU are the one who proudly claims to be a Democrat and the most liberal person on the forum.

So? Doesn't mean I put my brain in cold storage. Democrats like you thought it was an outrage when Bush's emails went missing. Hillary's missing emails and circumvention of transparency is far far worse.

Monker wrote:YES IT DOES work like that.

In an Econ 101 textbook, yes, it does. But alot changes between now and actually drafting/passing legislation. And if Trump succeeds, I guess you'll be paying more for your imported blow-up fuck dolls. Oh well. Too bad.

Monker wrote:You have proven that you believe anything Trump says...even when what he says is grossly exaggerated and dangerously wrong.

I have not repeated any Trump talking point on here. What I have done, is express my support for his protectionist views, which pre-date this election. I supported them when Buchanan promoted them and when they were advocated by Nader and Perot. I supported them when Bernie said it. It's called ideological consistency. Try it sometime.

Monker wrote:Yeah, so much so that Republicans rebelled against him due to his Mexican Judge comments.

It's the key to his appeal to over zealous angry idiots who want to blame Mexico, China, and Muslims for everything...and have no idea what can be done to really solve those issue, besides "build a wall" and ban religions. In the process he has alienated everybody in the Obama coalition which helped Obama win TWICE....by large margins. Trump can't win with angry white men alone and his one African American man that he seems to think he owns. It will never happen.

Then there is the fact that he was scripted for his Tuesday speech....and THAT is what the Republican establishment wants, the RNC wants, and THAT is the Trump that will unify the party. The off the cuff, shoot from the hip, Trump is not going to get the support of the party....that Trump will get the CRITIQUE of the Republican party. Even Republican leaders who support Trump are critical of his rhetoric, like Newt Gingrich. People like Paul Ryan may "endorse" him but are not going to be silent when he acts like an asshole and is an embarrassment to the party as a whole.

So, good luck with your toned down, boring, Trump...which is what the Republican establishment and RNC wants.

Another detail-heavy diatribe about Trump while Hillary gets a total pass. And then you feign being non-ideological. What a phony. Zzzzzz.

Monker wrote:What Patraeus did was completely different and easily proven as passing on state secrets.

Lmao. Petraeus passed state secrets to his mistress. Hillary passed them on to the entire listserv of The Clinton Foundation, plus Sidney Blumenthal’s Snapchat friend list. She's guilty as hell.

Monker wrote:That is like the fourth or fifth lie (you lie so much that I lost count) about me that you have passed onto this forum.

The only person you are fooling is yourself. At this point, you sound like Travolta’s PR person denying gay rumors or Liberace’s butler saying he had a bad case of the flu. It’s OK, man. Listen, we all know you are a liar and a registered Democrat suck-off.

If Hillary wins there will be no more Islamic terrorist attacks because she will give all the members of ISIS jobs.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Monker wrote:I am not a Democrat. I will never be a Democrat. I am not part of any "establishment".

Riiiight. Is that why you are on here repeating DNC talking points verbatim ("she had permission!")?

I said that one time. I couldn't find the "proof" you required and I haven't mentioned it since.

Monker wrote:YOU are the one who proudly claims to be a Democrat and the most liberal person on the forum.

So? Doesn't mean I put my brain in cold storage.

When you quote statements making generic insulting comments about a group of people which you claim to be a part of, then you put your brain where ever Trump has misplaced his.

Democrats like you thought it was an outrage when Bush's emails went missing. Hillary's missing emails and circumvention of transparency is far far worse.

I have no idea what you are talking about with Bush's missing Emails. I doubt I cared at the time, and I don't care now.

In an Econ 101 textbook, yes, it does. But alot changes between now and actually drafting/passing legislation. And if Trump succeeds, I guess you'll be paying more for your imported blow-up fuck dolls. Oh well. Too bad.

If Trump puts tarriffs on all manufactured goods outside of the US in the attempt to get manufacturing started in the US, then inflation will rise across the entire economy. That is a fact.
\

Another detail-heavy diatribe about Trump while Hillary gets a total pass. And then you feign being non-ideological. What a phony. Zzzzzz.

I do not attack, and don't go about wildly promoting her either.

IMO, Tyranical Trump is so dangerous for this country that I'll critique him as much as I can. He is so scary that I would rather have W as Prsident.

Monker wrote:What Patraeus did was completely different and easily proven as passing on state secrets.

Lmao. Petraeus passed state secrets to his mistress. Hillary passed them on to the entire listserv of The Clinton Foundation, plus Sidney Blumenthal’s Snapchat friend list. She's guilty as hell.

Now you are replying to a statement that is six months old, or whatever, from today's perspective and knowledge. Keep things in context. In the context in the post above, I am right.

Monker wrote:That is like the fourth or fifth lie (you lie so much that I lost count) about me that you have passed onto this forum.

The only person you are fooling is yourself. At this point, you sound like Travolta’s PR person denying gay rumors or Liberace’s butler saying he had a bad case of the flu. It’s OK, man. Listen, we all know you are a liar and a registered Democrat suck-off.

Go lie about somebody else. You accused me of saying the Emails were retroactively classified. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT...and I quoted you in my reply. That alone should show how you lie about me in a desperate attempt to discredit me. THe ONLY true thing you have accused me of that is true is that I said "she had permission". EVERYTHING else you have accused me of saying has been a lie. You make things up about as much as Trump the Tyrant does.

Monker wrote:I said that one time. I couldn't find the "proof" you required and I haven't mentioned it since.

You haven't mentioned it since, because your DNC-fed lies were called out immediately. Like Hillary, you think you can spew bullshit with impunity. Why didn’t you have proof BEFORE you posted it? You just admitted you were deliberately posting lies. Nice job, buddy.

Monker wrote:When you quote statements making generic insulting comments about a group of people which you claim to be a part of, then you put your brain where ever Trump has misplaced his.

Wake me when you start making "insulting comments" about someone, anyone, besides Trump. As you practice your blood calligraphy skills for the inevitable Hillary loyalty pledge, I'll continue criticizing fellow libs, cons, LaRoushies and whoever.

Monker wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about with Bush's missing Emails. I doubt I cared at the time, and I don't care now.

And are you proud to not care about government transparency? The government is supposed to be responsive to the Constitution and the people. You sound like one of the Republican dumbfucks dismissing global warming because he had 3 inches of snow this past winter. If you don’t care about what Hillary did, you either have not done the research or you simply don’t care about your country.

Monker wrote:If Trump puts tarriffs on all manufactured goods outside of the US in the attempt to get manufacturing started in the US, then inflation will rise across the entire economy. That is a fact.

No such thing as facts in economics. Economics is all mathematical models, theories, and opinion. That’s like saying movie critics speak in facts. You could also easily say it is a FACT that by raising the minimum wage, Hillary will be forcing corporations to eliminate jobs or raise prices. I could easily refute your "facts" with "facts" from protectionist economists, like Han-Joon Chang, who believe that a small tariff on imports would bring industry back to America and reduce our trade deficit. You have no claim to the truth. Sorry.

Monker wrote:I do not attack, and don't go about wildly promoting her either.

No, you just shill for her -

“She had permission!”
“Colin Powell did it too!”
“Her emails were all classified later (even tho they were about top secret CIA drone strikes)!”

Monker wrote:IMO, Tyranical Trump is so dangerous for this country that I'll critique him as much as I can. He is so scary that I would rather have W as Prsident.

Trump is at least laying his cards on the table. Dubya ran as a peace president against nation building and then behind closed doors was plotting to destabilize the Middle East.

Monker wrote:Go lie about somebody else. You accused me of saying the Emails were retroactively classified. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT...and I quoted you in my reply. That alone should show how you lie about me in a desperate attempt to discredit me. THe ONLY true thing you have accused me of that is true is that I said "she had permission". EVERYTHING else you have accused me of saying has been a lie. You make things up about as much as Trump the Tyrant does.

My, what a tangled web of lies we weave. Next time, don’t lie so much and you won’t be stuck trying to extricate yourself from an impossible Gordian knot of bullshit.

I strongly recommend that all of you stop arguing and wasting mental energy over an entirely rigged system; a completely hollow facade of democracy where you think you're in control and that candidates are actually different, and focus your efforts on becoming acquainted with the revolutionary and brilliant Juche ideology and understand how its implementation here could have a massive positive impact on the well-being of all Americans.

Archetype wrote:I strongly recommend that all of you stop arguing and wasting mental energy over an entirely rigged system; a completely hollow facade of democracy where you think you're in control and that candidates are actually different, and focus your efforts on becoming acquainted with the revolutionary and brilliant Juche ideology and understand how its implementation here could have a massive positive impact on the well-being of all Americans.

Juche ideology? Never heard of it. Why don't you enlighten us?

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Archetype wrote:I strongly recommend that all of you stop arguing and wasting mental energy over an entirely rigged system; a completely hollow facade of democracy where you think you're in control and that candidates are actually different, and focus your efforts on becoming acquainted with the revolutionary and brilliant Juche ideology and understand how its implementation here could have a massive positive impact on the well-being of all Americans.

Juche ideology? Never heard of it. Why don't you enlighten us?

Establishing Juche means adopting the attitude of a master towards the revolution and construction of one's country. It means maintaining an independent and creative standpoint in finding solutions to the problems which arise in the revolution and construction. It implies solving those problems mainly by one's own efforts and in conformity with the actual conditions of one's own POLITICS country. The realization of independence in politics, selfsufficiency in the economy and self-reliance in national defence is a principle the Government maintains consistently.

In other words, he's supports Trump the Tyrant.

Looks like Hillary also broke the Intelligence Identities Protection Act...

http://observer.com/2016/06/the-coming- ... emailgate/

I really don't have a logical dog in this fight since I've stopped following politicians the second it was clear that they're all frauds in their own respective light. Having said that, I can only speak of gut feelings and I feel closer to nomination time that when it's all said and done, Hillary is going to wipe the floor with Trump. It may be one of the biggest landslides in recent time. Not only could it make history, but I feel this country as a whole is more into making history than choosing the right canidate, sadly. You know the Republican ' s are in trouble when Donald Trump is your only hope. He's pretty much the male equilavant to that dumb broad Sarah Palin. He's just a sexy choice and nothing else. The dude can cut a great promo and get the crowd to cheer him, but he can barely bounce off the ropes to get to his next spot for a simple closeline. Not sure who I'm voting for right now (I believe we're fucked) but regardless, I think Clinton will dominate.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:I really don't have a logical dog in this fight since I've stopped following politicians the second it was clear that they're all frauds in their own respective light. Having said that, I can only speak of gut feelings and I feel closer to nomination time that when it's all said and done, Hillary is going to wipe the floor with Trump. It may be one of the biggest landslides in recent time. Not only could it make history, but I feel this country as a whole is more into making history than choosing the right canidate, sadly. You know the Republican ' s are in trouble when Donald Trump is your only hope. He's pretty much the male equilavant to that dumb broad Sarah Palin. He's just a sexy choice and nothing else. The dude can cut a great promo and get the crowd to cheer him, but he can barely bounce off the ropes to get to his next spot for a simple closeline. Not sure who I'm voting for right now (I believe we're fucked) but regardless, I think Clinton will dominate.

Trump goes out and puts forth a stream of consciousness of ideas. Some good, some bad, some borderline racist... but at least it's not the same blow dried, poll-tested garbage. Call it "Archie Bunker Republicanism" or something, but Trump is articulating an insurgent vision of conservatism (pro-social security, anti-bad trade deals) that is absolutely unlike any Republican nominee before him. A win for Hillary would be historic in the same way an Obama win was historic.... in a completely, superficial , meaningless way. At the end of the day you are getting the same corporate-written crap. Hillary has not held a press conference in nearly 200 days. She is not wiping the floor with anyone.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

YoungJRNYfan wrote:I really don't have a logical dog in this fight since I've stopped following politicians the second it was clear that they're all frauds in their own respective light. Having said that, I can only speak of gut feelings and I feel closer to nomination time that when it's all said and done, Hillary is going to wipe the floor with Trump. It may be one of the biggest landslides in recent time. Not only could it make history, but I feel this country as a whole is more into making history than choosing the right canidate, sadly. You know the Republican ' s are in trouble when Donald Trump is your only hope. He's pretty much the male equilavant to that dumb broad Sarah Palin. He's just a sexy choice and nothing else. The dude can cut a great promo and get the crowd to cheer him, but he can barely bounce off the ropes to get to his next spot for a simple closeline. Not sure who I'm voting for right now (I believe we're fucked) but regardless, I think Clinton will dominate.

Trump goes out and puts forth a stream of consciousness of ideas. Some good, some bad, some borderline racist... but at least it's not the same blow dried, poll-tested garbage. Call it "Archie Bunker Republicanism" or something, but Trump is articulating an insurgent vision of conservatism (pro-social security, anti-bad trade deals) that is absolutely unlike any Republican nominee before him. A win for Hillary would be historic in the same way an Obama win was historic.... in a completely, superficial , meaningless way. At the end of the day you are getting the same corporate-written crap. Hillary has not held a press conference in nearly 200 days. She is not wiping the floor with anyone.

Agreed.

tj wrote:

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

YoungJRNYfan wrote:I really don't have a logical dog in this fight since I've stopped following politicians the second it was clear that they're all frauds in their own respective light. Having said that, I can only speak of gut feelings and I feel closer to nomination time that when it's all said and done, Hillary is going to wipe the floor with Trump. It may be one of the biggest landslides in recent time. Not only could it make history, but I feel this country as a whole is more into making history than choosing the right canidate, sadly. You know the Republican ' s are in trouble when Donald Trump is your only hope. He's pretty much the male equilavant to that dumb broad Sarah Palin. He's just a sexy choice and nothing else. The dude can cut a great promo and get the crowd to cheer him, but he can barely bounce off the ropes to get to his next spot for a simple closeline. Not sure who I'm voting for right now (I believe we're fucked) but regardless, I think Clinton will dominate.

Trump goes out and puts forth a stream of consciousness of ideas. Some good, some bad, some borderline racist... but at least it's not the same blow dried, poll-tested garbage. Call it "Archie Bunker Republicanism" or something, but Trump is articulating an insurgent vision of conservatism (pro-social security, anti-bad trade deals) that is absolutely unlike any Republican nominee before him. A win for Hillary would be historic in the same way an Obama win was historic.... in a completely, superficial , meaningless way. At the end of the day you are getting the same corporate-written crap. Hillary has not held a press conference in nearly 200 days. She is not wiping the floor with anyone.

Agreed.

I think you guys are in for a real shock in November. Trump is rebelling against his own party now. He doesn't have the resources to play this game in the general election. He doesn't have the support of his party nor his party's usual big donors. He comes off like some rambling anarchist. Hillary is going to out maneuver him politically - which she has already been doing, the Democrats in general are going to swarm all over his tyrannical ways - which they have already been doing, and Republicans leadership are not going to get involved with his crazy words...which they are already doing. NOBODY but the incredibly desperate really want Trump.

I heard somebody say, "We can survive Hillary. We won't survive Trump." That is how people are going to see this...you can either vote for a neo-fascisist/anarchist demagogue with a narcissistic personality disorder, or someone you don't completely trust. Trump will lead this country to ruin...Clinton will be close to what you have now. That is what it will really come down to....and Hillary will win by at least 10% of the vote.

Trump doesn't have a "stream of ideas." He has a stream of made up bullshit that does not have any basis in reality, and yes a lot of it is racist, sexist, etc...but what is worse is making up policies and actions that are illegal or have no chance of happening. Ordering soldiers to torture, for example....won't happen. Building a way with Mexico...won't happen. Making Mexico pay for the wall, won't happen. Banning Muslims from the US, won't happen. I have hard time coming up with an example of his that has ANY chance of being passed by congress, etc. I feel a lot of what Bernie was saying was extremely unlikely...but what Trump wants to do is fantasy. He has proposed no serious plan...everything he says is to spark anger at the opposition and to gain popularity from it. THAT is really what has fueled his campaign - anger...not policy, or anything based in the real world the he would have to face as President.

And, then they disappear because nobody cares.

Last Monday, Trump gave his speech about Clinton. This so called "master of media" could not even control one days worth of the news cycle. His big speech came and went, and was totally ignored. 15yrs of listening to that bullshit on FOX is enough, and we have all heard it all before and don't need to hear it all again.

Instead Orlando happened. He responds as the blabbering idiot that he is. And, Obama takes him down with his own reaction both in his words...and his actions in Orlando. That is how a President should be reacting...not like some flailing little baby who can't get his way....and you can argue that Obama has reason to act that way. The comparison is so troublesome. Obama, calm, reacting with very choice words and a call to action to fix the problem...and visiting the survivors of the victims in a respectful way....compared to Trump yelling and complaining about how HE is being talked about and not the terrorists. Saying the victims should have been carrying guns, instead of showing them any type of respect. Trump isn't Presidential material. He isn't even CEO material, IMO. Too bad somebody could not fire him and knock his self-important ego down a few notches.

Trump is way over rated. After the conventions, I feel Clinton is going to dominate the media simply because Trump will not have the resources to compete. All of the silly Tweets on Twitter from Trump can be replied to using Trumps own tactics...calling the media directly, for example. Trump is going to be so outgunned, it will be pitiful. He made too many enemies out of the Republicans. He burned too many bridges to people who could have helped him. He angered too many people who may have looked the other way but are now critical. Worst of all his 10 billion dollar ego and his arrogant politics have convinced big donors to stay away. He will get his money back from the primary campaign and I do not believe he will spend any of his own money and the general election. He was never REALLY self-funded....just a big lie.

When Christine O'Donnell ran for senate, and took down an encumbant Republican, I said she would lose to the Democrat because she is a nut. It was a sign to me that the Tea Party doesn't care about winning elections. And, I felt is a very bad sign for the Republican party. But, even Christine O'Donnell TRIED to appear sane to compete in her election. Trump isn't even trying. I am not sure he even really WANTS to win. He acts like he wants to lose.

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Then things like this appear.

By Daniel Halper, NY Post

President Bill Clinton had an affair with former Vice President Walter Mondale’s daughter — while multitasking with at least two mistresses in the White House — according to a tell-all by a Secret Service officer who guarded the Oval Office.

Gary J. Byrne’s account of walking in on Clinton and the gorgeous Eleanor Mondale, then a TV journalist, is the first eyewitness report of the long-rumored affair.

“There before us was E! Network host Eleanor Mondale . . . and President Clinton in a compromising position, that is, making out on the Map Room table,” Byrne writes of the alleged Christmastime tryst around the middle of Clinton’s presidency.

Monker wrote:And, then they disappear because nobody cares.

In your post, you compare Trump and Obama's reaction the Florida massacre, but I didn't watch either and I don't care. When a loss of human life occurs on that scale, who really cares what a politician has to say? Pretty obvious the FBI dropped the ball.

Monker wrote:After the conventions, I feel Clinton is going to dominate the media simply because Trump will not have the resources to compete.

Lmao. As if the media has been snubbing Hillary or something? Whatever Trump does is irrelevant. Hillary will lose because she is the worst Democratic nominee in history. Also, unlike Obama, she will not energize the young or the minority vote.

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:What a shame that a bought and paid for, self serving, proven liar, and general slime is your choice for a "Leader".

Clinton is BY FAR the better choice to lead the country compared to Trump. Most of the time Trump has no idea what he is talking about or how what he is proposing will even affect the country. All he knows is what he says pisses people off and draws attention to himself.

That is all he cares about - himself. I just read an article that said he wants to start his own cable channel because the media is so unfair to him...and he gets good ratings so may as well capitalize on it while he can. My God, what an ego - a 24hr Trump channel. All Trump all day and night. What will he do next? Sell his hair follicles for $100 each to prove that it's 'his' hair? Anything for a profit...he has no boundaries, as long as it makes him money.

That's what I think this election is REALLY about for him....a way for him to make a profit. He is a fucking Ferengi.

Talk about lying...Trump used to call news services and give fake names to talk himself up both as a business person and a sex object. Talk about self serving, liar. And, slimey. "Whisper your way to success," Rule of Acquisition #168

Trump university was nothing but a fraudulent business. It wasn't even a 'university'. "Never be afraid to mislabel a product," rule of acquisition #239.

And, "bought and paid for"...Trump himself admits to being on the other side of that scheme...buying and paying into the corruption...or avoiding being taken to court in Texas and Florida for his fake university. "Every man has his price," Rule of acquisition #98.

You can pretend that Trump the Tyrant is different, but he is no different than any other politician, just a bit more of an idiot than W. He is a fraud and the Tea Party bought into his fraud just as deeply as those who signed up for his university. "Dignity and an empty sack...is worth the sack," rule of acquisition #109

The_Noble_Cause wrote:In your post, you compare Trump and Obama's reaction the Florida massacre, but I didn't watch either and I don't care. When a loss of human life occurs on that scale, who really cares what a politician has to say? Pretty obvious the FBI dropped the ball.

The victims families care. Compassionate people who can empathize with those families care what is said in those moments. People cared when W first spoke during 9/11. It's really no different. Trump dropped the ball and came off sounding like an unempathetic and hate fill person. Obama came off as someone who genuinely cared about the victims and their families.

Lmao. As if the media has been snubbing Hillary or something? Whatever Trump does is irrelevant. Hillary will lose because she is the worst Democratic nominee in history. Also, unlike Obama, she will not energize the young or the minority vote.

[/quote]

You are looking through a microscope and zoomed in on all these little things that you fail to see the big picture.

Obama and Sanders will bring in the youth vote. I do not believe for one moment that Trump will win the youth vote. THAT is hilarious. Besides, historically the youth vote alone does not win elections. Ask Bernie, or Howard Dean.

You know that Trump gets media attention whenever his eyes glow and he turns into Tyranius Trump Rex and goes off on a rampage on something. In the past, during the primaries...this did not hurt him. Nowadays, it does. The Mexican judge thing hurt him. When he says embarrassing things, Republicans distance themselves from him, or even critique him for it, because he is so far away from what a traditional Republican stands for and believes. If Trump were on the Democrat side, I can only imagine was FF and KC would be posting about him. it will be interesting to see what their excuses are after he loses.

But, now the tables are turned. When Tyranious Trump Rex comes around...You get Hillary, Obama, Biden, Sanders, Warren - all of them critiquing Trump. And THAT dominates the news cycle rather than "Gee, I wonder if Trump's crazy antics will hurt him this time?" The Mexican judge thing resulted in a 10pt loss in the polls for Trump...and now Clinton is in the lead in every poll...up to 12pts.

It's different game now. Welcome to the general election where Trump will get beaten down every time he tries to roar.