The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

The Last Presidential Election Thread You Will Ever Wear

24567100

Posts

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    Say what you will about superdelegates

    it would've stopped Trump

    Nah. If the party reverses the voters like that, they're throwing away the general election. And everyone knows it, and the Republicans certainly don't have the balls to do it. If they had superdelegates, they'd have fallen in behind Trump. The same people that would have been "superdelegates" are doing it right now!

  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Blight on Discourse Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The worst part is that neither Sanders nor Hillary can hit the magic number on pledged delegates alone.

    Sanders could get 100% of the remaining delegates and he'd still not have the number. Hillary would need about 80% to hit the number, and I doubt she's getting that. Sanders would need about 70% of the remaining delegates to barely get the pledged delegate lead, and I highly doubt he accomplishes that today.

    Essentially the supers are deciding this no matter what, and if they all side with the pledged delegate lead and/or the popular vote it's most likely Clinton's game.

    Sander's only path is a truly astounding and unexpected performance today and/or to subvert the will of the voters, by somehow mystically convincing all the people he called corrupt corporate shills to back him.

    Seems weird to apply pledged only numbers to the half of all delegates, assuming that's your magic number. Wouldn't you have to be crushing your opponent to win on that alone?

    I'm happy to use half of pledged only as the standard bench mark, and a candidate should be crossing that threshold tonight.

    Yes you would have to be crushing them to win on that alone, but that doesn't really matter to the current Sanders narrative that they still have a chance in this race.

    This is an actual quote from a friend that used to seem like a normal person wrt why she knows Hillary rigged the vote:
    I'll believe Hillary is winning when I see her pull a rally of 60k. I'll believe it when I see her favorability ratings indicating that people don't straight up dislike her. I'll believe it when I see her supporters greet each other on the sidewalk with spontaneous cheers. I'll believe it when I see her canvassers actually volunteering, and not doing it because they're paid. I'll believe it when I see people stand up to speak about how her candidacy has moved them so deeply it's changed their lives, with tears in their eyes. I'll believe it when online polls give her more than 20%. I'll believe it when she actually stands up and says some straight, clear sentences explaining what she actually believes, as if she genuinely gives a shit.

    And not a fucking second sooner.

    These people do not understand reason and will never believe that the vote wasn't rigged thanks to Bernie's rhetoric. Yugely disappointed in him. :(

    I could post articles, links, and youtube videos meeting every single one of those requirements. I have a feeling though, that even if I did, it would not help your case :(

    Oh I have already. Doggedly. I figure somebody in the bleachers might see it.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    Jeffrey Lord, Trump surrogate, also plays the conservative/neoliberal favorite on CNN in response to Ryan: Recognizing that racism exists and dividing people by talking about racial issues makes you the real racist.

    It's the same atavistic, infantile, reflexive, brain-dead and smug propaganda that the Serious and Educated anti-left has been serving up for years. But now it has a spray-tan and ugly hair and that just ruins the illusion of good faith and honst thought.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-supporter-jeffrey-lord-immediately-responds-to-paul-ryan-by-calling-him-racist/
    Ryan had said during a press conference only moments before that Trump’s rhetoric about Judge Gonzalo Curiel was the “textbook definition” of racism. Lord didn’t care for that remark one bit: “Speaker Ryan is wrong and Speaker Ryan has apparently switched positions and is supporting identity politics, which is racist. I am astonished.”

    “You’re accusing Paul Ryan of racism?” host Carol Costello asked.

    “I am accusing anybody who believes in identity politics, which he apparently now does, of playing the race card. The Republican establishment is playing this, Senator [Mitch McConnell] is playing this,” Lord responded.

    “These people have run and hid and borrowed the Democratic agenda of playing the race card,” he continued. “It’s just wrong!”

    “Do you know how ironic that is that you’re calling all of those particular Republicans racist?” Costello put in.

    “I am saying it’s identity politics, which is racist, and they should reject it out of hand,” Lord concluded.

    Watch above, via CNN.
    This is one of those arguments I cannot really comprehend. How is Ryan using identity politics when calling Trump's comments about how a person of Hispanic descent is inherently so biased because of that against Trump that the person should recuse himself? At what point is it not identity politics to point out something is racist?

    Trump knows where his bread is buttered.

    Unfortunately for him, he also needs that unbuttered side, and the unbuttered side is utterly repulsed by the butter.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The worst part is that neither Sanders nor Hillary can hit the magic number on pledged delegates alone.

    Sanders could get 100% of the remaining delegates and he'd still not have the number. Hillary would need about 80% to hit the number, and I doubt she's getting that. Sanders would need about 70% of the remaining delegates to barely get the pledged delegate lead, and I highly doubt he accomplishes that today.

    Essentially the supers are deciding this no matter what, and if they all side with the pledged delegate lead and/or the popular vote it's most likely Clinton's game.

    Sander's only path is a truly astounding and unexpected performance today and/or to subvert the will of the voters, by somehow mystically convincing all the people he called corrupt corporate shills to back him.

    Seems weird to apply pledged only numbers to the half of all delegates, assuming that's your magic number. Wouldn't you have to be crushing your opponent to win on that alone?

    I'm happy to use half of pledged only as the standard bench mark, and a candidate should be crossing that threshold tonight.

    Yes you would have to be crushing them to win on that alone, but that doesn't really matter to the current Sanders narrative that they still have a chance in this race.

    This is an actual quote from a friend that used to seem like a normal person wrt why she knows Hillary rigged the vote:
    I'll believe Hillary is winning when I see her pull a rally of 60k. I'll believe it when I see her favorability ratings indicating that people don't straight up dislike her. I'll believe it when I see her supporters greet each other on the sidewalk with spontaneous cheers. I'll believe it when I see her canvassers actually volunteering, and not doing it because they're paid. I'll believe it when I see people stand up to speak about how her candidacy has moved them so deeply it's changed their lives, with tears in their eyes. I'll believe it when online polls give her more than 20%. I'll believe it when she actually stands up and says some straight, clear sentences explaining what she actually believes, as if she genuinely gives a shit.

    And not a fucking second sooner.

    These people do not understand reason and will never believe that the vote wasn't rigged thanks to Bernie's rhetoric. Yugely disappointed in him. :(

    Can we not do the "someone on my Facebook feed posted something stupid" thing for a little while? I'm already going to be watching half my family and friends go through the whole Kubler-Ross model on Facebook as it is.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    We're going to try something new here.

    This thread is for talking about the election and those running in it. Which means Trump, Clinton, and for a limited time, Bernie.

    Look around you. You see your fellow forumers? Unless one of them is secretly Trump, Clinton or Bernie, they are not running in this election and should not be the focus of discussion.

    The tone of this thread is also not a valid discussion topic.

    People who cannot discern between valid and invalid discussion topics will be immediately removed from the thread.

    Please please pleeeeease find a way to discuss this shit without making us want to punch things. Pretty please.

    Because this is kind of your last chance.

    Wait so what are the established rules for an acceptable level of perseverance in rooting out which formers are secretly Presidental candidates? What about Gary Johnson or Jill Stein? Can we attack their sock puppets too?

    Wouldn't Johnson or Stein need more than one username for them to actually be sock puppets?

    I assume that anyone that disagrees with me is secretly a Presidential candidate. Only way not to miss any.

    All I know is that I'm totally not @DarkPrimus , and together we're both definitely not Jill Stein.

    On the advice of my lawyer, I can neither confirm nor deny anything OptimusZed said outside of an official court hearing.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Come on, the GOPe can whine about Trump to try to look better all that they want, but at the end of the day, they are bending the knee and everybody knows it. Sanders is having a bigger adverse impact so far. I mean this:

    Or this:

    Is not going to convince anybody, no matter how hard they try. In fact, since the GOPe is so despised by pretty much everybody, letting Trump beat on them some more is only going to raise his numbers.

    Oh yeah, and Jill Stein weighed in:

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    Trump's latest comments are certified as genuine, textbook racism by Paul Ryan.

    He still endorses Trump because Clinton refuses to say poor children should have rickets and rich people should have less taxes.

    It looks like the Republican leadership will be taking the position that Trump is a racist, but that you should vote for him because he is the lesser of the two evils. I do not see that going over well with minorities.

    And the Trump surrogates are following Trump's orders to accuse anybody saying Trump's comments are racist of being the real racist. Jeffrey Lord is attacking Ryan as the real racist.

    I'm fairly certain at this point that the Republicans aren't planning on courting any voters that use logic.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Trump gets asked a bit about foreign policy by Michael Savage. His answer: Fuck NATO:
    The two men first set the stage by talking about the “Arabizing” of Europe with “Muslims from the Middle East.”
    “You’re gonna destroy Europe. Germany’s going down, they’re all going down. It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable what’s happening in Europe.”

    Savage asked, “What would your first priority be as president?”

    Trump’s answer was that, “Number one would be knock out some of the executive orders from Obama.” He said he would “start Keystone right away” because “we need jobs,” regardless of the fact that Keystone XL won’t create any jobs, as has been well-documented. Talking points know no facts, however.

    That’s when Trump launched into his plan to turn the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a pay-for-protection racket:

    “I’d contact countries and I’d say, ‘folks, we love protecting you, we want to continue to protect you,’ but they’re not living up to their bargain. You know, you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars, Michael, numbers that you wouldn’t even believe. But they’re not living up to their bargain and you know we cannot continue to be the policeman for the world. Now, I don’t mind, but they have to pay, they have to pay. If you look at the NATO countries – 28 countries – they’re not living up to what they’re supposed to be living up to. They’re not paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which is very little by the way. So what are we supposed to get into World War III over a country that doesn’t respect us enough to even pay what they’re supposed to be paying?”

  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Blight on Discourse Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The worst part is that neither Sanders nor Hillary can hit the magic number on pledged delegates alone.

    Sanders could get 100% of the remaining delegates and he'd still not have the number. Hillary would need about 80% to hit the number, and I doubt she's getting that. Sanders would need about 70% of the remaining delegates to barely get the pledged delegate lead, and I highly doubt he accomplishes that today.

    Essentially the supers are deciding this no matter what, and if they all side with the pledged delegate lead and/or the popular vote it's most likely Clinton's game.

    Sander's only path is a truly astounding and unexpected performance today and/or to subvert the will of the voters, by somehow mystically convincing all the people he called corrupt corporate shills to back him.

    Seems weird to apply pledged only numbers to the half of all delegates, assuming that's your magic number. Wouldn't you have to be crushing your opponent to win on that alone?

    I'm happy to use half of pledged only as the standard bench mark, and a candidate should be crossing that threshold tonight.

    Yes you would have to be crushing them to win on that alone, but that doesn't really matter to the current Sanders narrative that they still have a chance in this race.

    This is an actual quote from a friend that used to seem like a normal person wrt why she knows Hillary rigged the vote:
    I'll believe Hillary is winning when I see her pull a rally of 60k. I'll believe it when I see her favorability ratings indicating that people don't straight up dislike her. I'll believe it when I see her supporters greet each other on the sidewalk with spontaneous cheers. I'll believe it when I see her canvassers actually volunteering, and not doing it because they're paid. I'll believe it when I see people stand up to speak about how her candidacy has moved them so deeply it's changed their lives, with tears in their eyes. I'll believe it when online polls give her more than 20%. I'll believe it when she actually stands up and says some straight, clear sentences explaining what she actually believes, as if she genuinely gives a shit.

    And not a fucking second sooner.

    These people do not understand reason and will never believe that the vote wasn't rigged thanks to Bernie's rhetoric. Yugely disappointed in him. :(

    Can we not do the "someone on my Facebook feed posted something stupid" thing for a little while? I'm already going to be watching half my family and friends go through the whole Kubler-Ross model on Facebook as it is.

    Eh, I'm just worried about the long term impact on voter turnout, my bad.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote:
    Come on, the GOPe can whine about Trump to try to look better all that they want, but at the end of the day, they are bending the knee and everybody knows it. Sanders is having a bigger adverse impact so far. I mean this:

    Is not going to convince anybody, no matter how hard they try. In fact, since the GOPe is so despised by pretty much everybody, letting Trump beat on them some more is only going to raise his numbers.
    Convince anybody of what? Who and of what do you think they are trying to convince?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Jill Stein the Starlord of politics to mostly anyone. Except at least Starlord accomplished something.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Jill Stein the Starlord of politics to mostly anyone. Except at least Starlord accomplished something.

    Hey, Dance off!

  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Thats a nice brussels you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Trump gets asked a bit about foreign policy by Michael Savage. His answer: Fuck NATO:
    The two men first set the stage by talking about the “Arabizing” of Europe with “Muslims from the Middle East.”
    “You’re gonna destroy Europe. Germany’s going down, they’re all going down. It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable what’s happening in Europe.”

    Savage asked, “What would your first priority be as president?”

    Trump’s answer was that, “Number one would be knock out some of the executive orders from Obama.” He said he would “start Keystone right away” because “we need jobs,” regardless of the fact that Keystone XL won’t create any jobs, as has been well-documented. Talking points know no facts, however.

    That’s when Trump launched into his plan to turn the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a pay-for-protection racket:

    “I’d contact countries and I’d say, ‘folks, we love protecting you, we want to continue to protect you,’ but they’re not living up to their bargain. You know, you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars, Michael, numbers that you wouldn’t even believe. But they’re not living up to their bargain and you know we cannot continue to be the policeman for the world. Now, I don’t mind, but they have to pay, they have to pay. If you look at the NATO countries – 28 countries – they’re not living up to what they’re supposed to be living up to. They’re not paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which is very little by the way. So what are we supposed to get into World War III over a country that doesn’t respect us enough to even pay what they’re supposed to be paying?”

    It's like Al Capone is running for president. Jesus H. Christ.

    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    MrTLicious wrote: »

    I don't think either campaign was to happy with that announcement last night. If they had their way they would have waited till at least jersey came in tonight. Just strikes me as AP/NBC trying to be the first to announce which the night before the last major primaries of this cycle was pretty classless on their part.

  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    the argument Lord makes is that by mentioning the guy's race you are being racist.

    so you say, didn't Trump mention his race?

    yes BUT! the guy was part of a latino lawyers group! therefor that guy made it all about race first, rather than the constitution, thus he is the real racist.


    both cooper and lemon pressed him very hard and quite honestly even laughed at him for saying this.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    MrTLicious wrote: »

    I don't think either campaign was to happy with that announcement last night. If they had their way they would have waited till at least jersey came in tonight. Just strikes me as AP/NBC trying to be the first to announce which the night before the last major primaries of this cycle was pretty classless on their part.

    Eh. I mean it's surprising to see something that is close to investigative journalism and all but the AP is not under any obligation to announce in a way that pleases any of the campaigns.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    FCD wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Trump gets asked a bit about foreign policy by Michael Savage. His answer: Fuck NATO:
    The two men first set the stage by talking about the “Arabizing” of Europe with “Muslims from the Middle East.”
    “You’re gonna destroy Europe. Germany’s going down, they’re all going down. It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable what’s happening in Europe.”

    Savage asked, “What would your first priority be as president?”

    Trump’s answer was that, “Number one would be knock out some of the executive orders from Obama.” He said he would “start Keystone right away” because “we need jobs,” regardless of the fact that Keystone XL won’t create any jobs, as has been well-documented. Talking points know no facts, however.

    That’s when Trump launched into his plan to turn the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a pay-for-protection racket:

    “I’d contact countries and I’d say, ‘folks, we love protecting you, we want to continue to protect you,’ but they’re not living up to their bargain. You know, you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars, Michael, numbers that you wouldn’t even believe. But they’re not living up to their bargain and you know we cannot continue to be the policeman for the world. Now, I don’t mind, but they have to pay, they have to pay. If you look at the NATO countries – 28 countries – they’re not living up to what they’re supposed to be living up to. They’re not paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which is very little by the way. So what are we supposed to get into World War III over a country that doesn’t respect us enough to even pay what they’re supposed to be paying?”

    It's like Al Capone is running for president. Jesus H. Christ.

    NATO members all agree to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense when they sign up, but a bunch of them haven't been doing that since the Soviet Union stopped being a thing.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The worst part is that neither Sanders nor Hillary can hit the magic number on pledged delegates alone.

    Sanders could get 100% of the remaining delegates and he'd still not have the number. Hillary would need about 80% to hit the number, and I doubt she's getting that. Sanders would need about 70% of the remaining delegates to barely get the pledged delegate lead, and I highly doubt he accomplishes that today.

    Essentially the supers are deciding this no matter what, and if they all side with the pledged delegate lead and/or the popular vote it's most likely Clinton's game.

    Sander's only path is a truly astounding and unexpected performance today and/or to subvert the will of the voters, by somehow mystically convincing all the people he called corrupt corporate shills to back him.

    Seems weird to apply pledged only numbers to the half of all delegates, assuming that's your magic number. Wouldn't you have to be crushing your opponent to win on that alone?

    I'm happy to use half of pledged only as the standard bench mark, and a candidate should be crossing that threshold tonight.

    Yes you would have to be crushing them to win on that alone, but that doesn't really matter to the current Sanders narrative that they still have a chance in this race.

    This is an actual quote from a friend that used to seem like a normal person wrt why she knows Hillary rigged the vote:
    I'll believe Hillary is winning when I see her pull a rally of 60k. I'll believe it when I see her favorability ratings indicating that people don't straight up dislike her. I'll believe it when I see her supporters greet each other on the sidewalk with spontaneous cheers. I'll believe it when I see her canvassers actually volunteering, and not doing it because they're paid. I'll believe it when I see people stand up to speak about how her candidacy has moved them so deeply it's changed their lives, with tears in their eyes. I'll believe it when online polls give her more than 20%. I'll believe it when she actually stands up and says some straight, clear sentences explaining what she actually believes, as if she genuinely gives a shit.

    And not a fucking second sooner.

    These people do not understand reason and will never believe that the vote wasn't rigged thanks to Bernie's rhetoric. Yugely disappointed in him. :(

    Can we not do the "someone on my Facebook feed posted something stupid" thing for a little while? I'm already going to be watching half my family and friends go through the whole Kubler-Ross model on Facebook as it is.

    Eh, I'm just worried about the long term impact on voter turnout, my bad.

    In that case it may be more enlightening to look at polling numbers rather than one guy's Facebook rant.

  • MrTLiciousMrTLicious Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    MrTLicious wrote: »

    I don't think either campaign was to happy with that announcement last night. If they had their way they would have waited till at least jersey came in tonight. Just strikes me as AP/NBC trying to be the first to announce which the night before the last major primaries of this cycle was pretty classless on their part.

    Eh. I mean it's surprising to see something that is close to investigative journalism and all but the AP is not under any obligation to announce in a way that pleases any of the campaigns.

    The gulf between what one is obligated to do and what one should do is vast. And to be clear, my objection isn't because it made the campaigns mad, but for that reason that I think media shouldn't broadcast exit poll results before polls close (though this is much less bad, IMO).

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    The AP report is fine. A candidate reaching a noteworthy delegate threshold is news. We can quibble on reporting on super delegates before the convention, but since the AP already decided to report on them a long time ago, it's OK if they want to keep doing that. They don't need to and shouldn't base their publish dates on how it might upset Bernie, or the stagecraft of Clinton.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote:
    Come on, the GOPe can whine about Trump to try to look better all that they want, but at the end of the day, they are bending the knee and everybody knows it. Sanders is having a bigger adverse impact so far. I mean this:

    Is not going to convince anybody, no matter how hard they try. In fact, since the GOPe is so despised by pretty much everybody, letting Trump beat on them some more is only going to raise his numbers.
    Convince anybody of what? Who and of what do you think they are trying to convince?

    I have to agree. While disdain for the GOPe may well rule the Republican base, the Democratic base has room in their hearts to hate both the GOPe and Trump. So its up to the Independents. We have to ask the question, are they big enough to hate both the GOPe and Trump?

    Its take a big heart to hate that much.

  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    I have put my useless ballot in the mail

    At least I tried to vote ok

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    MrTLicious wrote: »

    I don't think either campaign was to happy with that announcement last night. If they had their way they would have waited till at least jersey came in tonight. Just strikes me as AP/NBC trying to be the first to announce which the night before the last major primaries of this cycle was pretty classless on their part.

    Eh. I mean it's surprising to see something that is close to investigative journalism and all but the AP is not under any obligation to announce in a way that pleases any of the campaigns.

    Nothing really to do with pleasing the campaigns. It already waited this long with 6 states two of which some of the biggest in the country going to the polls tonight. They gained nothing for announcing last night and it was just disrespectful of the people going to the polls today. It bugs me in the same way I get seriously annoyed when I see states called on election day with like 10% of votes tallied.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    Couscous wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote:
    Come on, the GOPe can whine about Trump to try to look better all that they want, but at the end of the day, they are bending the knee and everybody knows it. Sanders is having a bigger adverse impact so far. I mean this:

    Is not going to convince anybody, no matter how hard they try. In fact, since the GOPe is so despised by pretty much everybody, letting Trump beat on them some more is only going to raise his numbers.
    Convince anybody of what? Who and of what do you think they are trying to convince?

    People voting on the downticket. Trump only cares about it as a way to get rid of GOPe muppets for people loyal to him, and the GOPe is trying to position themselves as the "sane" alternative to Trump and Clinton. I mean, imagine if Biker LARP Guy actually manages to unseat Ryan, for example.

    I mean, is not going to work, and no matter what happens is pretty much going to be the Dems vs. the Alt-Right from now on, but they are going to try.

    TryCatcher on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    the argument Lord makes is that by mentioning the guy's race you are being racist.

    so you say, didn't Trump mention his race?

    yes BUT! the guy was part of a latino lawyers group! therefor that guy made it all about race first, rather than the constitution, thus he is the real racist.


    both cooper and lemon pressed him very hard and quite honestly even laughed at him for saying this.
    U.S. Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York's 1st Congressional District took a different route.

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Trump gets asked a bit about foreign policy by Michael Savage. His answer: Fuck NATO:
    The two men first set the stage by talking about the “Arabizing” of Europe with “Muslims from the Middle East.”
    “You’re gonna destroy Europe. Germany’s going down, they’re all going down. It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable what’s happening in Europe.”

    Savage asked, “What would your first priority be as president?”

    Trump’s answer was that, “Number one would be knock out some of the executive orders from Obama.” He said he would “start Keystone right away” because “we need jobs,” regardless of the fact that Keystone XL won’t create any jobs, as has been well-documented. Talking points know no facts, however.

    That’s when Trump launched into his plan to turn the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a pay-for-protection racket:

    “I’d contact countries and I’d say, ‘folks, we love protecting you, we want to continue to protect you,’ but they’re not living up to their bargain. You know, you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars, Michael, numbers that you wouldn’t even believe. But they’re not living up to their bargain and you know we cannot continue to be the policeman for the world. Now, I don’t mind, but they have to pay, they have to pay. If you look at the NATO countries – 28 countries – they’re not living up to what they’re supposed to be living up to. They’re not paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which is very little by the way. So what are we supposed to get into World War III over a country that doesn’t respect us enough to even pay what they’re supposed to be paying?”

    It's like Al Capone is running for president. Jesus H. Christ.

    NATO members all agree to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense when they sign up, but a bunch of them haven't been doing that since the Soviet Union stopped being a thing.

    True, but the phrasing just seems so redolent of "Nice Civilization. Shame if something were to happen to it. Things catch fire so easily."

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    I have put my useless ballot in the mail

    At least I tried to vote ok

    It's okay, Hakks. This is how I felt when I sent in my Washington primary ballot.

  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Trump gets asked a bit about foreign policy by Michael Savage. His answer: Fuck NATO:
    The two men first set the stage by talking about the “Arabizing” of Europe with “Muslims from the Middle East.”
    “You’re gonna destroy Europe. Germany’s going down, they’re all going down. It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable what’s happening in Europe.”

    Savage asked, “What would your first priority be as president?”

    Trump’s answer was that, “Number one would be knock out some of the executive orders from Obama.” He said he would “start Keystone right away” because “we need jobs,” regardless of the fact that Keystone XL won’t create any jobs, as has been well-documented. Talking points know no facts, however.

    That’s when Trump launched into his plan to turn the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a pay-for-protection racket:

    “I’d contact countries and I’d say, ‘folks, we love protecting you, we want to continue to protect you,’ but they’re not living up to their bargain. You know, you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars, Michael, numbers that you wouldn’t even believe. But they’re not living up to their bargain and you know we cannot continue to be the policeman for the world. Now, I don’t mind, but they have to pay, they have to pay. If you look at the NATO countries – 28 countries – they’re not living up to what they’re supposed to be living up to. They’re not paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which is very little by the way. So what are we supposed to get into World War III over a country that doesn’t respect us enough to even pay what they’re supposed to be paying?”

    It's like Al Capone is running for president. Jesus H. Christ.

    NATO members all agree to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense when they sign up, but a bunch of them haven't been doing that since the Soviet Union stopped being a thing.

    Aye. Of a lot of Trump's foreign-policy crazytalk, the idea of getting NATO countries who aren't Britain, France, Greece, or Turkey to start paying up isn't the worst thing in the world. Or at least the call to do so would get NATO to reconvene and lower the spending demands to something more attainable. He's right to make it an issue and even his proposal isn't outlandish, it's mostly the attitude that's wrong (in this one very specific case).

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    the argument Lord makes is that by mentioning the guy's race you are being racist.

    so you say, didn't Trump mention his race?

    yes BUT! the guy was part of a latino lawyers group! therefor that guy made it all about race first, rather than the constitution, thus he is the real racist.


    both cooper and lemon pressed him very hard and quite honestly even laughed at him for saying this.
    U.S. Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York's 1st Congressional District took a different route.

    Been a while since Obama was accused of being a white racist, I do miss the old complaints.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    the argument Lord makes is that by mentioning the guy's race you are being racist.

    so you say, didn't Trump mention his race?

    yes BUT! the guy was part of a latino lawyers group! therefor that guy made it all about race first, rather than the constitution, thus he is the real racist.


    both cooper and lemon pressed him very hard and quite honestly even laughed at him for saying this.
    U.S. Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York's 1st Congressional District took a different route.

    We've all listened to Avenue Q Congressman Zeldin

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    MrTLicious wrote: »

    I don't think either campaign was to happy with that announcement last night. If they had their way they would have waited till at least jersey came in tonight. Just strikes me as AP/NBC trying to be the first to announce which the night before the last major primaries of this cycle was pretty classless on their part.

    Eh. I mean it's surprising to see something that is close to investigative journalism and all but the AP is not under any obligation to announce in a way that pleases any of the campaigns.

    Nothing really to do with pleasing the campaigns. It already waited this long with 6 states two of which some of the biggest in the country going to the polls tonight. They gained nothing for announcing last night and it was just disrespectful of the people going to the polls today. It bugs me in the same way I get seriously annoyed when I see states called on election day with like 10% of votes tallied.

    they waited because she hadn't reached the threshold though, not for any other reason

    when she hit the threshold they called it. the expectation was it'd happen when Jersey came in tonight but instead 13 supers declared so it was done.

    if you're mad for any reason blame the supers. but there's no reason to be mad.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2016

    They are trying to thread the needle in the most pathetic way. Their opponents aren't going to allow them to succeed at that.

    Edit:

    How were they not well prepared for this?

    Couscous on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    the argument Lord makes is that by mentioning the guy's race you are being racist.

    so you say, didn't Trump mention his race?

    yes BUT! the guy was part of a latino lawyers group! therefor that guy made it all about race first, rather than the constitution, thus he is the real racist.


    both cooper and lemon pressed him very hard and quite honestly even laughed at him for saying this.
    U.S. Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York's 1st Congressional District took a different route.

    I could easily argue my cats spend their nights designing and building a space ship to return home. Probably not honestly or believably. Probably.

  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    it's funny, the Trump call was him telling his surrogates to call everyone else racist

    they're doing it

    and everyone is confused. I admit I forgot too and when I was watching TV last night I was flabbergasted.

    but they're just doing what Trump told them to. we know he did. it's his standard tactic.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator, Administrator admin
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    Jeffrey Lord, Trump surrogate, also plays the conservative/neoliberal favorite on CNN in response to Ryan: Recognizing that racism exists and dividing people by talking about racial issues makes you the real racist.

    It's the same atavistic, infantile, reflexive, brain-dead and smug propaganda that the Serious and Educated anti-left has been serving up for years. But now it has a spray-tan and ugly hair and that just ruins the illusion of good faith and honst thought.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-supporter-jeffrey-lord-immediately-responds-to-paul-ryan-by-calling-him-racist/
    Ryan had said during a press conference only moments before that Trump’s rhetoric about Judge Gonzalo Curiel was the “textbook definition” of racism. Lord didn’t care for that remark one bit: “Speaker Ryan is wrong and Speaker Ryan has apparently switched positions and is supporting identity politics, which is racist. I am astonished.”

    “You’re accusing Paul Ryan of racism?” host Carol Costello asked.

    “I am accusing anybody who believes in identity politics, which he apparently now does, of playing the race card. The Republican establishment is playing this, Senator [Mitch McConnell] is playing this,” Lord responded.

    “These people have run and hid and borrowed the Democratic agenda of playing the race card,” he continued. “It’s just wrong!”

    “Do you know how ironic that is that you’re calling all of those particular Republicans racist?” Costello put in.

    “I am saying it’s identity politics, which is racist, and they should reject it out of hand,” Lord concluded.

    Watch above, via CNN.
    This is one of those arguments I cannot really comprehend. How is Ryan using identity politics when calling Trump's comments about how a person of Hispanic descent is inherently so biased because of that against Trump that the person should recuse himself? At what point is it not identity politics to point out something is racist?

    Trump knows where his bread is buttered.

    Unfortunately for him, he also needs that unbuttered side, and the unbuttered side is utterly repulsed by the butter.
    We all know how this ends:
    The_Butter_Battle_Book_cover.jpg
    :D

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Happiest Goomba! Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    Jeffrey Lord, Trump surrogate, also plays the conservative/neoliberal favorite on CNN in response to Ryan: Recognizing that racism exists and dividing people by talking about racial issues makes you the real racist.

    It's the same atavistic, infantile, reflexive, brain-dead and smug propaganda that the Serious and Educated anti-left has been serving up for years. But now it has a spray-tan and ugly hair and that just ruins the illusion of good faith and honst thought.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-supporter-jeffrey-lord-immediately-responds-to-paul-ryan-by-calling-him-racist/
    Ryan had said during a press conference only moments before that Trump’s rhetoric about Judge Gonzalo Curiel was the “textbook definition” of racism. Lord didn’t care for that remark one bit: “Speaker Ryan is wrong and Speaker Ryan has apparently switched positions and is supporting identity politics, which is racist. I am astonished.”

    “You’re accusing Paul Ryan of racism?” host Carol Costello asked.

    “I am accusing anybody who believes in identity politics, which he apparently now does, of playing the race card. The Republican establishment is playing this, Senator [Mitch McConnell] is playing this,” Lord responded.

    “These people have run and hid and borrowed the Democratic agenda of playing the race card,” he continued. “It’s just wrong!”

    “Do you know how ironic that is that you’re calling all of those particular Republicans racist?” Costello put in.

    “I am saying it’s identity politics, which is racist, and they should reject it out of hand,” Lord concluded.

    Watch above, via CNN.
    This is one of those arguments I cannot really comprehend. How is Ryan using identity politics when calling Trump's comments about how a person of Hispanic descent is inherently so biased because of that against Trump that the person should recuse himself? At what point is it not identity politics to point out something is racist?

    Trump knows where his bread is buttered.

    Unfortunately for him, he also needs that unbuttered side, and the unbuttered side is utterly repulsed by the butter.
    We all know how this ends:
    The_Butter_Battle_Book_cover.jpg
    :D

    well, all except Ted Cruz.

  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    it's funny, the Trump call was him telling his surrogates to call everyone else racist

    they're doing it

    and everyone is confused. I admit I forgot too and when I was watching TV last night I was flabbergasted.

    but they're just doing what Trump told them to. we know he did. it's his standard tactic.

    "I'm rubber and you're glue" is the legal defense strategy of schoolyard kids the world over

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    I don't mind "hes not racist but what he said is". personally I'd say "I don't care if he's racist, what he said is"

    it removes the "Trump hired hispanics!" defense

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Ahahaha "I don't know what's in his heart!"

    I mean the things he -says- are textbook racism

    But he may have a heart of gold! Words and actions are secondary to the power of secret heart feelings!

This discussion has been closed.