2016 US Presidential election thread

[Sailor Steve]

True, but the forefathers lived in a very different world, for one thing the nation was smaller, the technology more primative, the threats much different and the people almost alien to those of today.
That's true to a point. The biggest threat they had encountered was a government that refused to listen to them and when they complained only replied "Shut up and do as you're told!" When they protested against that the Colonial governors requested troops to keep the peace. When one such governor sent his troops to confiscate the contents of a citizen-owned armory (privately held cannons and such), that's when the citizens armed themselves and faced them off, and that's when the war started.

America was a very young nation in the era of the forefathers (whom I take to mean the founding fathers and the initial presidencies?) and perhaps it wasn't just an ideology that prompted minimal government with maximum freedom but also a practical problem in that the founding fathers of the US did not have the means to have anything other than a minimal government. The balance of power, as it were, was firmly in favour of the people since it was they who controlled the weaponry (the well regulated militias), the production, and the infrastructure. If Washington had decided in his first term to extend it without congressional approval, if he had decided to become a dictator, then he would have been swiftly overthrown by the public.
Maybe. The fact is that many of them didn't want a centralized government at all, but circumstances forced it upon them.

As for Washington, he was already famous for decrying false authority. When the Continental Congress voted him emergency powers he was very careful never to exceed them, always pointing out that the military must remain subservient to the civilian authority. At the end of the war his officers, unhappy with not being paid, decided to march on Congress, Washington finally convinced them not to do so, as it was contrary to everything they had fought for.

I've read at least one biographer (sorry I can't recall which one at the moment) who said that had Washington not been the President of the Constitutional Convention, and a constant reminder that he would probably be the first President of the United States, they likely wouldn't have given that office the powers that they did. The knew he would never abuse that power, and they don't seem to have considered what might happen when he was gone.

When Washington reluctantly accepted a second term as president there were factions who protested, some violently, saying he wanted to make himself King. Therefore you may be right in saying a popular revolution might have opposed any attempt by a president to make himself more. We'll never know. Would such a thing happen now? It's hard to tell. I'd like to think so, but there's no way of knowing unless such a thing should actually happen.

I can see why this is a system that is held dear in the hearts of the American people, that balance that helps keep dictators in check.
But that was a different era, and I'm not sure how much of the politics of the founding fathers can translate into the modern era, certainly I could understand that they would likely be frustrated and angered with the giant, slow, gridlocked mass that American politics has become, and likely disappointed with the fractuous manner in which political opponents behave both on screen and off.
Maybe, but every time anyone asks when American politics became so dirty I always point back to the election of 1800, when old friends Adams and Jefferson let their supporters try to tear the system apart, with the front pages of privately owned newspapers acting as op-ed pages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Drl8fpWTKo

Perhaps...perhaps the question that the American people might want to ask themselves collectively is what they perceive the role of government to be. For myself, I perceive government as a hand of protection for its people, to make sure that they have access to the things they require to live a healthy, resourceful and fulfilling life and that no foreign entity intervenes to prevent this. FDR put it in a good manner with his four freedoms. In my opinion it should be the role of the government to help preserve those freedoms.
I don't disagree, but I do question. The third - Freedom from Want - raises thorny problems. Guaranteeing that nobody suffers from a lack of anything also means taking from others what they have so it can be given to the ones who have less. The question has to be faced of "how much is enough?" I don't know the answer to that question, but maybe some sort of enlightened socialism is in the cards. The negative I see to that is that it can only be accomplished by government, and to make it work you have to give the government more and more power.

Of course that leads to observations by Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

I tend to follow that belief that Government and Freedom are natural opposites, and personally don't trust the government with any more power than is absolutely necessary.

Anyway, I really just wanted to point out that today's politics are nothing new. Washington may have hated it but those who followed him would likely recognize themselves in what goes on now - though they might not have wanted to admit it.

[Platapus]

He's a businessman not a politician. That's what's needed to straighten out the mess we're in.

Why?

Running a government is not like running a business.

Forming/implementing foreign policy is not like establishing an international business deal.

Establishing public policy is not the same as establishing business policy.

The two really don't have a lot in common.

Businesses operate under the "umbrella" of government. If a business fails, there are safeguards from the government. There are no such safeguards at the government level.

A business can refuse/limit its production and service to a limited subset of voluntary customers.

A government must provide products/services to all the citizens and citizens can't opt in or out of the system.

A business can declare bankruptcy and start over if a mistake is made. A government can't.

I truly fail understand why anyone would feel that a business experience would be at all applicable in a government leadership position.

They are really two different worlds.

I don't want an amateur as president. I think we should have learned our lesson from the past two presidents -- POTUS is not an entry level position.

So this is my opinion, please explain your opinion in how a business person is what is needed to "to straighten out the mess we're in."?

[MaDef]

Why?

Running a government is not like running a business.

Forming/implementing foreign policy is not like establishing an international business deal.

Establishing public policy is not the same as establishing business policy.

The two really don't have a lot in common.

Businesses operate under the "umbrella" of government. If a business fails, there are safeguards from the government. There are no such safeguards at the government level.

A business can refuse/limit its production and service to a limited subset of voluntary customers.

A government must provide products/services to all the citizens and citizens can't opt in or out of the system.

A business can declare bankruptcy and start over if a mistake is made. A government can't.

I truly fail understand why anyone would feel that a business experience would be at all applicable in a government leadership position.

They are really two different worlds.

I don't want an amateur as president. I think we should have learned our lesson from the past two presidents -- POTUS is not an entry level position.

So this is my opinion, please explain your opinion in how a business person is what is needed to "to straighten out the mess we're in."?If you think about it you need the same skills as a business owner/manager as you do for being president/a politician. The difference is you have to be mostly honest in your dealings a a business owner or you don't stay in business very long. A politician can say/do one thing to get elected, and then do the opposite once they are in office with little or no consequences.

[razark]

A business exists to make a profit for the people that invested money into it.

Should that really be the model for government?

[August]

A business exists to make a profit for the people that invested money into it.

Should that really be the model for government?

As citizens we're forced to invest money in government with every paycheck. It's not wrong to demand a return on that investment.

[razark]

As citizens we're forced to invest money in government with every paycheck. It's not wrong to demand a return on that investment.
We're not investing. We're customers, paying for the services we receive.

[August]

We're not investing. We're customers, paying for the services we receive.

Customers don't get to hire (elect) their salesmen, nor can they force binding referendum. Investors can do both.

[Camaero]

We're not investing. We're customers, paying for the services we receive.

We aren't exactly customers since we are forced to pay the government, whether or not we agree with the services provided. In a way, we are slaves.

You or I can try to vote one way or the other, but if the vote goes against whatever we personally want, then the majority is simply imposing their will upon the us, the individual. Are decisions always fair or just simply because a majority has decided it be so?

There is no perfect solution to solve this problem that I know of, but it seems to me that the smaller the government is, the better the individual can choose his or her own way of life, minimizing the will of the majority over the individual.

[Mr Quatro]

What do you think will happen with the GOP?

1. Will Trump receive enough delegates to win the nomination out right?

or

2. Will it be a circus of a contested nomination?

Trump is the one doing the barking ... he's just begging for Clinton to out best him with his angry comments.

[Tchocky]

I hope it's a brokered convention for the sheer entertainment value.

Also because that's how we can avoid Trump as the nominee.

[MaDef]

I hope it's a brokered convention for the sheer entertainment value.

Also because that's how we can avoid Trump as the nominee.If That happens I think it will be the beginning of the end for the Republican party as it is today.

To tell the truth, I want to see a no-holds-barred bare-knuckle-knock-down-drag-out-fight between the Democrats & Republicans for president. That way the American people can see just what kind of ASSHATS are running the country, and in so doing, might actually find the time to vote.

[Bilge_Rat]

a rich businessman to be President, what an original idea...:o



He easily won the Republican nomination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party), despite having no elected-office experience.


a globally experienced engineer, he believed strongly in the Efficiency Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement), which held that the government and the economy were riddled with inefficiency and waste, and could be improved by experts who could identify the problems and solve them.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

[Platapus]

I don't think Hoover is a good example if your position is that a business man would make a good president.

Hoover is one of the better former presidents though. :salute:

[Webster]

I hope it's a brokered convention for the sheer entertainment value.

Also because that's how we can avoid Trump as the nominee.

then you support Hillary for president 100%, even if you are in denial about that, that is your position because trump has about 25-30% of Hillary's democratic voters voting for him who will vote for her if he isn't in the race.

anyone other then trump will get between 10-15% of the general election votes and Hillary will get the other 85%, its simple math if you leave "feelings" out of it.

if trump is not on the ticket then you will be damn lucky to even get 25% total voter turn out going to vote, and of that 25% it will be overwhelmingly (something like 90%) only those on government support voting to keep getting free checks from santa clause.

what all these anti trump fantasies fail to understand is, while they might be "never trump" or I wont vote voters, trump supporters are "never anybody other then trump or i'll vote for Hillary. they stupidly think the millions of new republican voters will still vote republican?

if they take it away from trump, those millions will just not vote at all, or possibly ALL vote democrat instead. either way that leaves the phony republican candidate with only 25% of the votes if he is even lucky enough to get THAT much.

I would never vote democrat under any circumstances but this talk of disregarding the voters will at the convention, pisses me off just enough to the point im ready to flip a coin on voting for Hillary until I break out in a cold sweat and regain my sanity. that's the kind of backlash about to be released on the "democrats calling themselves republicans" party leadership and the insanity they are talking about doing in usurping the will of the party voters.

do I think trump is a conservative? hell no but he is more of a republican then john mccain who was an unrepentant anti republican who would always side with the democrats as a lock step dem voter his entire political career yet they forced him down our throat.


if cruz and trump are within 10 votes then I could see having a vote but if its a matter of more then 25 votes ahead then that man wins, its the core principle of what we vote for and if that isn't respected then neither will the chosen candidate and he wont be supported.

this arcain method of electorial votes and deligates changing votes needs to be abolished anyway. its another form of taking control away from the people.

in both the primaries and the general election is should only matter who gets the most votes period.

[ikalugin]

saying he wanted to make himself King
So this is an old tradition.

On topic of Trump. He is a politician (a populist at that), he is just not a part of the system.

Companies differ from states in that companies are made to profit their owners, while states are made to profit their citizens.

[Platapus]

if trump is not on the ticket then you will be damn lucky to even get 25% total voter turn out going to vote, and of that 25% it will be overwhelmingly (something like 90%) only those on government support voting to keep getting free checks from santa clause.



I would like to know where you got that from. I can send you some toilet paper if necessary.

[em2nought]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support

:hmmm:

How can only one @$$^ writer in the whole @$$^ world "get" it? LMFAO :har:

[Oberon]

That's true to a point. The biggest threat they had encountered was a government that refused to listen to them and when they complained only replied "Shut up and do as you're told!" When they protested against that the Colonial governors requested troops to keep the peace. When one such governor sent his troops to confiscate the contents of a citizen-owned armory (privately held cannons and such), that's when the citizens armed themselves and faced them off, and that's when the war started.


Maybe. The fact is that many of them didn't want a centralized government at all, but circumstances forced it upon them.

As for Washington, he was already famous for decrying false authority. When the Continental Congress voted him emergency powers he was very careful never to exceed them, always pointing out that the military must remain subservient to the civilian authority. At the end of the war his officers, unhappy with not being paid, decided to march on Congress, Washington finally convinced them not to do so, as it was contrary to everything they had fought for.

I've read at least one biographer (sorry I can't recall which one at the moment) who said that had Washington not been the President of the Constitutional Convention, and a constant reminder that he would probably be the first President of the United States, they likely wouldn't have given that office the powers that they did. The knew he would never abuse that power, and they don't seem to have considered what might happen when he was gone.

Perhaps that's what sets the American revolution apart from other revolutions which have often resulted in immense bloodshed in the immediate aftermath. Washington was smart enough to be able to keep the country together and create a system that would hold together for another 78 years before the major bloodshed.


When Washington reluctantly accepted a second term as president there were factions who protested, some violently, saying he wanted to make himself King. Therefore you may be right in saying a popular revolution might have opposed any attempt by a president to make himself more. We'll never know. Would such a thing happen now? It's hard to tell. I'd like to think so, but there's no way of knowing unless such a thing should actually happen.

Given that one of the reasons for the Civil war was a disagreement over the power of central government to exert its will over the slave owning states I'd definitely say that if in any period before 1861 any US president had attempted to give himself the sort of dictatorial powers that Americans of today fear, then he would have found himself under fire very quickly, and not just from states south of the Mason-Dixon line. :haha:

Maybe, but every time anyone asks when American politics became so dirty I always point back to the election of 1800, when old friends Adams and Jefferson let their supporters try to tear the system apart, with the front pages of privately owned newspapers acting as op-ed pages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Drl8fpWTKo

Egads :haha: That makes the D'israeli vs Gladstone feud look docile. :haha:

I don't disagree, but I do question. The third - Freedom from Want - raises thorny problems. Guaranteeing that nobody suffers from a lack of anything also means taking from others what they have so it can be given to the ones who have less. The question has to be faced of "how much is enough?" I don't know the answer to that question, but maybe some sort of enlightened socialism is in the cards. The negative I see to that is that it can only be accomplished by government, and to make it work you have to give the government more and more power.

This is a fair point, although I would put forward that the original goals of socialism is not to take away from the rich, but to create a nation where everyone is rich. Of course, in practice such a thing is nearly impossible to create without taking away from the rich, and thus we have the socialism that exists in reality which is a different animal to the socialism intended on paper. I think though that its exact opposite, capitalism, is also unworkable as a long term permanent solution in purity, and I think that we are entering an era in which we will be forced to seek some sort of balance between socialism and capitalism, a form of enlightened socialism perhaps.
However, yes, it's something that only government can do because in todays world only government can affect the high end of capitalism. Look at the 99% movement, thousands of people and yet they have achieved very little, perhaps a greater awareness of their movement but the situation itself has not changed. It seems that, in America at least, the people are terrified of being exploited by the government, but passive when the exploitation is done by big business. A curious sentiment.


Of course that leads to observations by Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

I tend to follow that belief that Government and Freedom are natural opposites, and personally don't trust the government with any more power than is absolutely necessary.

Understandable considering the way the US was born, but I ponder how much such a thing translates into reality. How often, when a government becomes a dictatorship, how does it do so? Is it through gradual seizure of power or through rapid exploitation of a dire situation? :hmmm:
Does more government always mean less freedom? Would the Nazi government be considered as a big government? :hmmm: Or is a big government which is the opposite of freedom more of a communism thing?

Anyway, I really just wanted to point out that today's politics are nothing new. Washington may have hated it but those who followed him would likely recognize themselves in what goes on now - though they might not have wanted to admit it.

I doubt any who followed Washington would want to admit seeing themselves in todays politics. :haha:
Still, I think John Adams probably put it best, and I'll end with this quote:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

[Sailor Steve]

Perhaps that's what sets the American revolution apart from other revolutions which have often resulted in immense bloodshed in the immediate aftermath. Washington was smart enough to be able to keep the country together and create a system that would hold together for another 78 years before the major bloodshed.
The funny part about that was, while Washington was at the center of the creation his main contribution was to referee the vicious arguments conducted by the actual creators. He was the calm at the eye of the storm. Once he was president and the new government in place he had much more of the same from his first cabinet. In some ways Washington was a weak president, giving a free hand to his Secretary of the Treasury (and old war buddy) Alexander Hamilton in the creation of a National Bank and the assumption of States' debts (primarily owed to Tories whose land had been seized when they fled to Britain during the war). This was opposed in Congress by James Madison, who, though responsible for the Constitution itself and getting it ratified as Hamilton's partner in The Federalist Papers, despised "Federalism" as propounded by Hamilton. Secretary of State Jefferson's main complaint was at first that Hamilton was bypassing his boss entirely and taking his case directly to Congress. Washington agreed that Hamilton shouldn't do that, but the problem there was that Washington also agreed with most of Hamilton's ideas. Washington and Jefferson were rich Virginia farmers, while Hamilton had made himself into a New York lawyer, and I believe the president was a little in awe of his former protégé. The cabinet meetings became so hostile that Jefferson finally ended up resigning.

While progress was made, and it was an amazing time in our history, it was hardly all light and roses.

Does more government always mean less freedom? Would the Nazi government be considered as a big government? :hmmm: Or is a big government which is the opposite of freedom more of a communism thing?
Those are questions I don't have answers for, and despite lofty claims by those who think they do, I don't see it. In a very small society socialism and even communism, can be made to work for the good of all. I would even be so bold as to say I believe that the political equivalent of those is a true democracy. Unfortunately when societies grow larger than the bare minimum required fore survival, people end up having to work at different tasks, and specialist jobs are born. At that point you begin to need professional police and firemen, who need to be paid out of a public trust or else they can't do their jobs properly. Then you need to hire people to build roads, and you can't have each person paying for his share of the road or some will refuse and there will be no roads in front of their houses. Finally you need someone to run it all, so you have to hire (elect) an actual government structure.

At what point does this stop having to do with the people and become its own entity? I don't know.

And what does this have to do with this year's Presidential Election? Not much, except for background. On the other hand I don't see that any election these days has much to do with what really happens in the running of the country. It's all a big TV show. No matter who the President is, it's the Congress that makes the rules. The President can sign them into law or veto them. Either way he will claim the credit for the low gas prices and the low unemployment, and find someone else to blame when it doesn't go his way. I don't really see it making much different these days.

[Platapus]

Does more government always mean less freedom?

Here is something to ponder

It is a strange fact that freedom and equality, the two basic ideas of democracy, are to some extent contradictory. Logically considered, freedom and equality are mutually exclusive, just as society and the individual are mutually exclusive. Thomas Man


It is a strange fact that freedom and equality, the two basic ideas of democracy, are to some extent contradictory. Logically considered, freedom and equality are mutually exclusive, just as society and the individual are mutually exclusive. Thomas Mann

It could be said that the purpose of a government is to provide balance by enabling equality via the constraint of freedom to counter society's enabling of freedom which is intrinsically unequal.

I don't think too many of us would like to live in a society with ultimate freedom. Most of us would be dead. And I also don't think we would want to live in a society where there is absolute equality.

The moderate compromise of just enough freedom and just enough equality is probably best.

The problem, of course, is who gets to decide what freedom and equality mean in this context, who gets to decide how much of both and in figuring how to get and maintain the "proper" balance.

So yes, to answer your question, more government does mean less freedom, but that in itself is not necessarily good or bad, unless you consider equality.

People who are more privileged may tend to value freedom over equality. People who are not so privileged may tend to value equality over freedom.

We need to devise, implement, and maintain a system that is fair to both extremes and everyone in the middle.... but then what exactly does "fair" mean???:)

[Oberon]

Platapus, that is a fantastic assessment, and very well put. Very well put indeed. :yeah: When boiled right down to it, you're right, the best form of government is one that balances well between freedom and equality.
Perhaps, to bring my little divergence back to the topic at hand, the arguement in this election is what direction America needs to shift the scales, Trump wants more freedom and Sanders more equality whereas Clinton probably wants to keep the scales where they are.
One does have to ponder that if both sides are unhappy with the current situation in the United States, does that mean that some form of equilibrium has been reached, and as such, does that mean that Trump or Sanders would only serve to upset the balance in either direction? :hmmm:
It's an interesting way to look at it.

And Steve, thank you for the insight into the early days of the US, I must admit my knowledge of the events around the Revolution and its immediate aftermath is pretty hazy, but I've only just got my head around the Civil War to some extent so I'll work my way back.
All revolutions have their problems, but I think it's always impressed me how the American revolution managed not to descend into terror like the French or Russian revolutions did, and it also managed to exist without direct enforcement at gunpoint of its terms. Perhaps the closest equivilent in our history would be the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688... :hmmm:
Revolutions are interesting studies, and I think America may be the only nation to have managed to stave off civil war and vast bloodshed in its immediate aftermath of its revolution. :hmmm:

[u crank]

We need to devise, implement, and maintain a system that is fair to both extremes and everyone in the middle.... but then what exactly does "fair" mean???:)

I think most people want everybody else to be alright but it's only "fair" if the system has a positive impact on me. Human nature I guess.

[Platapus]

I think most people want everybody else to be alright but it's only "fair" if the system has a positive impact on me. Human nature I guess.

I want everyone to be treated fairly.... as long as I am treated just a little bit more fairly. :D

[Onkel Neal]

All revolutions have their problems, but I think it's always impressed me how the American revolution managed not to descend into terror like the French or Russian revolutions did, and it also managed to exist without direct enforcement at gunpoint of its terms. Perhaps the closest equivilent in our history would be the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688... :hmmm:
Revolutions are interesting studies, and I think America may be the only nation to have managed to stave off civil war and vast bloodshed in its immediate aftermath of its revolution. :hmmm:

It really was an amazing achievement. That's one of the reasons many of us revere the Constitution. What the founders were able to accomplish, was a rare feat, with lasting benefits for not only us yanks, but people around the world. Yes, we needed to make some corrections for equality of all people and both sexes, but the seeds of 1776 made that possible, and inevitable.

[Betonov]

http://i.imgur.com/4Ioq8PQ.jpg

[Oberon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-9kZb9nDoE

[mapuc]

Saw a clip from a Trump meeting in this clip a protester and a supporter started to engage in a furious fight among the spectators

It is not the first time in this election it has happened-Made me worried, are this the first step towards a torn USA ?

Markus

[Torplexed]

It is not the first time in this election it has happened-Made me worried, are this the first step towards a torn USA ?


It's still got a way to go to catch up with 1968....or 1860 for that matter.

http://haroldmichaelharvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Chicago-1968-Protest.jpg

[Catfish]

Has this been posted before?m Found that hilarious :D

"Socialism", "The intelligence report"
"Let's not get bogged down by details..." :haha:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5chvH69P1M&ebc=ANyPxKqrYiMWuC2NJ4r3IdHi96p40lVdOB6Yw-OuqP6HgRxhZ0gLCifRp51CqDeoxLS2BV96Bgnhr1ySynhrEs6s RKakVEIuJg

[Oberon]

It's still got a way to go to catch up with 1968....or 1860 for that matter.



Yeah, when the National Guard open fire at a university protest then we'll be getting to '68 levels of manure. :hmmm:

[mapuc]

You are right forgot all about the 68 protest.

Can one say that the 68 protest is the same we are witness to today-the protest against Trump and the fight(s) between his supporters and the protesters ?

Markus

[Oberon]

You are right forgot all about the 68 protest.

Can one say that the 68 protest is the same we are witness to today-the protest against Trump and the fight(s) between his supporters and the protesters ?

Markus

I wouldn't have said so, not yet at least.

[Torplexed]

If any major violence occurs, I think it will be a result of any shenanigans by the GOP establishment during their national convention to try to derail Trump. Even the hints of brewing trouble has caused Cleveland authorities to beef up the planned police presence for the July event.

There is an increasing level of panic within Republican circles regarding Donald Trump. And now, under such dire circumstances some conservative activists are at a place where they are suggesting Rick Perry of Texas as a possible third-party candidate.

Trump would have that guy for lunch and Perry has already dismissed the notion himself. Though Cruz is in second place and is reaching out to many GOP circles to back him as the anti-Trump candidate, many establishment Republicans find it difficult to support him.

What a strange US election this is.

[u crank]

If any major violence occurs, I think it will be a result of any shenanigans by the GOP establishment during their national convention to try to derail Trump. Even the hints of brewing trouble has caused Cleveland authorities to beef up the planned police presence for the July event.

There is an increasing level of panic within Republican circles regarding Donald Trump. And now, under such dire circumstances some conservative activists are at a place where they are suggesting Rick Perry of Texas as a possible third-party candidate.

Trump would have that guy for lunch and Perry has already dismissed the notion himself. Though Cruz is in second place and is reaching out to many GOP circles to back him as the anti-Trump candidate, many establishment Republicans find it difficult to support him.

What a strange US election this is.

Steve posted this in the funny pic thread but I think it could go here as well.

http://i.imgur.com/KHv5cFJ.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

There's a lot of truth in that.

[AVGWarhawk]

There's a lot of truth in that.


Yes, there certainly is.

[Mr Quatro]

Trump says that he has only spent:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/20/donald-trumps-spending-white-house-race-nears-25-million/82063294/

The real-estate magnate lent his presidential campaign another $6.85 million last month, bringing the total Trump-to-Trump loan amount to $24.38 million.

but yet it is reported that he spent $9 million in February alone :hmmm:
http://newsok.com/trump-spent-9m-in-february-campaign-chief-got-pay-raise/article/feed/986344

Donald Trump's campaign paid out more than $9 million in February, spending big on political advertising, direct mail and airfare booked mostly through his own airline, according to an Associated Press review of the New York businessman's latest federal election filings.

Then I looked up what Jeb Bush spent, wow!

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-mike-murphy-20160308-story.html

Jeb Bush's political strategist spent more than $100 million to get Jeb Bush the presidential nomination saturated the airwaves with ads. Red billboards flashed Bush quotes. A plane towing a Bush banner buzzed a Donald Trump rally. He went so far as to mail Iowa voters digital video players loaded with a biographical documentary.

also reported that Jeb spent $400,000 on personal expenses in his last week alone ... shame on you Jeb :oops:

[Onkel Neal]

Trump putting his ad dollars to good use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZqS7q7voY

[Oberon]

Someone demanded Freebird, so Sanders provided:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CebpxPYW4AIExvX.jpg

Trump not impressed.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CebpB--WAAEjJOm.jpg

[Torplexed]

Bernie is here speaking in Seattle today.

Meanwhile, the GOP side is looking like an re-hashed episode of Jerry Springer. The so called Cruz Sex Scandal is already running out of steam, I think. Denials all around, and litigation being hinted at. I did like the comment I saw that called it "The Cuban's Mistress Crisis".

[Oberon]

Meanwhile Cleveland is preparing for the Republican Convention in July...by ordering $50m worth of riot control equipment and personnel.

http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/03/cleveland_seeking_to_buy_riot.html

[Mr Quatro]

Meanwhile Cleveland is preparing for the Republican Convention in July...by ordering $50m worth of riot control equipment and personnel.

http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/03/cleveland_seeking_to_buy_riot.html

This is why ... Ohio is a open carry state:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/26/nearly-20000-support-petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-national-convention.html

Nearly 20,000 support petition to allow guns at Republican National Convention

The petition claims that because Cleveland is one of the most dangerous cities in the world, forcing attendees to leave their weapons at home is putting everyone at risk.

“Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life.”

Trump might have to wear a bullet proof vest, uh?

[Oberon]

Should make for an....interesting....event.

[Jimbuna]

Could even turn into the largest mass shooting yet if matters get out of hand :o

[Oberon]

Could even turn into the largest mass shooting yet if matters get out of hand :o

I doubt it'll get that bad...but...it's not impossible. :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Could even turn into the largest mass shooting yet if matters get out of hand :o

Everybody is packing heat. It will deter any mass shootings.

[Jimbuna]

I doubt it'll get that bad...but...it's not impossible. :doh:

I agree Chris but could you imagine the carnage if the unthinkable happened.

It would only take a hothead or two to start spraying bullets.

I would think guns will be barred from the venue on the night.

[u crank]

I would think guns will be barred from the venue on the night.

Indeed. I cannot imagine anyone being allowed into a convention carrying any kind of weapon. Metal detectors for sure would be used. After all Trump has made a few enemies. :O:

[Platapus]

Everybody is packing heat. It will deter any mass shootings.

Or it will just make any shooting propagate into a mass shooting. The term chain-reaction comes to mind.

[August]

Or it will just make any shooting propagate into a mass shooting. The term chain-reaction comes to mind.

Can you point to a mass shooting where that has happened ever?

[Oberon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootout

[August]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootout

So no then.

[Oberon]

So no then.

Indeed, although there's a first time for everything.

[vienna]

So no then.

There is a well known phenomenon in police and military circles known as "Contagious Shooting" or, sometimes, "Contagious Fire":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_shooting

...and this is in the ranks of trained and disciplined professionals; consider what might happen if some armed yahoos react to the sounds of gunshots, whether real or imagined, and start to open up with semiautomatics in a crowded hall. All it would take is for some person's gun to accidentally discharge and there could be a very undesirable reaction. Add to the mix heightened passions and tempers in a scenario such as, say, a contentious political convention filled with acrimony and, perhaps, such an idea is not so far fetched...


<O>

[em2nought]

Could even turn into the largest mass shooting yet if matters get out of hand :o

Maybe this is a great new way to reduce crime, send Trump and his armed supporters into democratic hell holes, and smoke out the bad guys. :har:

[Oberon]

There is a well known phenomenon in police and military circles known as "Contagious Shooting" or, sometimes, "Contagious Fire":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_shooting

...and this is in the ranks of trained and disciplined professionals; consider what might happen if some armed yahoos react to the sounds of gunshots, whether real or imagined, and start to open up with semiautomatics in a crowded hall. All it would take is for some person's gun to accidentally discharge and there could be a very undesirable reaction. Add to the mix heightened passions and tempers in a scenario such as, say, a contentious political convention filled with acrimony and, perhaps, such an idea is not so far fetched...


<O>

It's one way to test if the whole 'arm everyone to stop shootings' idea works though, to be fair. :hmmm:

[vienna]

It's one way to test if the whole 'arm everyone to stop shootings' idea works though, to be fair. :hmmm:

So you're positing a sort of "Darwin Test"?... :haha:

Yahoo has a rather interesting page on who is really voting for Trump; some really good links in the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/who-s-really-voting-for-trump---portraits-beyond-the-polls-061622809.html?nf=1#



<O>

[August]

Indeed, although there's a first time for everything.

Very true but a possibility is not a established fact like is so often implied.

[Oberon]

So you're positing a sort of "Darwin Test"?... :haha:

Yahoo has a rather interesting page on who is really voting for Trump; some really good links in the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/who-s-really-voting-for-trump---portraits-beyond-the-polls-061622809.html?nf=1#



<O>

Indeed, looks all white...I mean, alright, to me. :hmmm:

[Platapus]

To me, this illustrates the myth of the usefulness of armed citizens.

It might work well if there is a known number and position of "good guys" and "bad Guys". The optimum ratio would be one good guy. But you would never have that.

What you would have is an unknown number and position of "good guys" and an unknown number and position of "bad guys".

There you are, you hear a shot ring out. You notice someone 10 feet away from you holding a gun. You have less than one second to determine if this is a bad guy with a gun or a good guy with a gun. How are you going to make that decision?

Remember this is not a video game. There are no saves and reload.

It is not like the good guys wear (or are) white and the bad guys wear (or are) black. Nor do the bad guys stand on one side of the room and the good guys stand on the other.

If trained and experienced police officers have a hard time, how can we expect the average gun owner to be able to make this decision?

I have spent far too much time on the shooting range to have any confidence in the average gun owner in these decisions.

And then there is the whole different issue of even if the person can make the right decision and locate the bad guy, is there any expectation that the average gun owner would be able to hit the intended person in the middle of a panicking crowd? I have no expectation of that happening.

Go to any firing range that has been in business for many years and count the number of bullet holes in the lane dividers and overhear baffles. Yikes!

If you are in a room with an unknown number of average gun owners and "things go wrong", I feel the only way to survive is to immediately drop to the floor, preferably behind a stranger so they take the wild round.

Think of the accuracy, control, and discipline of the average gun owner... then imagine that almost half of the "good guys with a gun" in that room aint even that good. :nope:

If I were a bad guy and I knew that the group had a good expectation of being attended by people carrying concealed weapons, all I would do is get some firecrackers with a delay/long fuse. All I would have to do is just start the chain reaction. The good guys would handle the rest.

[Oberon]

That has been a thought of mine Platapus, and if you put automatic rifles into the equation then the amount of lead in the air increases expectationally.

I guess the Republican Convention will just have to put their faith in their attendees having good trigger discipline. :yep:

[Mr Quatro]

If I were a bad guy and I knew that the group had a good expectation of being attended by people carrying concealed weapons, all I would do is get some firecrackers with a delay/long fuse. All I would have to do is just start the chain reaction. The good guys would handle the rest.

I hope the bad guys don't read this ... :o

the results of a long string of fire crackers would be very very bad :yep:

Plus say good-by to being POTUS if anything happens at the GOP convention which is a week before the democrats convention by the way.

[Platapus]

Imagine an event where there are only "good guys with guns". It just takes one GGWG to think there is a BGWG (via firecracker or even the popping of a bottle of bubbly!)

He pulls his weapon and the other GGWGs think he is a BGWG and pull their weapons. The first GGWG now thinks he is facing multiple BGWGs and opens fire.

By definition, this guy now becomes a legitimate BGWG and is an legitimate target. Unfortunately, this hapless GGWG (now BGWG) still thinks he is a GGWG and that the other GGWGs are the BGWGs.

It would make a funny sketch in a comedy movie.. But real life is DID.

While attending conventions, don't be the one who drops the metal tray. :o:o

Or be the one standing net to the one who drops the tray! :o:o:o:o

[GT182]

Tell me one thing. How does Cruz think he's eligible to run for POTUS? He was born in Canada and is not a Natural Born US citizen. Maybe he holds dual citizenship but that does not make him Natural Born.

[Oberon]

While attending conventions, don't be the one who drops the metal tray. :o:o

Or be the one standing net to the one who drops the tray! :o:o:o:o

http://i.imgur.com/NLUkAEj.gif

Tell me one thing. How does Cruz think he's eligible to run for POTUS? He was born in Canada and is not a Natural Born US citizen. Maybe he holds dual citizenship but that does not make him Natural Born.

Has Trump asked for Cruz's birth certificate yet?

[Sailor Steve]

Tell me one thing. How does Cruz think he's eligible to run for POTUS? He was born in Canada and is not a Natural Born US citizen. Maybe he holds dual citizenship but that does not make him Natural Born.
The discussions are still ongoing concerning that challenge, specifically concerning the citizenship of the parents. One of Cruz's parents, his mother, is a U.S. citizen and never changed that status. Cruz himself renounced his Canadian citizenship in favor of U.S. citizenship in 2014. Several legal scholars agree that he is not a U.S. citizen, while several others are agreed that he is. The only way for it to be resolved is if he becomes his party's nominee, in which case it would have to be decided in court. If not, then it doesn't matter.

Cruz is not the only candidate to have his citizenship challenged. Besides the obvious recent challenge to Barack Obama, others whose citizenship has been questioned over the years are Chester A. Arthur, Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

[Torplexed]

Tell me one thing. How does Cruz think he's eligible to run for POTUS? He was born in Canada and is not a Natural Born US citizen. Maybe he holds dual citizenship but that does not make him Natural Born.

I was born in Fukuoka, Japan to US parents, and I've always been considered a natural born US citizen. Maybe if Trump muddies the water enough I'll become unnatural...or supernatural. :)

[Oberon]

I was born in Fukuoka, Japan to US parents, and I've always been considered a natural born US citizen. Maybe if Trump muddies the water enough I'll become unnatural...or supernatural. :)

It's a Jap!

Into the camp with you!! :nope:

[Torplexed]

It's a Jap!

Engrishman, terr me the rocation of yoah head-quatah! Ah, I see you suppry I speak Engrish so werr.

Into the camp with you!Given the atmosphere here, it's possible.

[mapuc]

(Little off topic)

I don't care where a person is coming from

I only care for how he or she trat me and other people.

Markus

(End of off topic)

[Torplexed]

Look like Bernie is clobbering Hillary here and in Alaska today. I knew Washington would be a slam-dunk for Bernie.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/election-2016-alaska-hawaii-washington-caucuses-highlights/

[August]

The good guys would handle the rest.

I'm sorry Platapus but i've heard this OK Corral argument before and there seems to be little or nothing of substance to back it up. It's just unproven supposition based apparently upon the concept that we shouldn't be allowed any freedom or personal responsibility because we can't be trusted with it. Such an opinion is at complete odds with the very concept of our nation.

For one thing just because people are carrying a weapon it doesn't mean that they are going to suddenly turn into Dirty Harry, drawing and sweeping the crowd with it just because they hear some firecracker pops off in the distance. They are going to do what every other civilian is going to do and that's duck if it's loud enough and then look around to see whats happening first. They'll probably not draw their weapon at all because they'll see that a. the incident is over and b. the presence of a million cops and other convention security.

On the other hand if a bunch of Jihadis were to swarm into the hall tossing hand grenades and shooting automatic weapons then i'd think few cops or other armed citizens are going have a problem with a guy who is shooting in the same direction that they are, and they won't really care if he has a badge showing or not.

[Mr Quatro]

Tell me one thing. How does Cruz think he's eligible to run for POTUS? He was born in Canada and is not a Natural Born US citizen. Maybe he holds dual citizenship but that does not make him Natural Born.

Ted Cruz won't be the GOP's choice anyway and if he was lucky enough to win the nomination six (6) states have contested his being eligible to be the POTUS.

but he is able to take enough votes from Donald Trump that a contested convention is possible and from what I hear the delegates can then vote for whomever they want to, thus the right to bear arms will then come into play :o

Bernie is winning Alaska and Washington? Wow!

He only needs 720 more delegates :hmmm:

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker

[Torplexed]

Bernie is winning Alaska and Washington? Wow!

He only needs 720 more delegates :hmmm:

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker


Bernie's bar is certainly higher when the party officials are considered. He needs to win more than 67 percent of the remaining delegates overall, from primaries, caucuses and the ranks of uncommitted superdelegates to prevail.

But there's little question that Sanders has tapped into a powerful frustration within the Democratic party. Even with the long odds, he continues to attract tens of thousands to his rallies and has collected more than $140 million from two million donors.

[vienna]

I was born in Fukuoka, Japan to US parents, and I've always been considered a natural born US citizen. Maybe if Trump muddies the water enough I'll become unnatural...or supernatural. :)

... or Trump will just summarily deport you... :haha:

Engrishman, terr me the rocation of yoah head-quatah! Ah, I see you suppry I speak Engrish so werr. ...

Ah, you are of the Sessue Hayakawa school; IIRC, Hayakwa, in on of his WWII films uttered the line: "After Japan wins the war, I hope to run a university in your country" ...

I'm sorry Platapus but i've heard this OK Corral argument before and there seems to be little or nothing of substance to back it up. It's just unproven supposition based apparently upon the concept that we shouldn't be allowed any freedom or personal responsibility because we can't be trusted with it. Such an opinion is at complete odds with the very concept of our nation.

For one thing just because people are carrying a weapon it doesn't mean that they are going to suddenly turn into Dirty Harry, drawing and sweeping the crowd with it just because they hear some firecracker pops off in the distance. They are going to do what every other civilian is going to do and that's duck if it's loud enough and then look around to see whats happening first. They'll probably not draw their weapon at all because they'll see that a. the incident is over and b. the presence of a million cops and other convention security.

On the other hand if a bunch of Jihadis were to swarm into the hall tossing hand grenades and shooting automatic weapons then i'd think few cops or other armed citizens are going have a problem with a guy who is shooting in the same direction that they are, and they won't really care if he has a badge showing or not.

So all the various cases in the past where private citizens have mistakenly shot other persons due to an erroneously perceived threat just either didn't happen or each an every one of them is a singular occurrence and not collectively a highly traceable indicator of basic human behavior, behavior which is at the core of the problem of "contagious shooting", recognized as such by both civilian law enforcement experts and the experts in the military, experts who have to deal with trained individuals and not civilians of dubious firearms ability? Talk about blinders... :haha:


<O>

[Torplexed]

... or Trump will just summarily deport you... :haha:

As long as I can keep my kimono and I get deported to the non-state of Hawaii. :D

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Kimono.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree Chris but could you imagine the carnage if the unthinkable happened.

It would only take a hothead or two to start spraying bullets.

I would think guns will be barred from the venue on the night.

Usually it is an individual with a mental disability. In short, they are nuts. The hot head can get all the hotness he wants but there will be plenty of barrels pointed his way. It would make very little sense for the hot head. For the crazy...it make perfect sense.

Indeed. I cannot imagine anyone being allowed into a convention carrying any kind of weapon. Metal detectors for sure would be used. After all Trump has made a few enemies. :O:

If the state permits open carry and the venue allows it. We had seen it at a few Obama rallies if I'm not mistaken. And certainly, if someone is packing they will be asked for ID to assure the individual is legal. Weapons is registered.

Or it will just make any shooting propagate into a mass shooting. The term chain-reaction comes to mind.

Can you point to a mass shooting where that has happened ever?

Exactly. The crazies(for lack of a better term) are your mass shooters.

I don't believe guns should be at any rally. It is not the time or the place.

[Oberon]

Engrishman, terr me the rocation of yoah head-quatah! Ah, I see you suppry I speak Engrish so werr.

https://media.giphy.com/media/y6o9sTLAQOAoM/giphy.gif


Look like Bernie is clobbering Hillary here and in Alaska today. I knew Washington would be a slam-dunk for Bernie.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/election-2016-alaska-hawaii-washington-caucuses-highlights/

It's still a hell of a hill he has to climb, but for someone who is so left wing in American politics, it's amazing that he's got this far. :yep:

[Torplexed]

It's still a hell of a hill he has to climb, but for someone who is so left wing in American politics, it's amazing that he's got this far. :yep:

I don't think it's going to happen, but if the FBI recommends charges be filed against Hillary, it could derail her campaign. Then Sanders would probably have an open road to the Democratic nomination.

Strange election season.

[u crank]

If the state permits open carry and the venue allows it. We had seen it at a few Obama rallies if I'm not mistaken. And certainly, if someone is packing they will be asked for ID to assure the individual is legal. Weapons is registered.

Currently the venue strictly forbids firearms. Just because someone has proper ID and a registered gun does not stop him/her from killing a Presidential candidate. I think it would be a security nightmare.

I don't believe guns should be at any rally. It is not the time or the place.

:up:

[August]

Just because someone has proper ID and a registered gun does not stop him/her from killing a Presidential candidate

Neither are they required. I seriously doubt that a presidential assassin would be at all deterred by bans on concealed carry. It didn't deter Sirhan Sirhan, it didn't deter John Hinkley nor did it deter Samuel Byck, “Squeaky” Fromme or Raymond Lee Harvey. Other things did but not that.

As for this instance in particular the issue is that Cleveland being a high crime city (redundant I know), people don't feel safe during the walk to and from their cars/hotels. Now AFAIK nobody is looking to carry at the event itself so maybe legally possessed firearms can be checked at the door then picked up on the way out.

[Mr Quatro]

Currently the venue strictly forbids firearms. Just because someone has proper ID and a registered gun does not stop him/her from killing a Presidential candidate. I think it would be a security nightmare.

:up:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-national-convention-cracks-24000-signatures/

the online petition to allow guns into the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July has received more than 24,000 signatures with the challenge that if the chosen convention at Quicken Loans Arena (to be held between 18 and 21 July) does not change it's venue with a policy that forbids “firearms and other weapons of any kind” on its grounds.

Then they will force the convention to be changed to another state that will allow guns.

Wait it gets better this petition may be a joke that many have taken seriously:

The group that claims to be behind the petition, Americans for Responsible Open Carry, appears to have been formed for the express purpose of creating the Change.org form. Twitter user Hyperationalist, whose biography reads “speaking truth to stupid”, took credit for the petition, and regardless of whether the form was created as parody, signatories’ comments show that many took it at face value.

in other news Bernie Sanders won all three states, Alaska, Washington and Hawaii :o

[Oberon]

I think they should go for it, if it works then it's a feather in the cap for the 'good guy with gun stops bad guy' and if it doesn't then it's more ammo for the anti-gun crowd. Pardon the pun.

[Torplexed]

So 72% in Washington and over 80% in Alaska for Sanders. Sarah Palin must be currently disowning her old state. :o

However, there is nine days until the contest in Wisconson, which could slow his momentum. The question is what ends up happening if somehow Bernie beats Hillary in regular delegates at the end by a tiny margin, and its up to the superdelegates to decide. If should occur the Democrats will have the same issues that are vexing the Republicans. The Bernie supporters in many states won't take that lying down.

[u crank]

Neither are they required. I seriously doubt that a presidential assassin would be at all deterred by bans on concealed carry.

Probably not in most cases but in this venue it should be possible to prevent it. Metal detectors, body scans and pat downs should all but eliminate a problem. Surely the security at an event with presidential candidates would be top notch.

Now AFAIK nobody is looking to carry at the event itself so maybe legally possessed firearms can be checked at the door then picked up on the way out.

From the petition...

1. From the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland: A suspension of their policy preventing the open carry of firearms on the premises of the arena from July 18-21, 2016 to coincide with the Republican National Convention.

5. From all Republican candidates for President: You have been brave in raising awareness about the immense dangers posed by "gun-free zones." In order to ensure the safety of your supporters, delegates and all attendees at the convention in July, you must call upon the RNC to rectify this affront to our Second Amendment freedoms and insist upon a suspension of the Quicken Loans Arena's unconstitutional "gun-free zone" loophole. Every American is endowed with a God-given Constitutional right to carry a gun wherever and whenever they please.


https://www.change.org/p/quicken-loans-arena-allow-open-carry-of-firearms-at-the-quicken-loans-arena-during-the-rnc-convention-in-july-2

[AVGWarhawk]

Neither are they required. I seriously doubt that a presidential assassin would be at all deterred by bans on concealed carry. It didn't deter Sirhan Sirhan, it didn't deter John Hinkley nor did it deter Samuel Byck, “Squeaky” Fromme or Raymond Lee Harvey. Other things did but not that.



All 4 lunatics to various degree.

[AVGWarhawk]

Currently the venue strictly forbids firearms. Just because someone has proper ID and a registered gun does not stop him/her from killing a Presidential candidate. I think it would be a security nightmare.



:up:


The system of "checking" people who are looking to purchase a firearm is supposed to "weed" out those that should not have a firearm. Convicted felons and those that been institutionalized or determined to have some form of mental issues. However, in my experience, it is a less than perfect system. If an individual would want a gun for any reason there are other ways to obtain one.

It is of great concern when talking of security at these events. However, with everyone packing it is similar to walking into a room of dynamite while carrying a light match. There is always that one chance of a lunatic.

Again, it is not the time or place for weapons.

[August]

The system of "checking" people who are looking to purchase a firearm is supposed to "weed" out those that should not have a firearm. Convicted felons and those that been institutionalized or determined to have some form of mental issues. However, in my experience, it is a less than perfect system. If an individual would want a gun for any reason there are other ways to obtain one.

It is of great concern when talking of security at these events. However, with everyone packing it is similar to walking into a room of dynamite while carrying a light match. There is always that one chance of a lunatic.

Again, it is not the time or place for weapons.

Well like I said maybe not in the convention center itself although we all do know that so called "gun free" zones really mean that the only people actually disarmed by it are the potential victims. So you can talk about matches and dynamite but I for one would prefer that situation over telling a lunatic that if he can smuggle in his weapon he'll have free reign.

[Mr Quatro]

As long as I can keep my kimono and I get deported to the non-state of Hawaii. :D

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Kimono.jpg

does this mean that like Ted Cruz you are ineligible to run for POTUS?

[AVGWarhawk]

Well like I said maybe not in the convention center itself although we all do know that so called "gun free" zones really mean that the only people actually disarmed by it are the potential victims. So you can talk about matches and dynamite but I for one would prefer that situation over telling a lunatic that if he can smuggle in his weapon he'll have free reign.

I agree the gun "free zone" is code for "your victims are unarmed." As far as the smuggling of arms by a lunatic this is where your security has to be on it's game. Metal detectors walk through as well as the metal detector wands. It is done at every Ravens game for 50k plus fans. I would hope a smaller venue could handle that detail as well.

[Platapus]

I agree the gun "free zone" is code for "your victims are unarmed."


It is also code for "we have armed security teams who have trained together and are familiar with the event venue."

[Platapus]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-torture-works/


During a question and answer session moderated by South Carolina State Rep. Bill Herbkersman, Trump was asked whether he would approve of waterboarding.


"Absolutely," Trump said, as he has said before. But there was more.
"I said I'll approve it immediately, but I'll make it also much worse. They said what do you mean," Trump said...


in the Middle East. They want to kill us. They want to kill us. They want to kill our country. They want to knock out our cities. And don't tell me it doesn't work. Torture works, okay folks?...Believe me, it works."


And we should believe Trump on this ... why? He has no experience nor education in interrogation or the laws for that matter.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/donald-trump-torture-brussels-abdeslam/


Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that Belgian authorities could have thwarted Tuesday's terrorist attack in Brussels by torturing Salah Abdeslam, the suspected terrorist who was captured days earlier.
Trump argued in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Abdeslam, a suspect in last year's terrorist attacks in Paris who fled to Belgium, knew of the plot that ISIS-linked terrorists carried out Tuesday and would have talked "a lot faster with the torture."


"If he would've talked you might not have had the blow up -- all these people dead and all these people wounded because he probably knew about it," Trump said. "We have to be smart. I mean it's hard to believe. We can't waterboard -- listen, nothing's nice about it, but it's your minimal form of torture."


Trump has argued that he would authorize waterboarding and "far worse" forms of torture against suspected terrorists as president after first broadening existing laws banning torture.

This man does not represent me. :nope:

The fact that the question of should the US torture people and how much should they be tortured is even being discussed, fills me with great sadness.

Was my 20 years in the military and my almost 20 years of continuing support of the government all wasted?

Has my country changed that much?

It is difficult for me to describe how this makes me feel. The very notion violates far too many of my core values.... values that I thought I shared with my fellow citizens and my country.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is also code for "we have armed security teams who have trained together and are familiar with the event venue."

I beg to differ. At the stadiums uniformed police officers are employed to provide security. Teams? Not really. Trained together? Not necessarily. There are unarmed security physically checking patrons of the game. Pat down, metal detector pass through and wands. Further gun free zones include schools and the like. There are no crack teams of trained professionals at schools. We can attest to that with resent school shootings.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-torture-works/




And we should believe Trump on this ... why? He has no experience nor education in interrogation or the laws for that matter.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/donald-trump-torture-brussels-abdeslam/




This man does not represent me. :nope:

The fact that the question of should the US torture people and how much should they be tortured is even being discussed, fills me with great sadness.

Was my 20 years in the military and my almost 20 years of continuing support of the government all wasted?

Has my country changed that much?

It is difficult for me to describe how this makes me feel. The very notion violates far too many of my core values.... values that I thought I shared with my fellow citizens and my country.


Trump is adamant concerning torture but he sees what he proposes as much less than the beheadings displayed on youtube. Will Trump be able to demand waterboarding? Sure he can demand it but it does not mean the military leaders will adhere. But, what Trump is conveying(IMO) is he will not appear to be a limp biscuit on the world stage. Similar to Reagan who talked tough and was willing to back it up. It is all BS talk and nothing more. However, this BS talk becomes something real as day after day more innocents are blown to bits for simply attending a concert.

Concerning torture...the torturing has been going on since Gitmo if I'm not mistaken. I would dare say the torturing has been evident since WW2. Talking of torture and how far to torture has been a topic for a very long time. Geneva Convention vastly ignored by many. It does not make it right though. The country has not changed that much IMO. We just get to hear about this activity more often because the internet is at our beck and call 24/7.

As far as representing you, what current nominee represents you best? What is their proposed solution to the terrorists plots and obtaining useful information? What have they offer to you that fits your core values?

Personally, I think they all suck. Hillary was horrible as the Sec of State. She knows all about terrorist and did zero while tenured as Sec of State. Burnie is just a free love guy. When I see Bernie, "Peace, drugs, rock and roll" come to mind. Cruz is the crusty weird uncle every family has. Trump is a businessman and should stay a business man. He has less of a clue than Obama 8 years ago.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-torture-works/

And we should believe Trump on this ... why? He has no experience nor education in interrogation or the laws for that matter.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/donald-trump-torture-brussels-abdeslam/


This man does not represent me. :nope:

The fact that the question of should the US torture people and how much should they be tortured is even being discussed, fills me with great sadness.

Was my 20 years in the military and my almost 20 years of continuing support of the government all wasted?

Has my country changed that much?

It is difficult for me to describe how this makes me feel. The very notion violates far too many of my core values.... values that I thought I shared with my fellow citizens and my country.


You and me both. To think that millions of people would be inclined to vote for this guy, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about in foreign policy, law, trade; plus he acts like a Jerry Springer audience member. :dead: I'm still crossing my fingers that he does not get 1237 delegates and then Cruze gets enough Rubio, Carson and Kasich delegates to make it over the top after the first ballot. I don't particularly like Cruze either, but considering the alternatives (a loon and a grasping career politico), it's about all we can hope for with Bloomberg out.

[eddie]

Secret Service says no guns at the convention.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-no-to-guns-at-republican-convention/ar-BBr2zNm

[Oberon]

I see they nailed an idiot claiming to be a 'prophet of God' at the Capitol today.

It's not even April yet. :hmmm:

[em2nought]

You and me both. To think that millions of people would be inclined to vote for this guy, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about in foreign policy, law, trade; plus he acts like a Jerry Springer audience member. :dead: I'm still crossing my fingers that he does not get 1237 delegates and then Cruze gets enough Rubio, Carson and Kasich delegates to make it over the top after the first ballot. I don't particularly like Cruze either, but considering the alternatives (a loon and a grasping career politico), it's about all we can hope for with Bloomberg out.

It's not like our new enemies openly declare war on us as a country, so we're already at a disadvantage. If Trump pursued that course he probably wouldn't put any of our boys in a place that they could be captured. I think the Donald would have ended this whole fifteen year mess the day after 9-11, and piss on regimes like North Korea would tremble in their boots at the thought of offending us ever again. When you think of salted earth, Carthage wouldn't be the first place to spring to mind.

[u crank]

I think the Donald would have ended this whole fifteen year mess the day after 9-11, and piss on regimes like North Korea would tremble in their boots at the thought of offending us ever again. When you think of salted earth, Carthage wouldn't be the first place to spring to mind.

Oh yea. That's all the world needs to make things right. :nope:

[Tchocky]

It's not like our new enemies openly declare war on us as a country, so we're already at a disadvantage. If Trump pursued that course he probably wouldn't put any of our boys in a place that they could be captured. I think the Donald would have ended this whole fifteen year mess the day after 9-11, and piss on regimes like North Korea would tremble in their boots at the thought of offending us ever again. When you think of salted earth, Carthage wouldn't be the first place to spring to mind.

Jesus.

:down::down::down::down:

[AVGWarhawk]

Secret Service says no guns at the convention.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-no-to-guns-at-republican-convention/ar-BBr2zNm


And I back up what the Secret Service is demanding. It is not the time or the place. It is a campaign rally and not a skeet shoot.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's not like our new enemies openly declare war on us as a country, so we're already at a disadvantage. If Trump pursued that course he probably wouldn't put any of our boys in a place that they could be captured. I think the Donald would have ended this whole fifteen year mess the day after 9-11, and piss on regimes like North Korea would tremble in their boots at the thought of offending us ever again. When you think of salted earth, Carthage wouldn't be the first place to spring to mind.


I'm not so sure a formal letter is required to declare war on a country. I think the declaration of war was apparent with aircraft flown into the World Trade Centers NY City. I do not believe Trump could have done any better after 9/11.

[Jimbuna]

Secret Service says no guns at the convention.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-no-to-guns-at-republican-convention/ar-BBr2zNm

Not surprised and applaud the obvious outcome.

[Oberon]

NYPD Police Commissioner - "Greater threat from American citizens than international terrorists"

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/nypd-commissioner-raps-trump-terrorist-fears-we-face-a-bigger-threat-from-our-own-armed-citizens/

[eddie]

And I back up what the Secret Service is demanding. It is not the time or the place. It is a campaign rally and not a skeet shoot.


I agree!!:)

[AVGWarhawk]

NYPD Police Commissioner - "Greater threat from American citizens than international terrorists"

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/nypd-commissioner-raps-trump-terrorist-fears-we-face-a-bigger-threat-from-our-own-armed-citizens/

by saying we have more to fear “from our own citizens.”

Well then Bratton just how did we get here then? Failed policies decade after decade. Time for a redirect.

[Oberon]

Time for a redirect.

To where? :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

To where? :hmmm:

No where. Exactly where we have been heading since the Clinton administration.

[Oberon]

No where. Exactly where we have been heading since the Clinton administration.

Eh? I mean if the problem is that there is a greater threat to American citizens lives from other American citizens than international terrorism, and this is the result of decades of failed policies, then there is no solution? There is nowhere to redirect to? :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Eh? I mean if the problem is that there is a greater threat to American citizens lives from other American citizens than international terrorism, and this is the result of decades of failed policies, then there is no solution? There is nowhere to redirect to? :hmmm:

Could always ban guns as has been done in the UK but obviously that will never happen.

[AVGWarhawk]

Could always ban guns as has been done in the UK but obviously that will never happen.

Yes, it will never happen. Personally, politicians talking about banning guns simply needs to stop because for that very reason it will never happen.

[AVGWarhawk]

Eh? I mean if the problem is that there is a greater threat to American citizens lives from other American citizens than international terrorism, and this is the result of decades of failed policies, then there is no solution? There is nowhere to redirect to? :hmmm:


There is no solution to the ever growing racial and economic class divide. Social unrest is simmering. That is self evident at the campaign rallies.

[Onkel Neal]

NYPD Police Commissioner - "Greater threat from American citizens than international terrorists"

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/nypd-commissioner-raps-trump-terrorist-fears-we-face-a-bigger-threat-from-our-own-armed-citizens/
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/creepypasta/images/e/ec/Broken_record2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120402003611

[AVGWarhawk]

:haha:

[Platapus]

It's not like our new enemies openly declare war on us as a country, so we're already at a disadvantage....

Patriotism is recognizing that we have always prevailed against our enemies despite the fact that our national freedoms give our enemies the advantage. The enemy will always have the advantage when fighting a country with as much freedom as we have. The fact that we win despite this 'disadvantage' of freedom is what makes the United States a great country.

Patriotism is saying NO! We will not bring ourselves down to the level of our enemy. Our enemy restricts freedom. Our enemy preaches intolerance. Our enemy puts the goals of the state above the freedoms of the people. We do not take the easy solution! We do not lower our morals and freedoms simply because it is the easiest and quickest solution

Since it is the Internets Tubes, I gots to quote some dead guy.

No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency --Theodore Roosevelt

[em2nought]

Patriotism is recognizing that we have always prevailed against our enemies despite the fact that our national freedoms give our enemies the advantage. The enemy will always have the advantage when fighting a country with as much freedom as we have. The fact that we win despite this 'disadvantage' of freedom is what makes the United States a great country.

Patriotism is saying NO! We will not bring ourselves down to the level of our enemy. Our enemy restricts freedom. Our enemy preaches intolerance. Our enemy puts the goals of the state above the freedoms of the people. We do not take the easy solution! We do not lower our morals and freedoms simply because it is the easiest and quickest solution

Since it is the Internets Tubes, I gots to quote some dead guy.

No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency --Theodore Roosevelt

It all comes down to whether you believe Truman did the right thing, or the wrong thing. I chose the old world view where he did the right thing. Just because we had a cold war with the Soviets, others of much lesser capabilities shouldn't be able to so easily expect the same from us.

Besides, smaller populations will help fight global warming. :D

[Platapus]

Besides, smaller populations will help fight global warming. :D

No country ever beat global warming by reducing its own population. A country beats global warming by making other countries reduce their population. :D

[Oberon]

I think all the smoke and ash in the atmosphere might offset the benefit a bit. :hmmm: :O:

Anyway, let's run a scenario, let's say 'The Donald' gets the presidency and the sky doesn't fall in, nor does he start WWIII within four years. In fact, aside from being bellicose, degrading the world opinion of the US to a level far below how people viewed the US in the Bush era, and being massive fodder for comedians, impressionists and cartoon makers, 'The Donald' achieves pretty much nothing.
What happens in 2020?
What happens if and when the man who people voted in because they were sick of 'the political machine' just gets assimilated by the machine and nothing changes? :hmmm:

[Catfish]

No country ever beat global warming by reducing its own population. A country beats global warming by making other countries reduce their population. :D

Now there's a good reason for a new righteous war.
"They wanted to destroy the world, and our reaction is purely based on good intentions!" :haha:

[Aktungbby]

No country ever beat global warming by reducing its own population. A country beats global warming by making other countries reduce their population. :D

I think all the smoke and ash in the atmosphere might offset the benefit a bit. :hmmm: :O:

:hmmm:
HEY! NOT IF WE DO IT THE OLD FASHIONED WAY!:doh: NUTHIN GOOD GOES OUTTA STYLE! http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/01/carnegie_institution_study_gen.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/01/carnegie_institution_study_gen.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html) :know: Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes had an impact on the global carbon cycle as big as today's annual demand for gasoline. The Black Death, on the other hand, came and went too quickly for it to cause much of a blip in the global carbon budget."
Similarly, environmentalists could conclude that the Nazi Holocaust just didn't last long enough. After twelve years of Nazi rule, Germany was defeated, and humans began to grow in number again. For seventy years, communist Gulags kept populations down on a more "sustainable" basis -- but alas, they too are gone. Now it is up to environmentalists, who have for years dominated the culture and legal system of democratic countries, to prove that they can surpass these earlier efforts and -- as Khan did -- achieve much more long-lasting results I mean really! what's mass murder when you're trying to save the friqqin' mudball!?:O: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/25/article-0-0CE48641000005DC-278_233x304.jpg< the 'coolest' guy in history
New legacy: Genghis Khan's bloody conquests scrubbed 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere as depopulated land returned to forest

Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest.
A little ruthless Götterdämmerung to restore some planetary Ma'at??!! :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Huh, never thought of it that way. :hmmm: But to be fair there were a lot less people around when Timujen rode west, and a helluva lot less when he'd ridden past. :hmmm: Quite a bit less stuff to burn too.

[Betonov]

https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/12472753_10154039753301800_2221045703365344212_n.j pg?oh=b42a43043decbae47e225d3a65f7b629&oe=577DFB96

[Oberon]

img

After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked in a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UiOgKqmpWEw/VYE2L_g5GAI/AAAAAAAAF9I/klrpnEtg4JQ/s1600/jesus-feedthepeopel.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

I think all the smoke and ash in the atmosphere might offset the benefit a bit. :hmmm: :O:

Anyway, let's run a scenario, let's say 'The Donald' gets the presidency and the sky doesn't fall in, nor does he start WWIII within four years. In fact, aside from being bellicose, degrading the world opinion of the US to a level far below how people viewed the US in the Bush era, and being massive fodder for comedians, impressionists and cartoon makers, 'The Donald' achieves pretty much nothing.
What happens in 2020?
What happens if and when the man who people voted in because they were sick of 'the political machine' just gets assimilated by the machine and nothing changes? :hmmm:

I'll bet you your favorite brew that Donald Trump will not be the next POTUS :know:

My favorite brew is Dr Pepper :up:

Did you hear his latest rant? Trump wants to ban abortions :o

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-proposes-abortion-ban-punishment-for-women-who-undergo-procedure/
Donald Trump said Wednesday that abortions should be banned and that there "has to be some form of punishment" for women who undergo the procedure, though he later issued two statements regarding those remarks.

[Torplexed]

Did you hear his latest rant? Trump wants to ban abortions :o

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-proposes-abortion-ban-punishment-for-women-who-undergo-procedure/


Trump is now backpedaling wildly from that position while claiming at the same time "my position has not changed."

The cognitive donaldance is dizzying to behold.

[Onkel Neal]

Trump is now backpedaling wildly from that position while claiming at the same time "my position has not changed."

The cognitive donaldance is dizzying to behold.


I saw one headline that said something to the effect of "Donald Trump's 3 positions on abortion in 3 hours" (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-abortion-positions/index.html)

My take on Trump is he's not a good fit for President of the USA. He's just some rich guy with a big mouth, who is winging it, and has few real core positions. I get it why so many guys like him, it's helluva lot of fun watching him bitchslap political correctness 5 ways to Sunday, he's spot on about illegal immigration and although I really don't know if tariffs on imports will work (hey, maybe they will spur manufacturing here again, maybe....), at least he's getting some light on this crucial part of the economy.

[AVGWarhawk]

I saw one headline that said something to the effect of "Donald Trump's 3 positions on abortion in 3 hours" (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-abortion-positions/index.html)

My take on Trump is he's not a good fit for President of the USA. He's just some rich guy with a big mouth, who is winging it, and has few real core positions. I get it why so many guys like him, it's helluva lot of fun watching him bitchslap political correctness 5 ways to Sunday, he's spot on about illegal immigration and although I really don't know if tariffs on imports will work (hey, maybe they will spur manufacturing here again, maybe....), at least he's getting some light on this crucial part of the economy.


Bingo. Trump is feeding his narcissist personality. Further, he is saying such wild things that no one would want to vote for him. I think that is his game plan. Trump has no desire to be president. I agree he is correct on several issues that need to be addressed. Specifically NAFTA and illegal immigration(and not just the folks crossing the border into TX). Hopefully these are addressed and not ignored like the elephant in the room.

[Oberon]

I'll bet you your favorite brew that Donald Trump will not be the next POTUS :know:

My favorite brew is Dr Pepper :up:

Did you hear his latest rant? Trump wants to ban abortions :o

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-proposes-abortion-ban-punishment-for-women-who-undergo-procedure/


Funnily enough that's also my favourite brew. :salute:
I hope that he won't be next POTUS, and I'm also fairly sure that he won't be, but the fact that he's come this far instead of being laughed out of the race at the start as many predicted indicates that he has a strong following, if only because of his un-PC attitude, which is what brings him into saying that women should be punished for illegal abortions, or that all Mexicans are rapists, or whatever other garbage has come out of his mouth, and it's what has basically dragged the Grand Old Party down to a Johnson measuring contest and a tennis match of unfaithful wife allegations. :doh:

If it came down to Sanders vs Trump, I could see some GOP members voting Sanders in order to keep Trump out of office, but if there's one thing that the GOP hates more than Trump, it's Hilary Clinton, so if it comes down to Trump vs Clinton, it could get a bit more closer to the wire than expected.

[Torplexed]

at least he's getting some light on this crucial part of the economy.

Even should Trump fail to gain the presidency or the nomination, Trumpism will continue to remain a factor. Our national fabric is fraying. The hollowing out of the middle class is perhaps the largest threat to our continuation as a united country. Both parties have neglected the white middle and working class. Traditional Democrats mostly emphasize gender and minority needs, and Republicans remain the party of economic elites. As a result the Trumps and Sanders will likely be in our politics for a very long time. Both Trump and Saunders have given some Americans a way to voice the rage they have felt since 2008, when they were left holding the empty bag while the banks and the federal mortgage association got bailed out of their disastrous bets.

[AVGWarhawk]

https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12919635_10154187063867873_6637537925700141051_n.j pg?oh=3cc67358971a7897975a59007eb59bb7&oe=578CC5A4

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aviksaroy/2016/04/02/if-donald-trump-loses-wisconsin-to-ted-cruz-trump-may-lose-the-gop-nomination/#3effc86f29df

If Donald Trump Loses Wisconsin To Ted Cruz, Trump May Lose The GOP Nomination http://www.emoticonsfor.com/images/skype/fingerscrossed.png

After Donald Trump’s series of victories in the Republican Party’s March primaries, it became clear to everyone that Trump is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. But the cheeseheads of Wisconsin may be poised to blunt Trump’s momentum. And if Trump loses Wisconsin, he may fail to gain the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the GOP nod.

Republican activists won’t support Trump on the second ballot

Barring an unforeseen collapse, it’s pretty much impossible for Ted Cruz end up with more delegates than Donald Trump when the last states vote on June 7. And it’s impossible for John Kasich to come anywhere close. But as Trump’s erratic statements continue to accumulate, the #NeverTrump coalition is quietly organizing to deny Trump the nomination if Trump can’t win it on the first ballot. Many of the delegates bound to vote for Trump at the Republican National Convention in July will be free to vote for whomever they choose on a second or third ballot.

[Platapus]

http://www.genfkd.com/unbound-delegates-explained

Here is an interesting article that helps explain the Democratic Super Delegate and the corresponding GOP Unbounded Delegate system.

Pretty complicated in some states. But the bottom line is that each political party wants to keep some influence over the primaries for their candidates.

This article

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-16/party-superdelegates-won-t-swipe-nomination

Explains how the democratic Super Delegates can help tip the primaries, but they really can't override a significant public vote. According to the article's author, the Super Delegates have never "been decisive in determining the Democratic nominees, nor even played a significant factor."

Probably the same applies to the GOP Unbounded Delegates.

A wacky world.

[Oberon]

https://media.giphy.com/media/42CGElDAprG3C/giphy.gif

Wisconsin time! Will Cruz steal Trumps victory, will Hilary feel the Bern?

[STEED]

Wisconsin time! Will Cruz steal Trumps victory, will Hilary feel the Bern?

Will the everyday American start to think Donald in the White House could start WW3 or Hilary add to the sky high national debt with her Botox treatment? :hmm2:

[Torplexed]

Fox has already called Sanders for the Win in Wisconsin.

Democratic: Sanders 61% Clinton 39%
Republican: Cruz 49% Trump 38% Kasich 12%

The race is getting foggier.

[August]

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a67BxEA_700b.jpg

[Torplexed]

Looks like the Badger State has been called for Cruz and Sanders.

Take a Cruz & Feel the Bern!

[Oberon]

Taking it further down to the wire. Going to be very interesting going forward.

[Torplexed]

Trump's path to the nomination got a little more constricted tonight, but New York will likely bring him a lot of delegates. Hillary too.

Stayed tuned! I'm sure there are many thrills and chills ahead in the Never Ending Election.

https://media.giphy.com/media/ABrRUFN83nj68/giphy.gif

[Jimbuna]

Trump's path to the nomination got a little more constricted tonight, but New York will likely bring him a lot of delegates. Hillary too.

Stayed tuned! I'm sure there are many thrills and chills ahead in the Never Ending Election.

https://media.giphy.com/media/ABrRUFN83nj68/giphy.gif

LOL :)

[AVGWarhawk]

http://images.zerocensorship.com/content/2016-02/nearly-40-percent-of-florida-voters-think-ted-cruz-might-be-the-zodiac-killer-poll-32903.png

[Platapus]

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a67BxEA_700b.jpg


It is like being asked if you would rather be hit in the face with a wet or dry frying pan. Technically, there is probably a difference, but from a practical point of view, they are the same.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/opinions/presidential-race-after-wisconsin-opinion-gergen/index.html

With his decisive victory in Wisconsin, Sen. Ted Cruz has not only shaken up the Republican presidential race, but heading into the homestretch, he has suddenly become the odds-on favorite to win the nomination in Ohio.

With 16 primaries and caucuses remaining, Donald Trump has to win 70% of the delegates to secure the 1,237 needed to win a first ballot at the Republican convention. Several states are coming up that are more favorable territory for Trump than Cruz, especially New York and Pennsylvania where Trump still has significant leads.

Even so, winning more than two thirds of the remaining delegates is a daunting challenge for him. In the 36 primaries and caucuses leading up to Wisconsin, Trump won only 46% of the delegates. And now he heads down a tough homestretch with Cruz seizing the momentum.

In a year crammed with surprises, no one can say for sure what will unfold in Cleveland, Ohio. But there are two likely outcomes: First, Cruz and Trump have each vowed to vote against a change in the GOP's Rule 40. That's an obscure provision that requires any candidate to win at least eight primaries and caucuses before he or she can be nominated.

Trump and Cruz will be the only two people in Cleveland with that distinction. They should also have enough delegate strength between them to block a rewrite of Rule 40. In other words, potential candidates like John Kasich, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney won't be eligible even if many delegates think them likely to fare better against Hillary Clinton -- the race could narrow to Trump vs. Cruz.

If Trump then falls short on the first ballot, there will be a donnybrook. But it is now becoming apparent that Cruz is much better prepared to win that fight. Trump has run a campaign long on the outside game of televised rallies but short on the inside game of quietly piling up delegates.

In a first ballot, delegates must vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged but thereafter, of course, may vote for someone else. Signs increasingly point to the fact that Republican party regulars pledged to Trump are ready to bolt on a second or third ballot. With Cruz the only other man in the race, that almost certainly means they will drift -- rush? --toward the Texan, and he will take the crown.

[AVGWarhawk]

Trump will be busy burying his campaign with the continued crazy talk. I believe it is the plan. Trump has no desire to run the country. Pasty uncle Cruz the Zodiac killer will get the nomination. :doh:

[GT182]

God help us all if Cruz or Hillary wins the election. Can't say much for Sanders other than I had to hear his mouth run for many years when I lived in Northern NY.... right next to Vermont. It wasn't pretty what came out of that Socialist's mouth.

Can we all say... "Run Forrest Run !!!!"

A friend sent me a T-shirt that says a lot about this election. Here's what is on it.....

Too bad the people who REALLY know how to run the country
spend all their time working on OLD CARS!

;)

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/GSh6URk.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/12928356_10153409014806283_958921714167992505_n.jp g?oh=c6058d3736e45592ac6711602a8de86f&oe=57BEF353

[Torplexed]

Hey, there's still hope. America just needs to find a boat.

http://pyxis.homestead.com/america.jpg

[STEED]

I keep hearing here in our UK press Trump's days are now sealed done and dusted almost, what's going on? :hmm2:

[August]

I keep hearing here in our UK press Trump's days are now sealed done and dusted almost, what's going on? :hmm2:

Almost only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades and thermonuclear weapons.

[Torplexed]

I keep hearing here in our UK press Trump's days are now sealed done and dusted almost, what's going on? :hmm2:

That's writing the obituary way too soon. Although he isn't steamrolling like he was, in the primaries as of now Trump is still winning. I suppose he could end up losing, yet there are many reasons to believe he is still in a very good position going forward. Unlike Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Donald Trump still has a plausible path to winning an outright majority of delegates before the convention and even if he falls short of that majority, he's very likely to finish the primary voting season with the most delegates.

[Jimbuna]

That's writing the obituary way too soon. Although he isn't steamrolling like he was, in the primaries as of now Trump is still winning. I suppose he could end up losing, yet there are many reasons to believe he is still in a very good position going forward. Unlike Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Donald Trump still has a plausible path to winning an outright majority of delegates before the convention and even if he falls short of that majority, he's very likely to finish the primary voting season with the most delegates.

Yeah, I'm still for Clinton v Trump :yep:

[Mr Quatro]

Is it over yet? :arrgh!:

[Torplexed]

Is it over yet? :arrgh!:

Click on a cable news channel--

https://49.media.tumblr.com/882731804d1a6276bc77af9cac860087/tumblr_npq5m4ypjN1u9m7ino1_500.gif

[Oberon]

Not every cable channel...

http://i.imgur.com/tycWDDl.jpg

[Betonov]

It's hard to feed it to the masses when the person in question is not full of it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Is it over yet? :arrgh!:


It's never over. Now the state and local elections are gearing up. The commercials and signs are up in full force. It gets tiresome.

[Jimbuna]

If Trump wins in NY is that a big enough margin or how many more states need he win?

[GT182]

It has come to light that the ballot boxes in Colorado were stuff with names that never voted or possible never existed for Cruz. Now tell me there's rotten with Cruz's campaign. If they did it in Colorado, then they're doing it in other States as well.

Cruz's mother is Cuban and he was born in Canada. Not on a US military base, nor was his father in the military at that time. He shouldn't even be allowed to run to be President.

[August]

It has come to light that the ballot boxes in Colorado were stuff with names that never voted or possible never existed for Cruz. Now tell me there's rotten with Cruz's campaign. If they did it in Colorado, then they're doing it in other States as well.

Cruz's mother is Cuban and he was born in Canada. Not on a US military base, nor was his father in the military at that time. He shouldn't even be allowed to run to be President.

Maybe she is Cuban but she was born in Delaware.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/1-97a805449f-640x480.jpg

[Oberon]

Ted Cruz having a 'birther' campaign run against him...

http://www.businessreviewaustralia.com/public/uploads/large/large_article_im21_BC-Iron.jpg

[mapuc]

Some hours ago I saw a British documentary from 2016 it was about Trump

"Trump-can he really win ?"

The program made me wonder-what will happen to those who by now have found a person who they see as their "spokesman"

When they understand that GOP and Democrats don't want him at all ?

Markus

[AVGWarhawk]

If Trump wins in NY is that a big enough margin or how many more states need he win?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/can-you-get-trump-to-1237/

[Rockstar]

Vote Trump and lets get to deportin' those people!

[vienna]

Vote Trump and lets get to deportin' those people!

Is he going to start with Cruz?...



<O>

[em2nought]

Some hours ago I saw a British documentary from 2016 it was about Trump

"Trump-can he really win ?"

The program made me wonder-what will happen to those who by now have found a person who they see as their "spokesman"

When they understand that GOP and Democrats don't want him at all ?

Markus

Gonna put the warpaint on, and dress like injuns. Then start throwing politicians into Boston Harbor to see if $hit really does float. :arrgh!:

[Betonov]

https://scontent.fbeg1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12938128_10154066875771800_5199559803787856087_n.j pg?oh=903f7947cad9e525cab38dd802738938&oe=577AD7C9

[Torplexed]

:rotfl2::rotfl2:

Feel the Churn. :)

[Jimbuna]

^
^ :)

[STEED]

OK America is screwed the UK is screwed, is your country screwed by morons?

[Oberon]

OK America is screwed the UK is screwed, is your country screwed by morons?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8b/4e/97/8b4e97f74136718547c930c446e8ce15.jpg

[STEED]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8b/4e/97/8b4e97f74136718547c930c446e8ce15.jpg

Err..Russia, how can I forget that one. :doh: :up:

[Oberon]

Err..Russia, how can I forget that one. :doh: :up:

Your loyalty to the party could be called into question, comrade... :nope:

[Betonov]

Pfff, we got Cmerar as PM.
A guy so left he's right.

[Oberon]

Pfff, we got Cmerar as PM.
A guy so left he's right.

But how can someone who is left be right, when the left is always wrong? :O:

[STEED]

Your loyalty to the party could be called into question, comrade... :nope:

The STEED Party? :hmmm:

Pfff, we got Cmerar as PM.
A guy so left he's right.

The list grows! :shifty:

[vienna]

The STEED Party? :hmmm: ...

Now, there's a party we can unite behind!!...

...Will you be serving adult beverages?...



<O>

[STEED]

Now, there's a party we can unite behind!!...

...Will you be serving adult beverages?...



<O>

Yes and free. :)

[Jimbuna]

Now, there's a party we can unite behind!!...





<O>

Problem being, most of what eminates from said party will be emitted from the 'behind :)

[Betonov]

I cannot support the STEED party.
He will get you out of the EU and I'll have to get a visa to garden in the UK :O:

[STEED]

I cannot support the STEED party.
He will get you out of the EU and I'll have to get a visa to garden in the UK :O:

Hey watch it, Sub Simmers get the green light. :)

[Betonov]

Hey watch it, Sub Simmers get the green light. :)

England still has 2 years to prepare for my arrival. I plan to finish my studies first and then emmigrate. I'm not a common čefur :O:

[STEED]

Back on topic..

If Trump gets turned down by the party I hear he could become a Independent is this possible? :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Yes it's possible. It has happened many times, including Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

Usually the newly-minted independent does quite poorly (though Roosevelt did better than Taft), and the party loses, blaming the independent - rightly or wrongly - candidate of stealing votes. Trump has a lot of followers, though, and it could be interesting to see how he fares if it comes to that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Trump stated early on that he would not run as an independent if he did not get the nomination from the GOP.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/trump_rules_out_independent_run_vows_to_remain_rep ublican.html


I think he has flipped flop on that one as well.

[Torplexed]

Some of the logic of the GOP elites is getting hilarious in its insanity. Since it's obvious that they aren't going to get the required delegates for Cruz win on the first ballot, they are instead arguing about how the GOP can't nominate Trump, because he's un-electable and will get pulverized in a general election. But they have to nominate Cruz (who is also un-electable and will get pulverized in a general election) because to put up someone who didn't get the plurality of delegates would be disenfranchising the voters.

Despite the fact that Cruz will not have gotten the plurality of delegates, he should be the nominee because we must nominate whoever got the second place plurality of delegates. What the hell? And this toying with nominating someone like Speaker Ryan who hasn't even run in this race is risking pouring gasoline on the burning party bandwagon.

I think some of those straw hats at the convention are gonna be spinning non stop.

[Jimbuna]

Sooooo.....Hilary FTW eh?

[August]

Sooooo.....Hilary FTW eh?

There will be no win in that for anyone except her.

[AVGWarhawk]

There will be no win in that for anyone except her.

:yep:

[Platapus]

Personally, I would not associate the terms Hillary, President, and Win as being a good thing.

It may, just may, be the lesser of two evils, but not a good thing

[Torplexed]

http://media.brostrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/10075525/funny-political-memes-bill-clinton-2016.jpg

[Jimbuna]

^ LOL :)

An old one, I know.
http://i.imgur.com/dKc1UQe.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

Analyses of policy proposals from Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders estimate that their
proposals would increase the national debt by about $8 to $30 trillion between 2016 and 2026.

According to information the Washington Post and the New York Times
recently published, this is how much each candidate would add to the debt:

Cruz – $10.2 trillion
Trump – $11.2 – $15 trillion
Sanders – $19 – $30 trillion

If it's our money why do they keep spending it?

We need someone that can tighten the belt, get America in shape and stop funding the rest of the world till we can truly be a great nation again.

Somebody has to pay the bills that the law makers keep running up :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Analyses of policy proposals from Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders estimate that their
proposals would increase the national debt by about $8 to $30 trillion between 2016 and 2026.

According to information the Washington Post and the New York Times
recently published, this is how much each candidate would add to the debt:

Cruz – $10.2 trillion
Trump – $11.2 – $15 trillion
Sanders – $19 – $30 trillion

If it's our money why do they keep spending it?

We need someone that can tighten the belt, get America in shape and stop funding the rest of the world till we can truly be a great nation again.

Somebody has to pay the bills that the law makers keep running up :yep:

Where does Hillary fall in this list? Looking at the number we should vote for the pasty uncle Teddy. :o

[Mr Quatro]

Where does Hillary fall in this list? Looking at the number we should vote for the pasty uncle Teddy. :o

the Washington Post and the New York Times did not list her budget desires spells they must be for her, uh?

Five more days till the NY primary of which only democrats can vote for Bernie or Hillary ... should be the end of Bernie unless he wins of course.

[AVGWarhawk]

the Washington Post and the New York Times did not list her budget desires spells they must be for her, uh?

Five more days till the NY primary of which only democrats can vote for Bernie or Hillary ... should be the end of Bernie unless he wins of course.


Good point on not disclosing Hillary's budget. I suspect Hillary will win NY. She carpetbagged here way there after Bills tenure as President. Wall Street does not want to see Bernie. Bernie has not be shy advising Wall Street and big banks he castrate them.

[vienna]

Analyses of policy proposals from Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders estimate that their
proposals would increase the national debt by about $8 to $30 trillion between 2016 and 2026.

According to information the Washington Post and the New York Times
recently published, this is how much each candidate would add to the debt:

Cruz – $10.2 trillion
Trump – $11.2 – $15 trillion
Sanders – $19 – $30 trillion

If it's our money why do they keep spending it?

We need someone that can tighten the belt, get America in shape and stop funding the rest of the world till we can truly be a great nation again.

Somebody has to pay the bills that the law makers keep running up :yep:

Interesting you should bring the up the matter of spending. Lost amid all the media bellowing about Trump and the GOP machinations is the fact most of the GOP's hot button topics are rather low on the list of general voters' concerns, general meaning all registered voters, not just DEM or GOP. According to a number of recent polls, the general consensus of registered voter concerns are:

1. The overall economy

2. Government Spending

3. Terrorism

4. Immigration

The usual GOP topics such as abortion, faith-based initiatives, gun rights, etc. are way down on the list of voter concerns. When the conventions are over and the parties have determined their candidates, both parties will be faced with having to provide answers and solutions to concerns neither is either willing or equipped to address. Aside from the whole "lesser of two evils" choice of candidates, there is also the issue of who those candidates will turn to in their administration to address the real concerns and how they will implement those policies. One thing the Great Recession has shown to the average American is abortion, faith-based initiatives, gun rights, etc. are not really important if you don't have a job, the money is no good, and the government is spending like a drunken sailor who has just got his pay packet. Given that the last three major recessions have come about due to economic policies, decisions and actions of the last three consecutive GOP White House occupants, the GOP has a very tough row to hoe in convincing voters their candidate won't make the score an even four...


<O>

[vienna]

This article appeared today in The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-0424-california-gop-donors-20160423-story.html

If the reticence of major GOP donors to re-engage in their party's presidential election efforts is echoed throughout the rest of the nation, an already bizarre election year will only get even more so. The recent public acknowledgement that the two other GOP candidates are now forming an alliance to "game" the rest of the primary process to prevent Trump from gaining the necessary delegate votes to secure the GOP nomination is an action way beyond even the chaos of the 1968 DEM election troubles and I thought that election year would never be surpassed for strangeness. Just goes to show, if you live long enough, you stand a good chance of seeing something never imagined...


<O>

[Onkel Neal]

They waited too long.

[em2nought]

Just goes to show, if you live long enough, you stand a good chance of seeing something never imagined...<O>

Wonder what would happen if Trump went independent due to foul play, and offered Bernie VP? Now that would cause a few aneurysms in DC. :o

[AndyJWest]

Wonder what would happen if Trump went independent due to foul play, and offered Bernie VP? Now that would cause a few aneurysms in DC. :o

I should think that the chances of Sanders accepting a VP ticket from Trump are about as high as those of Trump converting to Islam. When watching a train wreck, it is generally not thought a good idea to jump aboard...

[em2nought]

I should think that the chances of Sanders accepting a VP ticket from Trump are about as high as those of Trump converting to Islam. When watching a train wreck, it is generally not thought a good idea to jump aboard...

Only way to pay for all the stuff Bernie wants is if Trump is successful at creating a resurgent USA, so they could find some common ground actually.

[AndyJWest]

Only way to pay for all the stuff Bernie wants is if Trump is successful at creating a resurgent USA, so they could find some common ground actually.

Ignoring for the moment the dubious premise that anything Trump proposes could cause a 'resurgent' anything, a Trump-Sanders ticket would stand no chance whatsoever of winning in the first place. How many of Trumps supporters would tolerate the idea of a self-proclaimed Socialist VP? And just how many of Sander's left-leaning supporters would contemplate supporting Trumps right-wing populist platform? You don't win elections by dumping most of your core support. Not only would standing with Trump involve Sanders ditching his entire political principles, but it would be political suicide. And regardless of what you think of Sander's politics, he clearly isn't an idiot.

[U505995]

It looks like it will be the crook Hillery vs loudmouth Trump:/\\!! Hillery will jump on any bandwagon that gets her the most votes. She proclaimed herself a feminist, did a 180 on gay marriage from 2008, voted in favor of invading Iraq, her whole email scandal ect... I could go on. Now she thinks that victims of gun violence should be able to sue the gun companies! While she's at it she should make it so we can sue breweries after drunk driving accidents. I don't like Trump either but if it came down to it I would vote Trump over that power hungry, scheming Hillery.

[AVGWarhawk]

It looks like it will be the crook Hillery vs loudmouth Trump:/\\!! Hillery will jump on any bandwagon that gets her the most votes. She proclaimed herself a feminist, did a 180 on gay marriage from 2008, voted in favor of invading Iraq, her whole email scandal ect... I could go on. Now she thinks that victims of gun violence should be able to sue the gun companies! While she's at it she should make it so we can sue breweries after drunk driving accidents. I don't like Trump either but if it came down to it I would vote Trump over that power hungry, scheming Hillery.


Ain't it grand! :woot:

[U505995]

Ain't it grand! :woot:
I might as well find a deserted island and make it my home. I'll kick up my feet, put the shades on, and watch the world burn.:cool:

[AVGWarhawk]

I might as well find a deserted island and make it my home. I'll kick up my feet, put the shades on, and watch the world burn.:cool:


Well, every election always looks like gloom and doom. We carry on.

[Mr Quatro]

I'm not worried who the next President of the United States is ....
especially when he is sworn in on the same Holy Bible that President Obama was sworn in on.

When Nixon was President God was still God

If we have to wait four (4) more years for a better POTUS then so be it.

I will add one more thing ... "what a circus this has been and will continue to be" :yep:

[Rockin Robbins]

No presidential candidate can kill the economy any worse than Obama has. Our economy and our people are strong enough to withstand any bad president. I don't think any of them can do as much harm as their rivals say they can.

So you have to admit that this is the most entertaining race since Ross Perot tossed a monkey wrench into the works. But I'm not worried about who gets elected. I have my preferences, but whoever's President will be more along from the ride than driving the bus.

[Jimbuna]

Doesn't look like any candidate will change the economy etc. in a four year term. Pretty much like the choices we are faced with here in the UK.

[vienna]

Here is an interesting take on the 2016 Presidential election and its possible effects on the future of the GOP from someone on the inside of both the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations (Note: If choice language offends you, be aware of a single use of such in the interview):

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/complete_and_total_destruction_of_the_republican_p arty_former_reagan_official_bruce_bartlett_on_why_ he_backs_trump/

For those without a real horse in this race or political party allegiance such as myself, this cold view of the current GOP situation is refreshing, coming as it does from someone who is of the "Old Guard" GOP establishment; a pragmatic assessment rather than a rehash of the "party line"...


<O>

[mapuc]

For me it will be interesting to see if the GOP will make some kind of coup against Trump by outmaneuver his delegates(don't know if that is possible)

( I have no favorite, as an outsider-I only follow the battle for President from my couch)

Markus

[Platapus]

I'm not worried who the next President of the United States is ....
especially when he is sworn in on the same Holy Bible that President Obama was sworn in on. :yep:


I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Since each president gets a chance to use their own bible if they so choose, the chances of them using the same bible are pretty low. I don't think they reuse.

[vienna]

I have, for a very long time, maintained the Presidents, if they are going to use something to "validate" their oath, should take the Oath of Office on a copy of the Constitution. If there is to be any sort of significant symbolism to the ceremony, it is more appropriate to fully commit to the office on a document embracing not only the founding ideals of the United States as set forth by the Founders, but also embracing all aspects of American society without a hint of exclusion or favoritism. Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating the oath be taken using any sort of document as validation, secular, religious, or otherwise; it kind of makes one wonder why the Founders saw fit to exclude any such provision; perhaps they were wiser than those who seek to put their brand unnecessarily on matters not to be trifled. But, given the past performance of those in the past who have given their oaths on a Bible, we might as well just have them swear on a copy of a shopping list... :haha:


http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/inaugural/inaug_nixon_2.jpg



<O>

[Mr Quatro]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Since each president gets a chance to use their own bible if they so choose, the chances of them using the same bible are pretty low. I don't think they reuse.

When the muslims find out that you are a Christian, they say "Oh you believe in the book" so I didn't mean the book ... I meant the words in the book.

But, given the past performance of those in the past who have given their oaths on a Bible, we might as well just have them swear on a copy of a shopping list...

True vienna I don't know what happens after they become POTUS must be some kind of spiritual warfare going on in the White House, uh?

At least Hillary and her husband, the first dude, have already been there and know first hand the battles that lay ahead of them... :yep:

[Rockin Robbins]

Good point on not disclosing Hillary's budget. I suspect Hillary will win NY. She carpetbagged here way there after Bills tenure as President. Wall Street does not want to see Bernie. Bernie has not be shy advising Wall Street and big banks he castrate them.
Interestingly, as a general conservative, I think that no financial institution should be allowed to grow to more than 1% of the size of the economy. Anything larger warps the economy and controls the government too much.

Look at the 2007-2008 bailouts. The people hurting were the public. The bailout law was passed to bail out individuals. But the power of the overgrown financial institutions caused the bailout money to go to the monster mega-banks. Now they are still sitting there with the money, having no incentive whatever to help out the people in trouble from the giant cluster headache of 2007.

They sorely need to be busted up. If it was necessary for ATT, a tiny thing compared to the monster banks, then they deserve it ten times more.

But money buys influence: something the "tax the rich" people don't seem to realize. The more you pay the government the more influence you have. We need EVERYBODY to pay taxes so everybody has a voice. There IS NO representation without taxation. Voting to keep 47% of the public from paying federal income tax is disenfranchizing 47% of the public.

Will any politician say these things? No. Will people jump down my throat for parroting radicals? Yes. Ain't life grand?

[AVGWarhawk]

Interestingly, as a general conservative, I think that no financial institution should be allowed to grow to more than 1% of the size of the economy. Anything larger warps the economy and controls the government too much.

Look at the 2007-2008 bailouts. The people hurting were the public. The bailout law was passed to bail out individuals. But the power of the overgrown financial institutions caused the bailout money to go to the monster mega-banks. Now they are still sitting there with the money, having no incentive whatever to help out the people in trouble from the giant cluster headache of 2007.

They sorely need to be busted up. If it was necessary for ATT, a tiny thing compared to the monster banks, then they deserve it ten times more.

But money buys influence: something the "tax the rich" people don't seem to realize. The more you pay the government the more influence you have. We need EVERYBODY to pay taxes so everybody has a voice. There IS NO representation without taxation. Voting to keep 47% of the public from paying federal income tax is disenfranchizing 47% of the public.

Will any politician say these things? No. Will people jump down my throat for parroting radicals? Yes. Ain't life grand?

So this movie had more to say than just a guy not wanting to exist.

http://deadlyclear.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mr-potter-its-a-wonderful-life1.jpg

[vienna]

Interestingly, as a general conservative, I think that no financial institution should be allowed to grow to more than 1% of the size of the economy. Anything larger warps the economy and controls the government too much.

Look at the 2007-2008 bailouts. The people hurting were the public. The bailout law was passed to bail out individuals. But the power of the overgrown financial institutions caused the bailout money to go to the monster mega-banks. Now they are still sitting there with the money, having no incentive whatever to help out the people in trouble from the giant cluster headache of 2007.

They sorely need to be busted up. If it was necessary for ATT, a tiny thing compared to the monster banks, then they deserve it ten times more.

But money buys influence: something the "tax the rich" people don't seem to realize. The more you pay the government the more influence you have. We need EVERYBODY to pay taxes so everybody has a voice. There IS NO representation without taxation. Voting to keep 47% of the public from paying federal income tax is disenfranchizing 47% of the public.

Will any politician say these things? No. Will people jump down my throat for parroting radicals? Yes. Ain't life grand?

The whole bailout was an interesting process. When it was proposed and passed, under GWB, it really had no substance, no structure; it was basically a blank check made out to the very institutions and people who were responsible for the whole mess. No matter what you think of Obama, he did make moves to make the bailout have more accountability. When the bailout was first announced, there was a long line of the fat cats, with palms extended, to reap the windfall they expected, with no assurances they would even use the money to support the economy or even have judicious uses for the funds or even repay the "loans". Obama put in requirements for the repayment of the funds and the line got shorter; he put in requirements for oversight and the line got shorter still; he put in caps on executive salary for those corporations taking bailout money and the line got shorter than ever; and so it went until all those corporations who had their hands out for the funds, who "desperately" needed the cash because they "were too big too fail", faced with actually having to accept responsibility for what they would do with taxpayer money, suddenly decided they really didn't need the bailouts. If Obama hadn't set up some sort of framework to support a bailout law that that was overly (purposely?) vague, one can only imagine how much of that bailout money would now be residing in off-shore accounts and what the state of the economy would have been...


<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

John Boehner on Ted Cruz:



“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner told an audience at Stanford on Wednesday night, according to the Stanford Daily (http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/). “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/john-beohner-ted-cruz-lucifer-222570

[Oberon]

It really is like watching a car crash in slow motion... :doh:

[August]

It really is like watching a car crash in slow motion... :doh:

It is a messy process and it can get messier (and has) but it has worked remarkably well for the past couple of centuries.

[Oberon]

It is a messy process and it can get messier (and has) but it has worked remarkably well for the past couple of centuries.

Oh aye, I dare say that it'll all work out in the end somehow, but it's been a while since there's been this level of disunity in the GOP itself.
Sure, the Dems aren't exactly seeing eye to eye, but compared to the mudfight that is the GOP race, well... :doh:

[Mr Quatro]

How did the Senator Ted Cruz make it this far without any support from his fellow comrades in the Senate?

Both sides were against him when he stalled the budget process with his fillibuster a couple of years ago :yep:

The voters so far must be love for him or hate for Donald Trump.

GOP race was just a bunch of wanna bee's compared to Hillary and Bernie.

Donald Trump will need special forces to protect the white house instead of the secret service ... if he makes it that far.

This is not prophesy, but it sure looks like something bad (like an accident or something) will keep Donald Trump from being the next POTUS. Bones in his closet maybe (like real ones) :o

[AVGWarhawk]

Mr Quatro2400624]How did the Senator Ted Cruz make it this far without any support from his fellow comrades in the Senate?
Cash kept him afloat. He has supporters. Not Bohner. Called Cruz the devil today.

Both sides were against him when he stalled the budget process with his fillibuster a couple of years ago :yep: But he read Dr. Suess so well what is not to like?

The voters so far must be love for him or hate for Donald Trump. Conservatives love Trump. Liberals hate him. Nothing new in a presidential race when it concerns Repubs/Libs and the opposing team.

GOP race was just a bunch of wanna bee's compared to Hillary and Bernie. Both wishy washy doing their best to pander for votes. It is shameless really. None of the Republican were wanna bee's. If there was ever a wanna bee in this race it is O'Malley.

Donald Trump will need special forces to protect the white house instead of the secret service ... if he makes it that far. Everyong thought the same when BO was elected. The world did not end. He did not pay that woman's mortgage.

This is not prophesy, but it sure looks like something bad (like an accident or something) will keep Donald Trump from being the next POTUS. Bones in his closet maybe (like real ones) :o It has not happened yet and will probably not.

[August]

This is not prophesy, but it sure looks like something bad (like an accident or something) will keep Donald Trump from being the next POTUS. Bones in his closet maybe (like real ones) :o

Maybe but if anyone has skeletons in their closet it's Clinton.

[Jimbuna]

This thread has taught me so much more about US politics than could ever otherwise have learned and here was me thinking that of UK politics was a joke/comedy :doh:

Keep it up peeps....most frightening but also entertaining :cool:

[Platapus]

Maybe but if anyone has skeletons in their closet it's Clinton.

Closet?

More like a 28 room mansion with detached garage. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

This thread has taught me so much more about US politics than could ever otherwise have learned and here was me thinking that of UK politics was a joke/comedy :doh:

Keep it up peeps....most frightening but also entertaining :cool:


Jim,

Politics here in the states is a perpetual college frat party.

[August]

Closet?

More like a 28 room mansion with detached garage. :yep:

Yeah and it's own grave yard! :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Closet?

More like a 28 room mansion with detached garage. :yep:

If all the skeletons stood up at once there would be a population explosion.

[Aktungbby]

This thread has taught me so much more about US politics than could ever otherwise have learned and here was me thinking that of UK politics was a joke/comedy :doh:

Keep it up peeps....most frightening but also entertaining :cool:

This is one election they can't make fun of on Saturday Night Live...it's funnier than the comedy writers can conceive! One of them used to be Al Franken now a senator from Minnesota!http://bringmethenews.com/2016/03/28/al-franken-for-hillary-clintons-vp-a-national-writer-makes-the-case/ (http://bringmethenews.com/2016/03/28/al-franken-for-hillary-clintons-vp-a-national-writer-makes-the-case/) :sunny:

[vienna]

Al Franken has been one of the more unexpected surprises in the area of former entertainers entering the political arena. Given his comedic background, it would have been expected he would have not taken the position seriously, but he has shown a maturity of thought and knowledge of issues sometimes not seen in other professional, "lifer", politicians. It could be because his former occupation made it necessary to be deeply informed on all aspects of issues and situations so as to maintain the sharpness and quality of his comedic material, either as a performer or writer. Just prior to his entering politics, he had a national radio program and one of the features of his show was a recapping and debunking of Rush Limbaugh's radio rants earlier in the day. Franken had a staff of fact checkers who would dissect Rush's pronouncements, find the flaws, inaccuracies, and just the general Bandini in Rush's earlier show. Two things stood out to me: one, there sheer extent of the manure Limbaugh was spreading as "fact"; and, two, just how easily and quickly Franken and his staff could assemble verifiable facts to refute Rush; apparently, it is extremely easy to debunk a very large amount of Rush's bombast. I kind of miss Franken's separating of the facts from the fol-de-rol...



<O>

[em2nought]

If all the skeletons stood up at once there would be a population explosion. I'm pretty sure they all come out to vote for Hillary on election day! :D

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Closet?

More like a 28 room mansion with detached garage. :yep:

Being so financially successful, doubtlessly you admire her greatly.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Al Franken has been one of the more unexpected surprises in the area of former entertainers entering the political arena. Given his comedic background, it would have been expected he would have not taken the position seriously, but he has shown a maturity of thought and knowledge of issues sometimes not seen in other professional, "lifer", politicians. It could be because his former occupation made it necessary to be deeply informed on all aspects of issues and situations so as to maintain the sharpness and quality of his comedic material, either as a performer or writer. Just prior to his entering politics, he had a national radio program and one of the features of his show was a recapping and debunking of Rush Limbaugh's radio rants earlier in the day. Franken had a staff of fact checkers who would dissect Rush's pronouncements, find the flaws, inaccuracies, and just the general Bandini in Rush's earlier show. Two things stood out to me: one, there sheer extent of the manure Limbaugh was spreading as "fact"; and, two, just how easily and quickly Franken and his staff could assemble verifiable facts to refute Rush; apparently, it is extremely easy to debunk a very large amount of Rush's bombast. I kind of miss Franken's separating of the facts from the fol-de-rol...



<O>

Well, if you type in "Rush Limbaugh" with "fallacies" into a search engine, you'll get a LOT of hits.

As for Franken, I don't like him because he snubbed me the one time I saw him in the flesh.

[Platapus]

Being so financially successful, doubtlessly you admire her greatly.


Not at all. On what rationale would you think that?

[vienna]

As Alice once said "Curiouser and Curiouser"; at this point I am actually expecting Rod Serling to appear on the TV screen and intone "Presenting for you inspection, two men engaged in the most American of all social acitivties, a Presidential election; all appears normal as an election can be, except the road to the White House has taken an unusual turn and the signpost up ahead reads 'The Twilight Zone' [cue creepy music]:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/donald-trump-rafael-cruz-indiana/

This public self-immolation of Ted Cruz and the bizarre Trump use of tabloids to "substantiate" his ravings has pushed the entire GOP side of the election to depths unseen, arguably, ever, anywhere. This could be the day the GOP ceded the White House and, maybe, Congress, to the DEMs. On a purely political strategy level, it is going to be a very tough swim against a very rough tide for the GOP from this point on...



<O>

[mapuc]

So it seem like you may have to choose between Clinton and Trump

From reading this thread I get the feeling you have to choose between plague and cholera

Sad you wont have a third vote-option(choice)

Markus

[August]

To have a third vote-option(choice)

But what happens if the third choice is Ebola?

[Jimbuna]

But what happens if the third choice is Ebola?

LOL :)

[Torplexed]

Looks like Bernie is giving Hillary another run for her money in Indiana.

[Onkel Neal]

And looks like Cruz is about outta luck.

So it seem like you may have to choose between Clinton and Trump

From reading this thread I get the feeling you have to choose between plague and cholera

Sad you wont have a third vote-option(choice)

Markus

I plan to vote with a write in for Pat Buchanan. I'm not voting for either of the two candidates in the parties.

[razark]

And looks like Cruz is about outta luck.
And out of the race.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html

[Torplexed]

And out of the race.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html


I wonder which item his running partner Carly Fiorina will receive first. Her pay check or her lay-off slip?

[August]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc89DWIUsAA0ex2.jpg

[cdrsubron7]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc89DWIUsAA0ex2.jpg


Amen, bruder! :nope:

[vienna]

^ My God, August is apparently speechless!...



<O>

[HW3]

I half expect Cruz to mount a third party run for president, which in all likelihood, would lead to another Clinton in the White House.

[Oberon]

So then, President Clinton. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc89DWIUsAA0ex2.jpg

So then, President Clinton. :yep:

Beginning to look that way :yep: