Now that all the big dogs have had their say at their respective party conventions, let's see how they all compare to each other on matters of integrity and consistency:
Cruz On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to endorse Trump as candidate
Bush On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to attend
Kasich On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to attend
Rubio On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to attend
Sanders On the campaign trail - slams Clinton as unfit for office At the convention - delivers impassioned speech declaring Clinton to be a great candidate for POTUS and urging everyone to get behind her
For so long democrats think of republican party as a Good Ol' Boys club for the wealthy, and that establishment pretty much runs the party. They consider this a negative. Now there is a candidate who is rejected by the 'establishment' and now that's a negative. The cognitive dissonance of the left.
mrswdk wrote:Sanders On the campaign trail - slams Clinton as unfit for office At the convention - delivers impassioned speech declaring Clinton to be a great candidate for POTUS and urging everyone to get behind her
Bernie Sanders wrote:Two moronic views of the political climate of America.
Well done idiots!
Do we take it from this comment that (despite all the clear evidence in front of you) you do not agree that Republic nominees have stuck to their guns by refusing to nominate the guy they ran against, while Sanders has just carried out a spectacular climb down and thrown his weight behind someone who he has spent the last year decrying as unfit for office?
Bernie earlier this year wrote:When you support and continue to support fracking, despite the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes in America to protect the working families of this country.
Bernie at the DNC wrote:Any objective observer will conclude that -- based on her ideas and her leadership -- Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States.
Bernie Sanders wrote:Two moronic views of the political climate of America.
Well done idiots!
Do we take it from this comment that (despite all the clear evidence in front of you) you do not agree that Republic nominees have stuck to their guns by refusing to nominate the guy they ran against, while Sanders has just carried out a spectacular climb down and thrown his weight behind someone who he has spent the last year decrying as unfit for office?
Bernie earlier this year wrote:When you support and continue to support fracking, despite the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes in America to protect the working families of this country.
Bernie at the DNC wrote:Any objective observer will conclude that -- based on her ideas and her leadership -- Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States.
6 months ago they were on relatively good terms. Your comprehension of time is even more warped then mine!
mrswdk wrote:Now that all the big dogs have had their say at their respective party conventions, let's see how they all compare to each other on matters of integrity and consistency:
Cruz On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to endorse Trump as candidate
Bush On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to attend
Kasich On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to attend
Rubio On the campaign trail - slams Trump as unfit for office At the convention - refuses to attend
Sanders On the campaign trail - slams Clinton as unfit for office At the convention - delivers impassioned speech declaring Clinton to be a great candidate for POTUS and urging everyone to get behind her
william18 wrote:For so long democrats think of republican party as a Good Ol' Boys club for the wealthy, and that establishment pretty much runs the party.
It's called "projection" ...
If you want the example of wealthy and establishment, consider the Kennedy Clan. Or how about the Daley Clan in Chicago. And nothing said "Good Ol' Boys" club like Tammany Hall in New York City.
riskllama wrote:@ fake Bernie : dude, just admit it - the real 'Bern lost massive 'cred by throwing in with the Clintons. *sheesh*
What? Are you still butt hurt for my rating of your game playing?
Don't let that confuse your common sense of who would make a better President.
Everyone who backs Trump, takes the easy road and attacks Hillary, cause the Republican base does not know where Trump stands on the issues. Trump has said, "I'll make America great again", yet has no details. The Republican Party has lost it's conservative values and now is riding the Trump Circus Bus.
Let's call the Republican Party the Trump Party. After the election, the remnants of the Republican Party will try to piece their Party back.
Trump has shown America, that the ordinary Republicans are not as Conservative as we thought. Nope, racial and cultural fears drives this Clown Bus.
My prediction is that Republicans will lose the Senate, but will maintain their majority in the House.
Thank you Trump for helping the Progressive Movement!
Bernie Sanders wrote:Everyone who backs Trump, takes the easy road and attacks Hillary, cause the Republican base does not know where Trump stands on the issues.
As opposed to Clinton. Where everyone knows where she stands on the issues, even though the constantly repeats to everyone the EXACT OPPOSITE.
You know she is going to fully support TPP. You know she is going to fully support TPP. You know she is going to fully support TPP.
You know exactly where she stands. SHE sold Uranium to the Russians. SHE promoted wars to get her friends clients for their floating hospital scheme.
Bernie Sanders wrote:Everyone who backs Trump, takes the easy road and attacks Hillary, cause the Republican base does not know where Trump stands on the issues.
As opposed to Clinton. Where everyone knows where she stands on the issues, even though the constantly repeats to everyone the EXACT OPPOSITE.
You know she is going to fully support TPP. You know she is going to fully support TPP. You know she is going to fully support TPP.
You know exactly where she stands. SHE sold Uranium to the Russians. SHE promoted wars to get her friends clients for their floating hospital scheme.
Tzor, you are not going to like this but think about it seriously Odd that every single time trump has went up in the polls, he does something frigging STUPID beyond belief STUPID why? He has told everyone all along the fix is in. His job was to clear republican field out, he did it. He has effectively alienated the minority vote. And now he has said openly that Russia if they have Hillary's emails to release them, not even his vp can now back him. Draw a conclusion, yep the fix is in and has been from the beginning. To late to change course now.
People think Trump is the dangerous one, Hillary is really the dangerous one. She's a neocon warmonger.
There is nothing wrong with trying to repair our relationship with Russia. Contrary to the rhetoric, Russia is not the US' enemy. We have more common ground with the Russians than disputes. Hillary is antagonistic to the Russians.
There is nothing wrong with rethinking the NATO scheme. NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance to oppose the Soviet Union. While there was a Soviet Union it served a purpose. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO's purpose became obsolete. So instead of putting the dinosaur alliance out to pasture it was re-purposed into an alliance that now engages in wars of aggression. Libya never attacked any NATO alliance member, was never a threat to any NATO alliance member yet we used NATO to destroy that nation. Libya was fairly modern and secular compared to other African nations and today it is a failed state. Hillary did that (let us not forget her disgusting "We came, we saw he died heheheh" psychopathic musings). 10's of thousands of people are dead, including an American ambassador and three other Americans because of the neocon belief of "bringing democracy" at the point of a bayonet.
If Hillary becomes President then we can count on war with Iran as a virtual certainty even though Iran is no threat to the US. The old line "Iran is six months away from building a nuke" is bullshit because Iran apparently has been six months from building a nuke since 1984. In fact, Iran is the primary antagonist against Sunni extremism, which happens to also be the US' biggest enemy. Everyone wants ISIS to be destroyed, well guess who's fighting ISIS? Iran, Russia, Syria. We bomb ISIS (supposedly) on the one hand and then supply them with arms on the other. How sick is that policy? It will continue under Hillary.
Hillary as Sec of State is famous for launching the so called "Asia pivot" which sees the US sending more and more military assets to the South China sea area and threatening China. Who claims the South China sea makes no difference to the US security. The US has no claim on it and by the US policy of attempting to bully, threaten and coerce China into accepting who we decide gets to claim something we have no right to decide, puts us all in danger of a war with the most populated nation in the world. The only possible way to wage a war against such an adversary is to use nuclear weapons. So tell me, who is in favor of nuking some yellow people because of a regional dispute over the South China sea? Hillary will continue to antagonize China.
We threaten Russia because Putin is a tyrant. Russia's domestic political situation is zero business of the US. It's not like we don't do plenty of business with tyrants all over the world. The American government gets outraged that Russia annexed the Crimea and does everything it can to get our population whipped up in a frenzy over it but I have to ask- Since when, ever, in the history of the United States, has it ever mattered to US national security over who controls the Crimea? Never. Never has it mattered to US national security who controlled the Ukraine either. Not once ever in our history. In Russia's history it's another story though. The Ukraine and Crimea are definitely within the Russia realm of national security. The fact that we use neonazi radicals to overthrow the duly elected government shows our true belief in "self determination". We allow self determination so long as the citizens of a foreign land determine what we want. Hillary will do more of the same.
The Neocons have continued to push NATO membership right into the Russian's back yard, even though we promised we wouldn't do that. How would the US react if an aggressive alliance organization was formed in South America that waged wars of aggression and began folding more and more South and Central American nations into it and bring the alliance right up to our southern border? WE'd shit our britches is what we'd do and we'd go to great lengths to stop such an organization. Not to mention, we are trying to get nations into NATO that I'd be damned if any of you would advocate nor risk global nuclear annihilation to defend. Who here would be willing to die to defend Georgia? I can see why these nations would love to get under the umbrella of protection of the US, they'd be hard pressed at best to defend themselves against any motivated invader. But Russia isn't the invader anymore. The old Soviet Union is gone, dead and buried. Putin is a lot of things, but he isn't stupid. He knows that forcing nations and peoples to be folded into a version of a new Soviet empire is a losing proposition. It won't work, it can't work. It's expensive, detrimental and really, really bad for business. And Russia is all about the business.
It's sad to see that Russia is more closer to the voice of reason than my own beloved United States, but that's what we've come to with the perverted, insidious neocon influence that has seeped into our government and Hillary is a neocon. Trump and Bernie are candidates that stand in repudiation of the neocon agenda. If Trump is elected and the very least he does is break the neocon influence in our government I'd consider his Presidency a success. Hillary, no way no how will she do such a thing. She'll bring the American Way to the rest of the world and she doesn't give a shit how many of your children have to die to do it.
jgordon1111 wrote:Tzor, you are not going to like this but think about it seriously Odd that every single time trump has went up in the polls, he does something frigging STUPID beyond belief STUPID why? He has told everyone all along the fix is in. His job was to clear republican field out, he did it. He has effectively alienated the minority vote. And now he has said openly that Russia if they have Hillary's emails to release them, not even his vp can now back him. Draw a conclusion, yep the fix is in and has been from the beginning. To late to change course now.
Dude, I have no doubt that there are shenanigans that go on during our elections. If the election is close, Hillary wins even if the closeness is favored toward Trump. The results can be manipulated if the vote is close. If it's a landslide, there ain't no way to hide the kind of fix that would be needed to overturn that.
The only people who care about Russia are neocons. It doesn't matter where the truth comes from, so long as it is the truth. The DNC gets it's emails hacked. Instead of showing a bit of shame over their behavior they tried to deflect and say "It was the Russians!" Do you think any of the Bernie supporters care if it was Russia who hacked the emails and revealed the truth? Hell no.
Russia is not the bogey man anymore, we got a new bogey man, ISIS, radical Islam, terrorists. ISIS is about as much of a threat to the US as a kitten is a threat. If we'd stop trying to overthrow and put puppet governments all over the Middle East the Syrians, Iranians, Russians and decent people in the Middle East could just wipe out ISIS if we'd stop supporting and fomenting radical regime change for the benefit of the corporatists and neocon cronies.
Hillary admitted the US created ISIS. We all know it, just like Hillary pointed out that it was the US who created Al Qaeda, the previous bogey man. At this point, a feces throwing monkey would be a better choice of a politician than what we got now. And I ain't the only person who feels this way.
jgordon1111 wrote:Tzor, you are not going to like this but think about it seriously Odd that every single time trump has went up in the polls, he does something frigging STUPID beyond belief STUPID why? He has told everyone all along the fix is in. His job was to clear republican field out, he did it. He has effectively alienated the minority vote. And now he has said openly that Russia if they have Hillary's emails to release them, not even his vp can now back him. Draw a conclusion, yep the fix is in and has been from the beginning. To late to change course now.
Dude, I have no doubt that there are shenanigans that go on during our elections. If the election is close, Hillary wins even if the closeness is favored toward Trump. The results can be manipulated if the vote is close. If it's a landslide, there ain't no way to hide the kind of fix that would be needed to overturn that.
The only people who care about Russia are neocons. It doesn't matter where the truth comes from, so long as it is the truth. The DNC gets it's emails hacked. Instead of showing a bit of shame over their behavior they tried to deflect and say "It was the Russians!" Do you think any of the Bernie supporters care if it was Russia who hacked the emails and revealed the truth? Hell no.
Russia is not the bogey man anymore, we got a new bogey man, ISIS, radical Islam, terrorists. ISIS is about as much of a threat to the US as a kitten is a threat. If we'd stop trying to overthrow and put puppet governments all over the Middle East the Syrians, Iranians, Russians and decent people in the Middle East could just wipe out ISIS if we'd stop supporting and fomenting radical regime change for the benefit of the corporatists and neocon cronies.
Hillary admitted the US created ISIS. We all know it, just like Hillary pointed out that it was the US who created Al Qaeda, the previous bogey man. At this point, a feces throwing monkey would be a better choice of a politician than what we got now. And I ain't the only person who feels this way.
I guess we'll see though, soon enough.
Correct on all of it patches.you forgot globalization, Barry has already told us its here, largely due to his and Hillary's efforts. No way to change course now, liberal's around the world want it and firmly believe that its the best thing since sliced bread. Europe is now finally realizing, that the world is not going to hug and sing kumbya, and here at home they really still think its possible.They are real sure that with the military in shambles and all law enforcement being racist, that disarming the civilian population here, that goal of kumbya world wide will be achieved.
jgordon1111 wrote:Tzor, you are not going to like this but think about it seriously Odd that every single time trump has went up in the polls, he does something frigging STUPID beyond belief STUPID why?
Yes, it is interesting. It defies political logic. It appears to be branding logic, any publicity is good publicity. If Trump does something smart it will get no coverage from the Mainstream Media. If he does something stupid they will give him hours of free air time. The more they give, the more the alternate media will harp on it as well. It's a strange win/win situation.
jgordon1111 wrote:He has told everyone all along the fix is in. His job was to clear republican field out, he did it.
The "field" existed for one reason only. To lower the bar so much that Jeb Bush would win a plurality in Florida and claim momentum. That didn't happen.
jgordon1111 wrote:He has effectively alienated the minority vote.
The Democrats have so solidly had African Americans in their grip that no logical appeal will win them over. This is a "war" within the African American community and may take a generation to resolve.
As for Hispanics, that is a more complex situation since the Democratic Party hasn't really had priority to hold them in check. In the end this is adjusting the fine tuning knob, as Politico points out, "Hispanics also have a disproportionately low presence in swing states."
jgordon1111 wrote:And now he has said openly that Russia if they have Hillary's emails to release them...
See my above quote. Having an open press conference for one hour in the middle of your opposing party's convention is, using the rules of branding, pure genius. The Mainstream Media lost interest in the Democratic Convention and all it's talking points. They had to rant about Trump instead! Right in the middle of the convention, it's either talk about Bill Clinton's boring way to long, history of his love life, or TRUMP, damn him TRUMP, we hate him TRUMP.
If that is his plan, it's working perfectly.
If it actually wins him the election ... God help us all.
Edit: I forgot to mention that Rush was practically giddy about this today, "It's never been done before."
In an internal memo dated June 5, 2016, a full month before dropping out of the race and endorsing Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders was plotting how to best blackmail the Hillary Clinton campaign. In exchange for his endorsement, the memo details the Sanders campaign’s “asks” from the presumptive Democratic front-runner. Those thinly veiled attempts at “leverage” as the Sanders camp called it included demands for:
A plane and staff. This would “be paid for by the DNC”.
jgordon1111 wrote: you forgot globalization, Barry has already told us its here, largely due to his and Hillary's efforts. No way to change course now, liberal's around the world want it and firmly believe that its the best thing since sliced bread. Europe is now finally realizing, that the world is not going to hug and sing kumbya, and here at home they really still think its possible.They are real sure that with the military in shambles and all law enforcement being racist, that disarming the civilian population here, that goal of kumbya world wide will be achieved.
I didn't forget globalization. It's just irrelevant. It can't work with today's technology and mindset. Wishful thinking won't make it be so. It's a nice Utopian dream some try to pretend when making the case for a global governance system but it's bunk. Peoples and nations around the world should talk to each other, exchange culture and goods. Cooperate when it's in the best interests and they do, all the time. But having a global government ain't gonna happen.
Ethnonationalism, tribal mentality and reality trump wishful thinking. The radical Islamists want to enact their own version of Globalism, what are the chances of that ever being accepted? Do you think the world will every fall under the thumb of Global Islam and Sharia Law being the law of the world? The EU is a jab at giving centralized authority and see how that's working, the UK has already voted to leave it. People of similar culture and roots want to govern themselves, it's natural. If Globalists think they can make it so through force of arms, that ain't gonna work out either. So long as people think of themselves as <insert ethno, tribal, racial identity here> they aren't aren't going to get along, allow to be governed by people of <insert other ethno, tribal, racial identity here>.
Even harder to work out, so long as there is scarcity in resources there there can't be the global governance that wishful thinkers peddle. So, does this new global order elevate everyone on the planet to, say, US level standard of living? Or does it bring down western civ by lowering them to the level of Iraq? Either way there is going to be a hell of a lot of people who will say "Aww, hell no!" for whatever reasons.
The liberal you speak of typically live in western nations and have it easy compared to other parts of the word. They see the misery and they have compassion so they buy into the lie of globalization thinking it will get everyone out of poverty and misery and live lives like the liberal does in his cozy, wealthy nation. If we had free, unlimited energy, maybe some Star Trek like transporters to move infinate resources around the world this might have a chance to be. But so long as resources are scarce and not easy to move around then it ain't gonna happen. Not to mention people are different. Religion, cultural and sometimes racial differences just won't be compatible with each other. Then that gets you into forcing people to do, think and act alike, like a bunch of ants. People ain't ants and that's not even questioning the ethical or moral implications of trying to do such a thing. For instance, in the interests of Global harmony all religion should be banned. There are some who would welcome this but it ain't gonna make people stop worshiping is it? Or everybody has to adopt a specific philosophy compatible with the global governance system. Even if you could do it, would it be moral to do so? To force people to believe something they don't?
I don't think so. That's why the globalists will fail. And I haven't even gotten into the ruling elite class which you know won't be able to help themselves in this global governance and will use their power to rob not just the people in their own former nations but rob people on the other side of the world. Human beings won't stand for it. The only possible way as I said is if there is unlimited free energy (and it'd have to be clean), unlimited food, unlimited capacity to move resources anywhere in the world instantly. So unless you got some Star Trek transporters, replicators and dilithium crystals laying around, it ain't gonna work.
patches70 wrote:People think Trump is the dangerous one, Hillary is really the dangerous one. She's a neocon warmonger.
(...)
There is nothing wrong with rethinking the NATO scheme. NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance to oppose the Soviet Union. While there was a Soviet Union it served a purpose. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO's purpose became obsolete. So instead of putting the dinosaur alliance out to pasture it was re-purposed into an alliance that now engages in wars of aggression. Libya never attacked any NATO alliance member, was never a threat to any NATO alliance member yet we used NATO to destroy that nation. Libya was fairly modern and secular compared to other African nations and today it is a failed state. Hillary did that (let us not forget her disgusting "We came, we saw he died heheheh" psychopathic musings). 10's of thousands of people are dead, including an American ambassador and three other Americans because of the neocon belief of "bringing democracy" at the point of a bayonet.
patches70 wrote:If Hillary becomes President then we can count on war with Iran as a virtual certainty even though Iran is no threat to the US. The old line "Iran is six months away from building a nuke" is bullshit because Iran apparently has been six months from building a nuke since 1984. In fact, Iran is the primary antagonist against Sunni extremism, which happens to also be the US' biggest enemy. Everyone wants ISIS to be destroyed, well guess who's fighting ISIS? Iran, Russia, Syria. We bomb ISIS (supposedly) on the one hand and then supply them with arms on the other. How sick is that policy? It will continue under Hillary
patches70 wrote:The Neocons have continued to push NATO membership right into the Russian's back yard, even though we promised we wouldn't do that. How would the US react if an aggressive alliance organization was formed in South America that waged wars of aggression and began folding more and more South and Central American nations into it and bring the alliance right up to our southern border? WE'd shit our britches is what we'd do and we'd go to great lengths to stop such an organization.
patches70 wrote:Not to mention, we are trying to get nations into NATO that I'd be damned if any of you would advocate nor risk global nuclear annihilation to defend. Who here would be willing to die to defend Georgia? I can see why these nations would love to get under the umbrella of protection of the US, they'd be hard pressed at best to defend themselves against any motivated invader.
patches70 wrote:It's sad to see that Russia is more closer to the voice of reason than my own beloved United States, but that's what we've come to with the perverted, insidious neocon influence that has seeped into our government and Hillary is a neocon. Trump and Bernie are candidates that stand in repudiation of the neocon agenda. If Trump is elected and the very least he does is break the neocon influence in our government I'd consider his Presidency a success. Hillary, no way no how will she do such a thing. She'll bring the American Way to the rest of the world and she doesn't give a shit how many of your children have to die to do it.
Once again, patches cuts through the bullshit and tells it like it is. You really should have your own network talk show instead of throwing your pearls before swine in this shitty forum.
Watching an asshole like Trump get elected is truly painful. But when you consider Billary and WW III as the alternative, it really is the lesser of two evils by a long shot.
Trump is a genuinely bad person too. You know how many small businesses he put out of business because he wouldn't pay and threatened to tie up in court for years? How about claiming bankruptcy four times, making sure he himself got paid in excess of $400,000 monthly (oh no, the horror of a billionaire being reduced to a millionaire) while who knows how many of his employees got tossed out.
Or how about being thin-skinned about near everything that is remotely not in his favor? Or attacking other people and their families and their reputations if they don't bow down to his every whim?
You're trivializing Trump, or simply deflecting to Clinton.
muy_thaiguy wrote:Trump is a genuinely bad person too. You know how many small businesses he put out of business because he wouldn't pay and threatened to tie up in court for years? How about claiming bankruptcy four times, making sure he himself got paid in excess of $400,000 monthly (oh no, the horror of a billionaire being reduced to a millionaire) while who knows how many of his employees got tossed out.
Or how about being thin-skinned about near everything that is remotely not in his favor? Or attacking other people and their families and their reputations if they don't bow down to his every whim?
You're trivializing Trump, or simply deflecting to Clinton.
He's an asshole and I said as much. But does he want to go around starting wars with foreign countries? So far he shows no sign of it.
Maybe the people who draw parallels between Trump and Hitler are right. Maybe he will turn out to be the worst possible choice. I don't pretend to have a crystal ball. But based on what has been said and done in the past, Hillary seems firmly committed to American imperialism, whereas about Trump it's just a "maybe."
If sure if elected, he'll steal billions. That will be cheap compared to the potential cost of wars Hillary will start.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
muy_thaiguy wrote:Or how about being thin-skinned about near everything that is remotely not in his favor? Or attacking other people and their families and their reputations if they don't bow down to his every whim?
] Have you even heard of Hillary Clinton? You know this applies equally well to her, right?
muythaiguy wrote:You're trivializing Trump, or simply deflecting to Clinton.
Deflecting to Clinton? She's an animal all unto herself. The destruction of Libya is deflecting? The Clinton Foundation that is supposed to be tax exempt for the purposes of maintaining an archive only to become a global institution taking in billions upon billions and paying the Clinton's hundreds of millions of dollars is deflecting? The Asian Pivot during Clinton's Sec of State days is deflecting? Clinton's constant warmongering is deflecting? The destruction of Syria is deflecting? The 10's of thousands of people who have died and been maimed as a result of policies Clinton has supported or enacted is deflecting? Clinton's well documented support for the Iraq war is deflecting? Clinton's willingness to use NATO as a tool for beating other nations into submission is deflecting? Whitewater is deflecting?
These are all things that a thinking voter has to consider and all you got is "Trump is a bad person"? He's had to claim bankruptcy four times! So what? He's had over 500 business ventures. Having those four go belly up is pretty damn good! He's a billionaire! you say, I dunno how much money he has, no one does, but it ain't nearly as much as people think or he tries to let on. His brand is his wealth. It doesn't matter, whatever he has he earned it through the private sector like Steve Jobs, any hollywood actor or any other person that makes a fortune in the private sector. Clinton on the other hand, a lowly public servant, worth over $150 million cash. Pretty good considering she's never produces anything, never built a business or done shit in the private sector where the rest of us labor. Trump put other businesses out of business? Welcome to the real world where the marketplace definitely makes winners and losers! Try opening your own business, you'll be competing with other businesses. Those other businesses just might put you out of business unless you can beat them in the market like every other business and business man has to. It's called the private sector, it's a dog eat dog world to bring Ipads, Iphones, products, food, energy, entertainment and all the other widgets and do-hickies everyone wants.
How man people did Steve Jobs put out of business? How many people have been put out of business from government regulation, fees and costs? Are you going to cry for Blackberry nearly put out of business by the android and apple phones? Hell, just in Feb 2016 Blackberry laid off 35% of it's workforce. Are you going to throw away your Iphone in protest at the atrocity?
I don't know how Trump would do as President. However, I have a very good idea of exactly what a Hillary Presidency looks and I ain't too keen on that. Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter.
Micheal Moore, that sack of shit, recently wrote something titled- "5 Reasons why Trump will win" [the Presidency]. I'll even link his article. Reason number 5 of why he thinks Trump will beat Hillary (and believe me, that POS Moore doesn't want Trump to win but he has a point).
You should pay attention to that. You should try to understand that. More importantly, the US politicians best start getting on board and accept that the paradigm is shifting. For my part, I'd give a hearty chuckle if Trump wins the Presidency, not because I'm a fan of Trump. Not even because I think (know) that Hillary Clinton is an evil person. I'd like to see Trump win solely to see the apoplectic looks on the faces of Liberals and Conservatives alike. To watch the zombie "D" voters and the zombie "R" voters (the latter of which nearly catatonic because they find themselves in a catch 22, the ultimate OMF*) sputter and stammer in unbelieving fits of rage and cognitive dissonance. To watch the political pundits who think their shit doesn't stink and who think they know it all, stutter about how this all just came out of nowhere. To watch the rest of the world have a collective "OMFG!" moment (except Russia who will breathe a sigh of relief as they have hopes that with Trump they might be able to make mutually beneficial deals with the US for once).
In other words, I'd like to see Trump win just for the LULZ.
The ultimate troll move. A big middle finger to the US politicians, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Social Justice Warriors, the internet White Knights, the Political Correct Police, the Libtards, the Religious Right, Mexico (not because I have anything against Mexicans, but that they are trying to build their own wall to stop illegal immigrants from Central America from coming into Mexico, the fucking hypocrite shitheads!), NATO, Europe (who is long past due to quit sucking from America's teet while giving the US a wet handjob as they blindly walk lock step in US foreign policy even though the majority of the blowback is going to kill Europeans citizens, not US citizens you fucking puppets, make up your own minds and get Uncle Sam's arm out of your ass!), Saudi Arabia the beheading fucktards and all the other fuckhead, unnamed (for lack of space and time) groups of morons who slop down the propaganda from the two parties and somehow think there is a difference between the two. Everyone except the Libertarians because there are only like twelve of them in the whole fucking world and no one listens to them anyway.
Well, I bring up Trump's tendencies and point out his lies (of which, he's been particularly bad, so has Clinton, but that's being ignored because, rah rah Trump?), you deflect to Clinton. As do nearly all of his supporters, or a better term, fanatics.
Here's a bit from FactCheck; http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald ... -iraq-war/ The one statement from Trump even coming close to regarding Iraq, prior to invading, was that he did support it. Only after, does he say "we shouldn't have gone in". Trump lie number 1,562, or something around there.
Then there is this. Remember the fuss that was going on when big businesses were being given money to keep going, money from the taxpayers? Guess who is on that list. And guess how he compares to his "peers". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ot-richer/
If Clinton is evil, Trump is another kind. He's narcissistic, scheming, selfish, a profound liar, and idealizes people like Putin and Erdogan. Clinton is a career politician. Trump is a career autocrat.
muy_thaiguy wrote:Well, I bring up Trump's tendencies and point out his lies (of which, he's been particularly bad, so has Clinton, but that's being ignored because, rah rah Trump?), you deflect to Clinton. As do nearly all of his supporters, or a better term, fanatics.
Here's a bit from FactCheck; http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald ... -iraq-war/ The one statement from Trump even coming close to regarding Iraq, prior to invading, was that he did support it. Only after, does he say "we shouldn't have gone in". Trump lie number 1,562, or something around there.
Then there is this. Remember the fuss that was going on when big businesses were being given money to keep going, money from the taxpayers? Guess who is on that list. And guess how he compares to his "peers". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ot-richer/
If Clinton is evil, Trump is another kind. He's narcissistic, scheming, selfish, a profound liar, and idealizes people like Putin and Erdogan. Clinton is a career politician. Trump is a career autocrat.
While that may be true MTG (that Trump is an autocrat) and hillary a politician.... We've already had so many career politicians in office for the last 20 years or so, that I honestly almost wanted to vote for Trump to see if he's different. Yes hes a political nightmare. Fortunately the constitution limits political nightmares in the presidency. But even so It'd be nice to see something different. Someone that isn't going to be forced into the rules of the "game" played up there within two weeks just because they want to get elected. Heck I seriously considered it for a bit. Then I just went back to my original conclusion that nobody running right now is worth my vote.
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
