Two quick questions about that. Is heroine really one of the biggest drug problems in the midwest? And is it coming in from Mexico?
I'd always heard the big things right now were meth and painkillers, because the one is easily made here, and the other is easily prescribed.
Heroin is a legit big issue in Ohio, and it's skewing really young. I have a couple of friends with kids that became heroin addicts in high school (like, some of the nicest/wealthiest suburbs in the country, too) and have likely wrecked their whole lives already.
That being said, I have no doubt at all that Trump was speaking of a perceived heroine problem.
I read that as Michael Rosenbaum. Because yes, this all does sound a bit like a Lex Luthor plot.
My fellow Republicans, I, Donald Trump, your leader, will speak now about my, Donald Trump's, plan. My tremendous, tremendous plan. Question the plan at your peril... Any questions?
+8
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Heroin is a huge problem everywhere these days. The reasons for this are astoundingly complicated and nuanced. But, yeah, it's comin back in a big way.
Hopefully it brings grunge and flannel back with it.
As an aside, I can't fucking stand the Chicago-has-strict-gun-laws-but-they-don't-work! pro-gun argument. It's the best example the Republicans have and in actuality it's shit.
Chicago's high rates of gun violence have been well-documented. In 2014, there were 2,587 shooting victims in in the city, according to the Chicago Tribune. The New York City Police Department recorded 1,381 victims in the same time period, and New York has around three times as many people as Chicago.
But advocates for tougher restrictions say Trump's and Christie's arguments do not take into account two key features of the Chicago's gun landscape. The first is that, though it's hard to get a gun in Chicago, it's much easier to get one in the city's immediate vicinity. The second feature is the city's high level of gang activity, and that gangs are both adept at procuring guns illegally and prone to involvement in shooting incidents.
“I think that it's more likely that if Chicago did not have tough gun laws they would have higher rates of gun violence than they do have,” said Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab, leading its multi-city underground gun market study.
...
A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is "not regulated at all," he said. Chicago gangs often have connections to gangs in Gary, Indiana, and the two cities almost butt up against each other.
The study also found that 22 percent of the recovered guns came from parts of Cook County outside the city, where gun dealers and gun shows are legal.
The best counter-example is New York, which has stricter gun control state wide and - more importantly - where they put a lot of well-funded effort into enforcing their gun laws. And it works, NY's got an incredibly low shooting rate.
You can have strict gun laws all you want, but if no one's enforcing them or they're easily bypassed they don't do shit.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Two quick questions about that. Is heroine really one of the biggest drug problems in the midwest? And is it coming in from Mexico?
I'd always heard the big things right now were meth and painkillers, because the one is easily made here, and the other is easily prescribed.
Heroin is a legit big issue in Ohio, and it's skewing really young. I have a couple of friends with kids that became heroin addicts in high school (like, some of the nicest/wealthiest suburbs in the country, too) and have likely wrecked their whole lives already.
That being said, I have no doubt at all that Trump was speaking of a perceived heroine problem.
HeroinOpioid addition is a growing problem in the northeast as well, and the country at large, but it's not going to be solved by screaming "MEXICO!" while channeling William Shatner in Wrath of Khan.
I say opioids because a lot of people are seeking out heroin and black market alternatives because they start out getting addicted to prescription painkillers, and then when the doctor weans them off the prescription they go for more untoward means of acquiring similar drugs and end up using heroin or something like fentanyl, which is wildly more dangerous.
Two quick questions about that. Is heroine really one of the biggest drug problems in the midwest? And is it coming in from Mexico?
I'd always heard the big things right now were meth and painkillers, because the one is easily made here, and the other is easily prescribed.
Heroin is a legit big issue in Ohio, and it's skewing really young. I have a couple of friends with kids that became heroin addicts in high school (like, some of the nicest/wealthiest suburbs in the country, too) and have likely wrecked their whole lives already.
That being said, I have no doubt at all that Trump was speaking of a perceived heroine problem.
Heroin is a growing problem in the northeast as well, and the country at large, but it's not going to be solved by screaming "MEXICO!" while channeling William Shatner in Wrath of Khan.
Captain Kirk '16. He gets shit done, and has a massive starship.
I skipped ahead so it may have been discussed. There's an anti-Hillary ad running on YT. I'm a bit surprised that YouTube/Google is letting political ads run. I was hoping they'd stay agnostic. I know you'll all say, "money is money"
I've seen ads for and against each Presidential candidate since YouTube existed. I don't think this is an issue.
Donald Trump is taking a different approach. He summons his informal band of counselors — including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, talk-radio host Laura Ingraham and ousted Fox News Channel chairman Roger Ailes — to his New Jersey golf course for Sunday chats. Over bacon cheeseburgers, hot dogs and glasses of Coca-Cola, they test out zingers and chew over ways to refine the Republican nominee’s pitch.
Trump’s aides have put together briefing books, not that the candidate is devoting much time to reading them. Trump is not holding any mock debates, proudly boasting that a performer with his talents does not need that sort of prepping. Should Trump submit to traditional rehearsals, some associates are talking about casting Ingraham, an adversarial chronicler of Clinton scandals, to play the Democratic nominee.
“Donald Trump is the unpredictable X-factor and Hillary Clinton is the scripted statist,” said Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s new campaign manager, in an interview. “I fully understand why Team Clinton feels the need to drown her in briefing books and Hollywood consulting.”
“Not only does he want 100 million viewers, he wants to be a showstopper at the Roman Colosseum, the main event at WrestleMania,” said Sam Nunberg, a former adviser who helped the billionaire chart his White House run. “He’s going to love this, eat it up and take her on. For Hillary to go in and think she’ll be professional and wonky, or give a long lecture, that’ll play against her.”
You don't go into the Roman Colosseum as a participant without tons of training unless it is completely rigged against your opponent or you are the victim about to be killed by wild beasts.
+30
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
That is unbelievably naive. Like, "oh I'm such a naturally gifted boxer I don't need to train for this title fight!"
Meanwhile your opponent is sparring with someone who matches your style and is training 8 hours a day to rearrange your cranial topography.
Nothing makes me happier than hearing Trump skip over mock debates in favor of thinking up zingers and pumping himself up with bravado about how he will just stroll in there and win through sheer presence.
If I were part of the Clinton team I would be smiling from ear to ear.
That is unbelievably naive. Like, "oh I'm such a naturally gifted boxer I don't need to train for this title fight!"
Meanwhile your opponent is sparring with someone who matches your style and is training 8 hours a day to rearrange your cranial topography.
I mean if your only interest is taking the fight in order to get paid and you don't actually care if you win or lose (and you're ready and willing to make all possible excuses for why you lost) it makes perfect sense. Trump does not care if he's president, and given the choice probably wouldn't want it. He's in this for publicity and money, and that's it.
Nothing makes me happier than hearing Trump skip over mock debates in favor of thinking up zingers and pumping himself up with bravado about how he will just stroll in there and win through sheer presence.
If I were part of the Clinton team I would be smiling from ear to ear.
And then I would go back to practicing. Because you want to beat Donald Trump so badly the ref calls a stop to the fight. Not win on points.
Donald Trump is taking a different approach. He summons his informal band of counselors — including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, talk-radio host Laura Ingraham and ousted Fox News Channel chairman Roger Ailes — to his New Jersey golf course for Sunday chats. Over bacon cheeseburgers, hot dogs and glasses of Coca-Cola, they test out zingers and chew over ways to refine the Republican nominee’s pitch.
Trump’s aides have put together briefing books, not that the candidate is devoting much time to reading them. Trump is not holding any mock debates, proudly boasting that a performer with his talents does not need that sort of prepping. Should Trump submit to traditional rehearsals, some associates are talking about casting Ingraham, an adversarial chronicler of Clinton scandals, to play the Democratic nominee.
“Donald Trump is the unpredictable X-factor and Hillary Clinton is the scripted statist,” said Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s new campaign manager, in an interview. “I fully understand why Team Clinton feels the need to drown her in briefing books and Hollywood consulting.”
“Not only does he want 100 million viewers, he wants to be a showstopper at the Roman Colosseum, the main event at WrestleMania,” said Sam Nunberg, a former adviser who helped the billionaire chart his White House run. “He’s going to love this, eat it up and take her on. For Hillary to go in and think she’ll be professional and wonky, or give a long lecture, that’ll play against her.”
You don't go into the Roman Colosseum as a participant without tons of training unless it is completely rigged against your opponent or you are the victim about to be killed by wild beasts.
It might be for the benefit of his team to not hold debate prep. For debate prep or any sort of practice to be useful you have to try to do a good job, really give a challenge to the person you're trying to prepare, and land some punches. I don't know if Trump can handle that. Feeding him lines around the table could be their best option.
Hmmm, how to analogize the Hillary v Trump debates?
Ok, Donald Trump is E. Honda.
He's won all his fights at the arcade by mashing the same button against random kids. Why learn other moves when mashing punch and slapping "punk biotches" worked so well?
So now he's against Hillary, a pro player that plays a Ryu and can do all the technical reversals, goes between jabs and strong hits like this.
Nothing makes me happier than hearing Trump skip over mock debates in favor of thinking up zingers and pumping himself up with bravado about how he will just stroll in there and win through sheer presence.
If I were part of the Clinton team I would be smiling from ear to ear.
Maybe before going "crap, now how do we lower expectations?"
The number of candidates in the primary meant nobody had enough time to make a strong impression except Trump, who could just talk shit to everyone who shit-talked him.
The reason Trump "won" those debates is because the GOP opponents couldn't counter him on his worst offenses, especially on immigration.
Anti-immigration is a huge part of the right wing elements of the GOP. So all Trump had to do was go as far right as possible, no matter how offensive, and there was nothing JEB, Cruz, Rubio, or any of the others could do about it. If they said Trump went too far, they'd lose support. If they tried to attack Trump, he'd pounce on them.
Also, the fact that there were 17 fucking candidates. Trump never won more than a plurality in the 30ish% of the primary voters until the very end when it was just him v Ted "Could be Murdered on the Senate Floor" Cruz. If the GOP had managed to control their members, Trump would have been stomped out easily by a GOP opponent the rest of the 70% could rally behind.
None of this applies to Hillary, who can attack him directly without losing her base.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Nothing makes me happier than hearing Trump skip over mock debates in favor of thinking up zingers and pumping himself up with bravado about how he will just stroll in there and win through sheer presence.
If I were part of the Clinton team I would be smiling from ear to ear.
Maybe before going "crap, now how do we lower expectations?"
Or maybe they are trying to keep expectations for Trump high?
If Hillary beats him like a rented mule and everybody comes in expecting him to be beaten like a rented mule, that's no victory for Hillary. Hell, Trump could "Win" by not being an absolute failure.
If everybody expects Trump to be tough and a good fight, then Hillary beats him like a rented mule, that's a win.
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it.
...
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.
This is like if Cat Fancy endorsed for dogcatcher.
Nothing makes me happier than hearing Trump skip over mock debates in favor of thinking up zingers and pumping himself up with bravado about how he will just stroll in there and win through sheer presence.
If I were part of the Clinton team I would be smiling from ear to ear.
Maybe before going "crap, now how do we lower expectations?"
Or maybe they are trying to keep expectations for Trump high?
If Hillary beats him like a rented mule and everybody comes in expecting him to be beaten like a rented mule, that's no victory for Hillary. Hell, Trump could "Win" by not being an absolute failure.
If everybody expects Trump to be tough and a good fight, then Hillary beats him like a rented mule, that's a win.
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it.
...
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.
This is like if Cat Fancy endorsed for dogcatcher.
Treibel has been buying Trump and Sanders campaign merchandise in bulk—stickers, buttons, and the like—and reselling it through his retail company on Amazon.com at a considerable markup. A Trump sign that costs $10 on his campaign website, for example, will sell for $35 on Amazon, he told me in a phone interview.
“People will buy it,” Treibel said. “Amazon customers generally are affluent and irrational and they just want it quick.”
The FEC only requires that campaigns refund excess contributions after they are given; it doesn’t force them to reject them in the first place. This loophole allows Treibel to make an even bigger killing than he imagined. Although he shelled out nearly $25,000 for the merchandise initially, he will get all but $8,100 back in refunds from the campaigns. (Though both the Trump and Sanders campaigns have reported issuing thousands of dollars in refunds to Treibel, he said he’s only received a partial one from Trump and nothing from Sanders.)
Treibel said he didn’t even know that buying the goods counted as a donation and acknowledged that with the refunds, “essentially we’d be getting free stuff, which is a little bit awkward.”
For their part, the campaigns appear too busy trying to keep up with their donations and refunds to demand that he return any merchandise. Neither would comment on Treibel’s profiteering. The Trump campaign, however, eventually caught on to what Treibel was doing. He said he received a call on Thursday from a marketing representative for the campaign who, while thanking him for his support, informed him that merchandise would now be sold only by a super PAC supporting Trump. Unlike the campaigns themselves, super PACs can accept unlimited donations, so it would not have to send Treibel any refunds for the merchandise he purchases.
Ever the businessman, he is now trying to collect the refunds that he says he never received from the Sanders campaign. The Trump merchandise is still selling well, he said, but because Sanders is no longer in the race, sales of his merchandise have slowed and he is relying on the refunds to make a profit on those items.
Treibel said his motive was purely profit, not politics, although he did acknowledge that he sold Sanders merchandise for lower prices as a small act of favoritism. But why didn’t he bother to buy up Hillary Clinton stickers and signs?
“That stuff just doesn’t sell,” he said. “Nobody buys it.”
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it.
...
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.
This is like if Cat Fancy endorsed for dogcatcher.
I dont understand this post?
Scientific American ran (or will run, in their print edition) an editorial saying that Trump is dangerous because of how rabidly anti-science he is. This is not a publication with any history of taking sides politically, outside of specific issues. Definitely not on the Presidential stage.
Trump is so scary to them that they're all but endorsing Clinton.
Treibel has been buying Trump and Sanders campaign merchandise in bulk—stickers, buttons, and the like—and reselling it through his retail company on Amazon.com at a considerable markup. A Trump sign that costs $10 on his campaign website, for example, will sell for $35 on Amazon, he told me in a phone interview.
“People will buy it,” Treibel said. “Amazon customers generally are affluent and irrational and they just want it quick.”
The FEC only requires that campaigns refund excess contributions after they are given; it doesn’t force them to reject them in the first place. This loophole allows Treibel to make an even bigger killing than he imagined. Although he shelled out nearly $25,000 for the merchandise initially, he will get all but $8,100 back in refunds from the campaigns. (Though both the Trump and Sanders campaigns have reported issuing thousands of dollars in refunds to Treibel, he said he’s only received a partial one from Trump and nothing from Sanders.)
Treibel said he didn’t even know that buying the goods counted as a donation and acknowledged that with the refunds, “essentially we’d be getting free stuff, which is a little bit awkward.”
For their part, the campaigns appear too busy trying to keep up with their donations and refunds to demand that he return any merchandise. Neither would comment on Treibel’s profiteering. The Trump campaign, however, eventually caught on to what Treibel was doing. He said he received a call on Thursday from a marketing representative for the campaign who, while thanking him for his support, informed him that merchandise would now be sold only by a super PAC supporting Trump. Unlike the campaigns themselves, super PACs can accept unlimited donations, so it would not have to send Treibel any refunds for the merchandise he purchases.
Ever the businessman, he is now trying to collect the refunds that he says he never received from the Sanders campaign. The Trump merchandise is still selling well, he said, but because Sanders is no longer in the race, sales of his merchandise have slowed and he is relying on the refunds to make a profit on those items.
Treibel said his motive was purely profit, not politics, although he did acknowledge that he sold Sanders merchandise for lower prices as a small act of favoritism. But why didn’t he bother to buy up Hillary Clinton stickers and signs?
“That stuff just doesn’t sell,” he said. “Nobody buys it.”
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it.
...
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.
This is like if Cat Fancy endorsed for dogcatcher.
I dont understand this post?
Scientific American ran (or will run, in their print edition) an editorial saying that Trump is dangerous because of how rabidly anti-science he is. This is not a publication with any history of taking sides politically, outside of specific issues. Definitely not on the Presidential stage.
Trump is so scary to them that they're all but endorsing Clinton.
No, no, I got that part. I guess I didn't understand the stinger you added.
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it.
...
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.
This is like if Cat Fancy endorsed for dogcatcher.
I dont understand this post?
Scientific American ran (or will run, in their print edition) an editorial saying that Trump is dangerous because of how rabidly anti-science he is. This is not a publication with any history of taking sides politically, outside of specific issues. Definitely not on the Presidential stage.
Trump is so scary to them that they're all but endorsing Clinton.
No, no, I got that part. I guess I didn't understand the stinger you added.
It's a non-political magazine getting political because the staff feels like they need to. There's really not more to it than that.
Can someone explain to me what's wrong with these (newspaper) tweets about the shooting? Idgi
They're giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and saying he's 1) "speaking out" or 2) "appealing to black voters" when he's just spewing racist trash while trying to cravenly capitalize on a woman's death.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+19
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Posts
Heroin is a legit big issue in Ohio, and it's skewing really young. I have a couple of friends with kids that became heroin addicts in high school (like, some of the nicest/wealthiest suburbs in the country, too) and have likely wrecked their whole lives already.
That being said, I have no doubt at all that Trump was speaking of a perceived heroine problem.
My fellow Republicans, I, Donald Trump, your leader, will speak now about my, Donald Trump's, plan. My tremendous, tremendous plan. Question the plan at your peril... Any questions?
Hopefully it brings grunge and flannel back with it.
The best counter-example is New York, which has stricter gun control state wide and - more importantly - where they put a lot of well-funded effort into enforcing their gun laws. And it works, NY's got an incredibly low shooting rate.
You can have strict gun laws all you want, but if no one's enforcing them or they're easily bypassed they don't do shit.
And it's worth remembering that the apple didn't fall far from the tree:
HeroinOpioid addition is a growing problem in the northeast as well, and the country at large, but it's not going to be solved by screaming "MEXICO!" while channeling William Shatner in Wrath of Khan.
I say opioids because a lot of people are seeking out heroin and black market alternatives because they start out getting addicted to prescription painkillers, and then when the doctor weans them off the prescription they go for more untoward means of acquiring similar drugs and end up using heroin or something like fentanyl, which is wildly more dangerous.
Captain Kirk '16. He gets shit done, and has a massive starship.
You don't go into the Roman Colosseum as a participant without tons of training unless it is completely rigged against your opponent or you are the victim about to be killed by wild beasts.
Meanwhile your opponent is sparring with someone who matches your style and is training 8 hours a day to rearrange your cranial topography.
If I were part of the Clinton team I would be smiling from ear to ear.
I mean if your only interest is taking the fight in order to get paid and you don't actually care if you win or lose (and you're ready and willing to make all possible excuses for why you lost) it makes perfect sense. Trump does not care if he's president, and given the choice probably wouldn't want it. He's in this for publicity and money, and that's it.
And then I would go back to practicing. Because you want to beat Donald Trump so badly the ref calls a stop to the fight. Not win on points.
It might be for the benefit of his team to not hold debate prep. For debate prep or any sort of practice to be useful you have to try to do a good job, really give a challenge to the person you're trying to prepare, and land some punches. I don't know if Trump can handle that. Feeding him lines around the table could be their best option.
~Smoke weed er'ryday~
BAH GAWD! That's Gary Johnson's music!
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Maybe, but even if it weren't, a wall won't fix it (autoplay video)
Fixed to better fit this election.
Ok, Donald Trump is E. Honda.
He's won all his fights at the arcade by mashing the same button against random kids. Why learn other moves when mashing punch and slapping "punk biotches" worked so well?
So now he's against Hillary, a pro player that plays a Ryu and can do all the technical reversals, goes between jabs and strong hits like this.
Hillary's been doing this her whole life and spends months preparing for the match.
So Hillary smashes Trump in round one. Does he continue?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Maybe before going "crap, now how do we lower expectations?"
Press secretary for HillaryClinton for America
He let them thrash each other, then went to rallies and made fun of all of them after the fact.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The reason Trump "won" those debates is because the GOP opponents couldn't counter him on his worst offenses, especially on immigration.
Anti-immigration is a huge part of the right wing elements of the GOP. So all Trump had to do was go as far right as possible, no matter how offensive, and there was nothing JEB, Cruz, Rubio, or any of the others could do about it. If they said Trump went too far, they'd lose support. If they tried to attack Trump, he'd pounce on them.
Also, the fact that there were 17 fucking candidates. Trump never won more than a plurality in the 30ish% of the primary voters until the very end when it was just him v Ted "Could be Murdered on the Senate Floor" Cruz. If the GOP had managed to control their members, Trump would have been stomped out easily by a GOP opponent the rest of the 70% could rally behind.
None of this applies to Hillary, who can attack him directly without losing her base.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Or maybe they are trying to keep expectations for Trump high?
If Hillary beats him like a rented mule and everybody comes in expecting him to be beaten like a rented mule, that's no victory for Hillary. Hell, Trump could "Win" by not being an absolute failure.
If everybody expects Trump to be tough and a good fight, then Hillary beats him like a rented mule, that's a win.
This is like if Cat Fancy endorsed for dogcatcher.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
cf Bartlet's reelection debate in West Wing.
I dont understand this post?
The AP continues to throw away its credibility.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/how-one-donor-is-profiting-off-the-trump-and-sanders-campaigns/497501/ I am surprised that is legal.
Could be vastly worse.
Scientific American ran (or will run, in their print edition) an editorial saying that Trump is dangerous because of how rabidly anti-science he is. This is not a publication with any history of taking sides politically, outside of specific issues. Definitely not on the Presidential stage.
Trump is so scary to them that they're all but endorsing Clinton.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Christ, just blow up the fucking press (metaphorically).
Forensics win or media win?
No, no, I got that part. I guess I didn't understand the stinger you added.
It's a non-political magazine getting political because the staff feels like they need to. There's really not more to it than that.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They're giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and saying he's 1) "speaking out" or 2) "appealing to black voters" when he's just spewing racist trash while trying to cravenly capitalize on a woman's death.
AP removed all mention of Donald's foot-chewing from their article too, which is I guess what some people wanted I dunno?
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky