I was right: President Elect Trump

[djAdvocate]

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 12, 2016 12:29:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

National news programs have been taken up with the Dallas shootings and civil unrest. All Trump has to do is keep his mouth shut and look presidential - in times when people think we need more law and order, Republicans generally get more votes.

Sanders finally publically came out in support of Hillary. Only about 30% of the young vote that previously went with Sanders has come out for Hillary - still about 40% of them say they're either not voting at all or they're voting third party. It will be interesting to see, now that Sanders did his public declaration, if any of that youth vote shifts to Hillary.

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

were you in a coma in 2008?  if not, try to remember the fight between Obama and Clinton, please.

[Ombud]

I'm looking for that unicorn that discusses politicians values / records not appearances.

I want a 3rd alternative

Don't get that either

[djAdvocate]

Jul 12, 2016 15:55:25 GMT -5 Ombud said:

I'm looking for that unicorn that discusses politicians values / records not appearances.

I want a 3rd alternative

Don't get that either

have you considered Johnson?

[billisonboard]

Jul 12, 2016 16:08:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 12, 2016 15:55:25 GMT -5 Ombud said:

I'm looking for that unicorn that discusses politicians values / records not appearances.

I want a 3rd alternative

Don't get that either

have you considered Johnson?

Or Jill Stein

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 12, 2016 15:17:12 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Trump bashed everyone in the debates. Had nasty names for them. Now Christy, Dr Carson and who else is kissing up to him. 

My point exactly.

Jul 12, 2016 15:42:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

were you in a coma in 2008?  if not, try to remember the fight between Obama and Clinton, please.

So another vote for "No. Principled politicians really don't exist here.", I take it?

[Tennesseer]

Jul 12, 2016 14:23:37 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

He doesn't look or act presidential. In his latest speech he read someone else's words and managed to not say anything of his own or we would have heard the hate he spews. "I'm the law and order candidate."  

Barney Fife was all about law and order too.

[Value Buy]

Jul 12, 2016 11:49:54 GMT -5 Ombud said:

I'm a RAT. So are most of the people I know. Some are going to Mexico, others to Costa Rico. I'd go to Canada (better weather) but DS just said he can telecommute from Costa Rico.

Reasons I don't like Trump. He:
1. Forgot to learn civics
2. The 'King of Debt' couldn't care less about the small business owner when he declared bankruptcy to avoid paying them
3. Reminds me of a little boy who threw multiple temper tantrums when he dn get his way
4. Objectifying women

don't worry.
Trump will make America great again, and you will be full time employed in the job of your dreams by next spring!

[Value Buy]

Jul 12, 2016 11:54:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 12, 2016 7:15:01 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Latest polls showing Trump closing the gap in polls.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Clinton has held a 4.5% lead for the last (4) weeks.  it has neither increased nor decreased.

is there a poll that i missed, VB?

Not really because you like to average the whole ball of wax.
I take them as they come.
Survey Monkey
Hillary only 3 points ahead now.

[Value Buy]

Jul 11, 2016 18:14:47 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Clankety-clank train in France.

Yes, and Italy has to learn not to run two of them on the same line coming straight at each other.

[Value Buy]

Jul 12, 2016 15:17:12 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Trump bashed everyone in the debates. Had nasty names for them. Now Christy, Dr Carson and who else is kissing up to him. 

Well there is a retired General and Governor Pence from Indiana in the running.
He never railroaded either one of them

[Value Buy]

Jul 11, 2016 19:54:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dj, you have to help me out here.
What are you saying?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 12, 2016 18:31:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jul 11, 2016 19:54:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dj, you have to help me out here.
What are you saying?

A search on the image reveals that it's a depiction of an ancient Japanese sushi market.

DJ has truly outdone himself on the nonsequitometer.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 12, 2016 12:29:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

National news programs have been taken up with the Dallas shootings and civil unrest. All Trump has to do is keep his mouth shut and look presidential - in times when people think we need more law and order, Republicans generally get more votes.

Sanders finally publically came out in support of Hillary. Only about 30% of the young vote that previously went with Sanders has come out for Hillary - still about 40% of them say they're either not voting at all or they're voting third party. It will be interesting to see, now that Sanders did his public declaration, if any of that youth vote shifts to Hillary.

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

Cory Booker would be a good VP pick.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 12, 2016 20:00:17 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

Cory Booker would be a good VP pick.

The Daily Beast hates him.

He apparently tried to balance a budget.

I like him already.

[Opti]

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 12, 2016 12:29:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

National news programs have been taken up with the Dallas shootings and civil unrest. All Trump has to do is keep his mouth shut and look presidential - in times when people think we need more law and order, Republicans generally get more votes.

Sanders finally publically came out in support of Hillary. Only about 30% of the young vote that previously went with Sanders has come out for Hillary - still about 40% of them say they're either not voting at all or they're voting third party. It will be interesting to see, now that Sanders did his public declaration, if any of that youth vote shifts to Hillary.

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

Sanders is endorsing her in part to make sure his stuff stays on the party platform. If Bernie didn't endorse her, did not work with the party, his causes do not become national. If he really believes in higher minimum wages, cheaper college, etc. his best way to make that happen is endorse Clinton and work with the party.

Do you understand how politics works? What you wrote shows you might not. You are basically saying the equivalent of a husband or wife should fully stand their ground and never compromise. How would that work in RL? Unless you are a dictator, and even then, you aren't going to get your way all the time. A smart person learns how to negotiate and sometimes yes get what they can instead of zippo nada. Because what good are your principles if you do nothing to realize them?

<soapbox off... for now. >

[djAdvocate]

Jul 12, 2016 19:40:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 12, 2016 18:31:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

dj, you have to help me out here.
What are you saying?

A search on the image reveals that it's a depiction of an ancient Japanese sushi market.

DJ has truly outdone himself on the nonsequitometer.

Shogun Era, to be precise.  are you familiar with it?  it was an era marked by profound isolationism. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 12, 2016 20:25:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

Sanders is endorsing her in part to make sure his stuff stays on the party platform. If Bernie didn't endorse her, did not work with the party, his causes do not become national. If he really believes in higher minimum wages, cheaper college, etc. his best way to make that happen is endorse Clinton and work with the party.

Do you understand how politics works? What you wrote shows you might not. You are basically saying the equivalent of a husband or wife should fully stand their ground and never compromise. How would that work in RL? Unless you are a dictator, and even then, you aren't going to get your way all the time. A smart person learns how to negotiate and sometimes yes get what they can instead of zippo nada. Because what good are your principles if you do nothing to realize them?

<soapbox off... for now. >

A man with Bernie Sanders' principles and values should never be married to a woman with Hillary Clinton's principles and values.

There's compromise for sake of party unity, and then there's making a deal with the Devil. There's flexibility and there's selling out. The man is sacrificing far too much. He's undermining quite literally everything that made him a worthy candidate in order to toe the party line.

May a snow leopard eat him. I hope he chokes on his endorsement every bit as much as the Republican field chokes on their falling into line behind Mr. Trump in a desperate bid to stay relevant.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 12, 2016 11:54:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 12, 2016 7:15:01 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Latest polls showing Trump closing the gap in polls.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Clinton has held a 4.5% lead for the last (4) weeks.  it has neither increased nor decreased.

is there a poll that i missed, VB?

Dead heat. Democrats lose dead heats.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 12, 2016 21:05:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 12, 2016 19:40:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

A search on the image reveals that it's a depiction of an ancient Japanese sushi market.

DJ has truly outdone himself on the nonsequitometer.

Shogun Era, to be precise.  are you familiar with it?  it was an era marked by profound isolationism. 

No need to explain.

I actually looked up the image again and came across the following captioned version:



So, pretty obvious in retrospect.

Sorry.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Trump is now leading in Iowa. 44% -42% -- but get this: with younger voters Trump 51% - Hillary 32%. Now, you can take that for what it's worth- younger voters are notoriously unreliable. The point is that's not supposed to happen. Democrats own the young, right?

Then there's Trump's lead in Florida-- Trump 47% - Hillary 42%- the bonus here is that Trump has a YUGE lead with Hispanic voters- 49% to 36%.

Then you've got this weird story out of Wisconsin where it appears House Speaker Paul Ryan is losing support-- still appears to be safe - 43% to 32%, but with 25% "undecided" whoa...Eric Cantor comes to mind.

The unseen wave is still building-- but now, we're even seeing hints of it on the surface. Hillary has had a very, very tough couple of weeks. The country is in no mood for lectures on systemic racism in policing (e.g. -- "they had it coming").  Wait until that starts showing up in the polls...

And for those of you still thinking Trump = Goldwater; you might want to start thinking Trump = Nixon. Yeah, yeah- that's not the point. The point is that Nixon won in a landslide...

[tallguy]

I AM LAW THE AND ORDER CANDIDATE.

What was I saying about obsequious sycophants who can't construct a coherent sentence?    

[billisonboard]

Jul 12, 2016 22:47:45 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... The point is that Nixon won in a landslide...
...

The election on November 5, 1968, proved to be extremely close, and it was not until the following morning that the television news networks were able to call Nixon the winner. The key states proved to be California, Ohio, and Illinois, all of which Nixon won by three percentage points or less. Had Humphrey carried all three of these states, he would have won the election. Had Humphrey carried any two of them, or California alone, George Wallace would have succeeded in his aim of preventing an electoral college majority for any candidate, and the decision would have been given to the House of Representatives, at the time controlled by the Democratic Party. Nixon won the popular vote with a plurality of 512,000 votes, or a victory margin of about one percentage point. In the electoral college Nixon's victory was larger, as he carried 32 states with 301 electoral votes, to Humphrey's 13 states and 191 electoral votes and Wallace's five states and 46 electoral votes. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

[weltschmerz]

Jul 12, 2016 22:47:45 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Trump is now leading in Iowa. 44% -42% -- but get this: with younger voters Trump 51% - Hillary 32%. Now, you can take that for what it's worth- younger voters are notoriously unreliable. The point is that's not supposed to happen. Democrats own the young, right?

Then there's Trump's lead in Florida-- Trump 47% - Hillary 42%- the bonus here is that Trump has a YUGE lead with Hispanic voters- 49% to 36%.

Then you've got this weird story out of Wisconsin where it appears House Speaker Paul Ryan is losing support-- still appears to be safe - 43% to 32%, but with 25% "undecided" whoa...Eric Cantor comes to mind.

The unseen wave is still building-- but now, we're even seeing hints of it on the surface. Hillary has had a very, very tough couple of weeks. The country is in no mood for lectures on systemic racism in policing (e.g. -- "they had it coming").  Wait until that starts showing up in the polls...

And for those of you still thinking Trump = Goldwater; you might want to start thinking Trump = Nixon. Yeah, yeah- that's not the point. The point is that Nixon won in a landslide...

Rolling on floor the laughing ass my off!

[Ombud]

Jul 12, 2016 16:08:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 12, 2016 15:55:25 GMT -5 Ombud said:

I'm looking for that unicorn that discusses politicians values / records not appearances.

I want a 3rd alternative

Don't get that either

have you considered Johnson?

Although I like the socially responsible / fiscally conservative stance, the Libertarian Party advocates abolishing the IRS and I believe a national income tax system is necessary to fund those gov't programs / services / infrastructure
www.lp.org/how-do-libertarians-republicans-and-democrats-differ

[Opti]

Youth vote,

Notably, Trump is beating Clinton with voters younger than 50, 51% to 32%, while Clinton is winning with Iowa voters aged 50 and older, 50% to 38%.

www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-iowa-poll/

Those horribly unreliable 49 year olds, etc.

[Deleted]

And Bernie almost won Iowa and he certainly had the youth vote. Im not saying they will all make their way over, but honestly I just think it's way too early to be completely confident in any polls. 

[happyhoix]

Jul 12, 2016 22:47:45 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Trump is now leading in Iowa. 44% -42% -- but get this: with younger voters Trump 51% - Hillary 32%. Now, you can take that for what it's worth- younger voters are notoriously unreliable. The point is that's not supposed to happen. Democrats own the young, right?

Then there's Trump's lead in Florida-- Trump 47% - Hillary 42%- the bonus here is that Trump has a YUGE lead with Hispanic voters- 49% to 36%.

Then you've got this weird story out of Wisconsin where it appears House Speaker Paul Ryan is losing support-- still appears to be safe - 43% to 32%, but with 25% "undecided" whoa...Eric Cantor comes to mind.

The unseen wave is still building-- but now, we're even seeing hints of it on the surface. Hillary has had a very, very tough couple of weeks. The country is in no mood for lectures on systemic racism in policing (e.g. -- "they had it coming").  Wait until that starts showing up in the polls...

And for those of you still thinking Trump = Goldwater; you might want to start thinking Trump = Nixon. Yeah, yeah- that's not the point. The point is that Nixon won in a landslide...

Geez, the same staff members who thought the star of David anti-Hillary poster was awesome have struck again - Trump needs to spend some money to get some staff who know how to proof read.

Plus who thought that picture of him is flattering? He looks like a constipated man trying to take a crap.

[Virgil Showlion]

I refuse to believe that's an official banner. Somebody would have noticed a mistake that obvious.

Plus, I thought it was illegal to use the Seal of the POTUS, even if Mr. Trump's image is largely obscuring it.

[happyhoix]

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 12, 2016 12:29:00 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

National news programs have been taken up with the Dallas shootings and civil unrest. All Trump has to do is keep his mouth shut and look presidential - in times when people think we need more law and order, Republicans generally get more votes.

Sanders finally publically came out in support of Hillary. Only about 30% of the young vote that previously went with Sanders has come out for Hillary - still about 40% of them say they're either not voting at all or they're voting third party. It will be interesting to see, now that Sanders did his public declaration, if any of that youth vote shifts to Hillary.

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

How is this different from countries with multiple parties that cobble together unholy alliances in order to garner enough votes to be a majority voting block? Italy comes to mind.

Only difference with a two party system is, most of the 'flavors' of the dems or GOP usually fall in line behind the party nominee. Bernie knows his motivated block of young adult voters could make or break Clinton's candidacy, so he held out for some progressive planks on the platform that he really wanted before he made a public commitment to Hillary. Even now, after he's endorsed her, he's still refusing to turn over all the millions of names of people that donated money to him, preventing her from appealing to them directly.

He might have finally, and grudgingly, gotten behind her, but only because the prospect of a Trump presidency is worse than a Hillary presidency to him.

What's interesting about this election season is the number of GOP heavyweights who have failed to fall in line behind Trump. Usually, the party members eventually toe the line, or at least shut up about it.

 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 13, 2016 7:09:15 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 12, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sen. Sanders' endorsing Ms. Clinton is totally incomprehensible to me. I don't see how any self-respecting man can sit on nearly everything he believes in to endorse a candidate whose policies he and his supporters clearly hold in contempt.

It boggles the mind. Your two-party system simply boggles the mind.

I read somewhere last week that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being considered for Ms. Clinton's VP pick. What the sweet snowy leopard is that!? It was only the beginning of this year that Sen. Warren was swearing on a stack she wanted nothing to do with Ms. Clinton and her policies, and now she's cozying up to be VP!?

Is there so much as one politician down there that actually holds to his/her principles, or does every last one of them sell out faster than a $5.00 blender at Walmart when it becomes even slightly politically expedient to do so?

How is this different from countries with multiple parties that cobble together unholy alliances in order to garner enough votes to be a majority voting block? Italy comes to mind.

Only difference with a two party system is, most of the 'flavors' of the dems or GOP usually fall in line behind the party nominee. Bernie knows his motivated block of young adult voters could make or break Clinton's candidacy, so he held out for some progressive planks on the platform that he really wanted before he made a public commitment to Hillary. Even now, after he's endorsed her, he's still refusing to turn over all the millions of names of people that donated money to him, preventing her from appealing to them directly.

He might have finally, and grudgingly, gotten behind her, but only because the prospect of a Trump presidency is worse than a Hillary presidency to him.

What's interesting about this election season is the number of GOP heavyweights who have failed to fall in line behind Trump. Usually, the party members eventually toe the line, or at least shut up about it.

Good for the GOP heavyweights, then.

And for the record, I'm no fan of unholy alliances between minority parties, although there at least you get some reasonable degree of overlap between political ideologies.