The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

So after many months of topsy-turvy intrigue, it is finally official:  the major party candidates for the 2016 Presidential election are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  As of right now (post-GOP convention, mid-Dem convention), the polls are within 2 points.

I have seen it said that this election represents one of the starkest choices between candidates in the history of the republic, behind only 1864 and 1932.  I would agree with that assessment; I think the two paths the country can take from here are wildly divergent.

Now, for my own thoughts on the election:

I would say I have been a bit surprised at the lack of commentary here over this election, especially compared to previous cycles.  I think a win for Hillary is essentially the electorate asking for a third Obama term, or a maybe third Bill Clinton term... I could be convinced of either.  I think most people would agree that Hillary represents the status quo; I think progressives will believe she represents the same slow center-left crawl that Obama has given us, and I think conservatives will believe she represents the same radical leftward sprint that Obama has given us.

As for Trump: I don't really know where to begin.  It's one thing to talk about terrible political policies; I thought Romney's policies were terrible, and I think Ted Cruz would do an incredible amount of damage to the country.  In fact, I'd be more worried about President Cruz's policies than I would be about President Trump's.

But Trump represents a wholly unique kind of threat to our democracy, and the world as a whole.  Cruz isn't going to tell our NATO allies, "Nice country you have there... sure would be a shame if Russia invaded it."  Romney wouldn't have promised to kill the innocent families of terrorists, bring back waterboarding "and a lot worse," and insisted that his generals would carry out his illegal orders.  Normal Republicans insist that waterboarding isn't torture... Trump explicitly states that he will torture captives, and simply doesn't care if it's a war crime.  Trump praises Putin for having political opponents and critical journalists killed, and says, "At least he's a leader."  Trump tells supporters at his rallies to physically attack protesters and promises to pay their legal fees.

I am aware of Godwin's Law.  This is one of the situations in which it simply does not apply.  We have in front of us a candidate who promises to ban everyone of a specific religion from entering the country, who insists that an Indiana-born judge is incapable of fairly adjudicating his trial solely because of his race, who refuses to denounce a KKK Grand Wizard that endorses him, who openly encourages violence among his supporters and praises a foreign dictator that has had journalists killed.  We are faced with the same kind of decision that Germans had to make in the early 1930s, Godwin's Law be damned.

Many people have asked themselves how Germany could possibly let the Nazis come to power.  Americans won't be asking that question any more.  We have a choice to make, and history will not be kind to us if we are the electorate that puts Trump in power.

There is enough for you to criticize Trump about without comparing him to the Nazis.  That's ludicrous.

Because of his strong arm dictatorial speeches, his inciting his followers to violence, his overt racism, his scapegoating of entire groups of people, his ultra nationalistic message and his populist appeals. I wouldn't call it ludicrous.

The problem with Goodwin's law is that you assume the reference is to 1945 Hitler. Which wouldn't be appropriate. There's no Auschwitz to point to.
But in this case i think a comparison to 1933 Hitler is more than appropriate, it's terrifying.

Not me. I think we have all tired of the name calling and redirection of topics in the middle of "discussion". We have all been here long enough and know who is likely voting for who based on past threads. If we want to be civil, I'm cool with talking about the election but I have purposely stayed off the topic because I know how it usually ends.

Not a huge fan of either.  Feel the Burn.  But Trump scares me for the reasons Spider outlined.  While our constitution and checks and balance system would prevent Trump from building the wall, deporting all Muslims, remove Hispanic judges, killing Terrorist's families etc, his rhetoric would undoubtedly lead us to domestic riots and war.      

Our country already has riots and war.  Do you mean more of that?

Ditto. I'm not as Trump fan but he's facing one of the most crooked and dishonorable people to have ever held office so he doesn't have to look too good to most people to get elected.

I'm a Rubio supporter but the country isn't looking for a stereotypical Republican ... even the Republicans. people are sick of political correctness after having it shoved down our throats for so long.  Trump says some dumb things but most of the rhetoric coming out is simply propaganda from the left. they love to only use part of what he says to make him look evil. He's never said to ban all Muslims just Muslims from countries where known terrorist ties come from and only to a point where we can successfully vet them. Propaganda calls it an attack on religion when everyone knows in many countries religion and nationality go hand and hand.

It's really funny how he's never been called a racist or a misogynist until he ran against the Democratic party. In fact those same people called him friend right up until now. Sharpton even said Trump was secretly a Democrat when this all began ... LOL.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZCxqGuwFR_FRiPpbvEyWwTpSdzTg9Zkj3hgNAy7AFCCmISiI1Z3OxSg)
(http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160314/donald-hillary-800.jpg)
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/jesse-jackson-donald-trump-and-don-king-during-glenn-larsons-of-vs-picture-id117927625)

Incorrect. He certainly said all Muslims.

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

I only started calling him a racist when he started saying racist things.

Trump is the most terrifying presidential candidate I've seen in my 52 years of sucking air...and I don't think comparing him to a pre-war Adolph Hitler is too much of a stretch at all.

Hillary may be corrupt, but most politicians are, to a certain extent. Trump is not only corrupt, he's psychotic and ignorant, and that is a trifecta I never want to see in the white house.

I mean Kristallnacht style riots against minorities and full blown wars in multiple counties. 

I'm not convinced that checks and balances would work if the commander-in-chief of the military decides to ignore them.

When a fascist dictator seizes power in a democracy, he doesn't start out by saying that he is going to, say, burn down the parliament.  That kind of thing comes later.  But Trump is already talking about the actions he is going to take against critical journalists (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/), and he's already insisted that his generals will definitely carry out his commands (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/donald-trump-military-orders-republican-debate-220234), even if they are illegal.

Again, this is important: establishment Republican policy on waterboarding so far has been that it is not torture and, therefore, is not an illegal war crime.  Trump is directly saying (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-calls-waterboarding-minimal-form-of-torture/) that he will implement "torture" (i.e. he uses that exact word) and, when reminded that torture is illegal under international law, dismisses those concerns.  When you are talking about a prospective leader that doesn't even care for the pretense that his proposed actions are legal, hyperbole is inapplicable.

He has been a race baiting bither for almost a decade now.



Of course.  The comparison must be made to Hitler's rise to power.  Not what was done afterwards.


The republican smear campaign has been working overtime on Clinton for decades.  Millions of dollars spent on an overzealous independent council to find out Bill likes blowjobs.  Three secretary of states had private email servers -- only Clinton's matter.  More investigations into one terrorist attack in Libya than into 9/11 and  the 13 embassy attacks costing 60 lives under Bush combined.  

It is payback of her being a staffer in the Watergate investigation.      

My prediction wild prediction....the next president of the US will be Gary Johnson.

Clinton get a plurality of the popular vote and plurality of electoral college. 

Trump comes in second.

Johnson comes in a distant third.

House barely remains republican.  221-214.  However of the 221 Republicans, seventeen of them have either endorsed Johnson or endorsed nobody. 

The Dems know Hillary can't win in the house.  The democrats join with the never Trump republicans and the on the second ballot Johnson secures 219 votes.     

Hoodie, I don't see why the Republicans who have meekly submitted to Trump during this whole process would suddenly grow a spine and choose a third-party candidate who won 3 states or less.  House Republicans would be just as terrified of the backlash to turning on Trump as the rest of the Republicans everywhere else have been.

I can't say that I really support Trump. However, I am anti-Hillary to the point of accepting Trump. Since the democrats will do anything to win, I have a creeping suspicion that Trump is a Trojan horse, but there are no other real options. Either way, to hell with the Clintons, fuck 'em both. We missed the boat with Ron Paul

I don't usually agree with you, but this, I agree with you on all points, including the Ron Paul segment.

To take it one step further. I would rather keep what we have for a third term in exchange for Hillary to disappear forever. It seems to me that our top elected officials keep getting worse and worse the older I get. And Hillary would be the worst yet.

Also, I like your disclaimer of me to avoid the flogging from the site democrats. However, in my defense I think that I'm just misunderstood around here. In fact me and quite a few members here(aside from the hardcore lefties) probably have a lot in common.

I think that the GOP is fantastic at taking a politician's strengths and trying to turn them into weakness.  They hammer nonsensical bullshit over and over until it's true.  Remember when John Kerry, war hero, was dragged down for being a coward?

Now, they're painting the economy as a disaster and a state of disarray and ruin, when by all measurables, it's more stable and safe than "the good old days" that never really existed.

And among those, a 20 year smear campaign on Hillary being somehow incompetent and untrustworthy.  And perception is reality, I guess.  7 Benghazi hearings led to the same conclusion, yet here they still are, driving the point home at their convention.  Hillary is a compromising progressive who has been fighting for things conservatives hate for 20 years.  I get why the GOP hates her and doesn't care who she's running against.  It's just unfortunate that liberals have bought into that story as well.

Hillary is a sneaky politician -- I agree.  You do and say things you don't mean to get elected to office.  They all do this.  She may say she's against the TPP, but may really know we have to have it.  She said she was against gay marriage (as did Obama), because it was the only politically possible path.  And she's been doing this for 20 years.  But at the heart, she's helped creep the country in a direction I want.  She makes deals and compromises on things she doesn't really care too much about (but pretends to) in order to get things she really does.  This is just politics.  I have no room for idealism in the party.  The Bernie people are becoming the tea party of the left.  It's crazy to me, but whatever.

On the other hand, I think Trump is possibly a sociopath and has no real interest in governing anything...he just wants notoriety and fame and to fly around the world going to state dinners while someone else does the work.  I am not so worried as to his platform (I would be shaking in my boots from Ted Cruz), but I do legitimately fear him in the commander in chief role.

I am actually not that afraid of Trump, because it's not like he even has a platform to disagree with.  But I am afraid about what it says about us if we were to elect him.

Not all of them.  But as long as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fred Upton etc represent the margin that the republican hold in the house it could happen.  We aren't talking about needing the entire party to grow a spine just enough that when added to the dems become a majority.  Plus there are quite a few republicans who are really closer to the Libertarian party.

One more thing, this idea of 3rd party talk is just silly and a legitimate waste of energy.  I don't even mean that it's just wasted breath, but it's a net negative.

If you want to change politics to bring up a 3rd party, that starts locally.  Get a libertarian-minded mayor...don't jump to the President.  You're bonkers if you think we're electing a non-2 party candidate at the Presidential level, unless there are rule changes that allow for tiered voting or something.  In addition, pushing for 3rd party candidates under the current system actually harms you ideals, because you're essentially kicking yourself out of the tent of the party that can win.  Bernie did exactly what he was supposed to.  He never had any legitimate shot of winning squat...ever.  And I voted for him!  But I voted for him to move the needle on the platform.  The GOP knew this and didn't attack him, but he wasn't prepared to discuss foreign policy or face any real, long-term scrutiny and attacks from the right -- it's in an un-electable, idealist position.  One that's important, but he was never in this to win it.  To think otherwise is naive.

And if those Bernie folks bail and the election is lost, they set themselves back and Bernie and his supporters are an albatross that will be completely ignored next time.  The idea that the Dems will become super liberal to appeal to the group that got what they wanted and still didn't vote for is just not how this stuff works.

As for Trump vs. true conservatives, it's just hard to apply any of the traditional political logic to him or his campaign.  I just have no idea what happens the GOP is he wins or if he loses.  I am hoping that Trump just gets spanked and the GOP rises from the ashes as a libertarian party, ditching anti-science and religious conservatism and becoming the party of small government and individual rights.  He's completely unpredictable, though, and any sane attempt to make sense of his campaign or its effects are impossible.

If you're talking about House Dems + #NeverTrump GOP picking the President, Hillary still makes more sense than Johnson.  Presuming Hillary wins a plurality (as in your scenario), it is more defensible for #NeverTrump GOPers to say that they were simply respecting the will of the people than to say that they jumped ship from Trump to Johnson because they just didn't like Trump.  (And I think convincing the entirety of House Dems to dump Hillary - after she won more votes than anyone else - is a bit more challenging than you are presuming.)

Any House Republican who didn't select Trump would get primaried either way, so ultimately it's really just whatever helps them sleep at night.

We're on the verge of another economic meltdown. The Fed has only inflated another bubble when the old one popped. The thing about the current administration is that they are doing the same thing previous administrations have done. That's not an excuse, it means that these fools that we elect aren't learning from past mistakes.

Obamacare is a good example. The death spiral has begun. Companies are pulling out of the exchange because of massive losses. UHC and Humana, the 2 largest players are gone. Not to mention, premiums even with the tax subsidies are skyrocketing. So what happens now? The Dems want to keep it, but there is nothing to keep if there are no providers in the exchanges.

So in my opinion, we need to go a different direction. The politicians that we've been electing since I was born haven't done anything but lead us down this path of unsustainability. And Hillary will be no different. So if Trump is the only way to change shit for better or worse, so be it. Everyone complains about the Dolphins and mediocrity. What about our country and mediocrity? In life you have to take chances and accept risk to succeed. Scared money never wins.

Let me reiterate...I don't agree with how you say some of the stuff around here, which is huge when you want to get your point across. 

I'm a Republican, through and through, so the Dems here can flog away.  Shit, I'm used to it at this point...most Dems I know want to vilify Republicans like we are all self involved, narcissistic demons, while we call the Dems a bunch of bed wetting, bleeding heart pussies.  I've had my battles with the opposing party on this site, and I really don't care to keep talking to brick walls. 

Likewise, you will notice that I don't post much or argue with the career arguers on this site much anymore. Dems that argue and spin things around here will make you hostile, lol.....

I'm an independent,registered that way,voted both ways...I like most everyone here,don't like either candidate.

Trump does scare me,someone that thin skinned on a power trip with our military,and stupid rhetoric.I feel the only thing Trump can make great is his own ego,in his imagination.His homophobic vice president choice doesn't help ease Trumps scariness for me....

I was pulling for Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination,but not one of those Ahhh...He should still be the Nominee people.I love the,You're gonna pay more in taxes,but get more out of the money I'm paying in philosophy.

I will say,I get the anti establishment candidate angle,and even the anger of people that don't think the country is not going the way they think it should.Just Trump is the wrong candidate IMO.

I'm not a Clinton Supporter,but I'll vote for her...I admit, from a historical point (and over due IMO) it is cool the possibility of a Woman president...Shame it's Hilary Clinton..


Add,Get rid of Any gun law,make it Illegal to EVER Pass another gun law, of the Republican party is what I'm surrounded by here...Our local,and state races is trying to Out Conservative each other.

It's the "let's make history" crowd. I had people say that silly shit to me for Obama's first election. And now they are saying it for Hillary. A good majority of people pick who to vote for to "make history" instead of fixing the problems. The first black, woman, gay, or transgender president doesn't mean a god damn thing in itself. So while the possibility of a woman president is a good thing. Voting for any old lump of shit(Hillary) just because it's female and it's "making history" is a mistake of epic magnitude.

Trump just went on TV and in so many words asked Russia to perform espionage on american citizens.

You seriously couldn't make this shit up if you tried. This guy shouldn't even be eligible for a security clearance. Much less be the president.

I just saw this and came here.  Honestly...what the fuck?  It's like I just can't believe it, day after day.

So then you'll have 2 candidates that aren't eligible for a security clearance. Just great.

If the election is framed as "Hillary will give you 4 more years of Bill Clinton/Obama" then Hillary will win.

This is for all the same reasons that Democrats always tried to tie McCain and Romney to "4 more years of Bush." I think that even if you are a conservative, it should be fairly obvious that the American public (as a whole) does not see the WJC and BHO years as roughly equal to the GWB years.  Trump's complete humiliation of the Bush family in the GOP primary shows that even Republicans still can't come to grips with the GWB presidency.

If this were a normal Republican opponent (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, etc.) then Hillary would be frantically trying to frame this election as 4 more years of Bill/Obama policies vs. 4 more years of W policies.  Given the current state of economic measureables (unemployment, DJIA, strength of the dollar, etc.) and Obama's approval, I think it is a losing proposition to try to say that the country is currently in catastrophic failure.

OMG ... so much craziness in the matter of a few hours. And this is exactly why no one speaks politics. It's idiotic.

Trump sounds worse than Hitler yet you can play Slick Willy Clinton's speeches and he sounds just like him. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/1996_flashback_bill_clinton_talks_like_trump_on_immigration_we_are_a_nation_of_laws.html

John Kerry called a war hero and yet the people who served with him are criticized for calling him out

Homophobic vice-president? I thought the Pulse shooting cleared that up when all those crazy Republican police and ministers came a calling to help. I've been to Pulse several times and yet I disagree with same sex marriage. Guess I'm a conflicted homophobe. Heck ... maybe I'm a closet gay and just haven't realized it yet. It is possible to disagree without hating someone.

Trump mocks Hillary's "missing" emails using the democrats attack and he's the bad guy? No proof but Democrats accuse Trump and Putin of being in cahoots.

The Republican party is screwed up but the DNC is racist and wants to keep minorities on welfare. The party of the KKK is still controlling the weak.  Mass shooting of blacks this past weekend but barely a blip on the screen. Reports of just as many whites killed by police but "All lives Matter" is a racist comment.

People are afraid of Trump like I haven't seen since Reagan was elected. Me and my family were hard core Democrats back then and thought Reagan would start WW3. In hindsight he was one of the greatest presidents ever. I hope the same for goofy arse Trump.   

How come no outrage for what was in the emails? How come no outrage for the DNC rigging the election and then Hillary hiring Wasserman to work on her campaign?

If you pretend Trump's joking comments about Russia finding those missing emails are so horrible then you really need to take a look at the tons of things you are overlooking being offended by. The DNC gives plenty. 

I hate to say this CF, but your family's switch from the Democrats to Republican was not the only group who made that jump. KKK organization have been supporting Trump and the Twitter ticker at the RNC even ran tweets from racists groups.

http://time.com/4418591/republican-convention-white-supremacist-tweet/

To add: Democrats need to be scared of the left. 

As liberal-minded as I am, there is a fringe that is also anti-science (vaccines, GMOs) and an almost religious zealotry, but in being apologists for Muslim radicalism.  I fear a takeover of the middle, just like what happened with the right....I don't want to have a tea party version of liberals.

No one saw the last one coming either, and the people that did were mocked. Current economic data shows patterns similar to before the last recession. But only now we have much more debt which is unsustainable. This economy is not real, it's been propped up by the fed. I guess you can blame the next one on Bush too.

I know I am in the minority of liberals here but I want to add repeal of the second amendment as well. Persons on either side who won't even discuss the middle ground are equally wrong on the subject.

I can't talk on that.  I actually want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

I'm not anti-guns, but I think that having it be an unalienable right in the constitution makes it too difficult to sensibly legislate guns out of the hands of would-be terrorists.  Until you ARE a terrorist, you're not a terrorist and deserve due process.  That's just too high of a standard, as weapons get more and more deadly.

I get why the right doesn't allow for any legislation -- even if we need it, doing so can be consideration a constitutional violation.  So, I am in favor of amending the constitution and allowing the states to have more freedom to put limitations.

Nowhere in that speech did Bill say that Mexicans are rapists, which is a pretty significant point.
Ted Cruz has the same positions that Bill expressed in that video.  So did Mitt Romney.  You didn't see the same kind of comparisons to Hitler for them as you do for Trump.

Furthermore, I humbly submit that 20 years ago mainstream Democrats were against same-sex marriage, and mainstream Republicans thought outlawing homosexuality was a reasonable decision that should be left to the states.  1996 was a long time ago.

Trump literally just asked a foreign country to provide opposition intel against his domestic political opponent.  This is not remotely the same as "the Democrats' attack."

What the Bernie or Bust crew fails to realize is that for the last 7 years, the blueprint for partisan insurgency has happened right in front of their faces and they have learned nothing.

The Tea Party caused a government shutdown, took us to the brink of debt default, and has effectively held the GOP hostage for the last 6 years. They successfully executed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party by WINNING primaries, not by throwing a tantrum and voting third-party or staying home...  and it’s important to note that the Tea Party LOST both Presidential primaries (in 2012 and 2016).

In short: if the anti-establishment left invested half the time they spent protesting Hillary on beating Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, or Steny Hoyer in their primaries, they’d see a much more accommodating response from the Democratic establishment.

I don't think you even need to repeal it; it just needs to be enforced as written, specifically the part about a well-regulated militia.  In fact, I anticipate that if Hillary wins, within the next 10 years you will see SCOTUS significantly empower local and state gov'ts to pass very restrictive gun laws under exactly that logic.

What weapons are more deadly than they were in the 1950s? How are they more deadly? I'm a weapons guy and I don't see your logic. Sounds like media hype to me.

Your understanding of the language is off. Maybe you should read this for further explanation.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I don't expect it to change your mind because you're never wrong, just like most democrats. 

The fact that you are linking me to a multi-page essay on what that particular gentleman thinks the words "well-regulated militia" mean pretty much proves my point: the SCOTUS justices can simply say that well-regulated militia means exactly what it sounds like at first glance and declare that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to anyone not a member of a "well-regulated militia."

I mean, after declaring that corporations (i.e. legal entities created and destroyed at will, by fiat) have the inalienable right to free speech, and declaring that money is speech, it seems clear that the Supreme Court can define terms almost at their whim.  Remember, this is the same branch of government that said that "separate but equal" is explicitly constitutional, and then a few decades later said that "separate but equal" is impossible.

I think you underestimate how many "well regulated militias" will come into existence.

Um Trump doing something bat shit crazy doesn't rise "I can't believe it" status for me anymore. 

I'm counting on it.

The people who pass the laws restricting gun ownership to "well-regulated militias" will be the same people doing the regulating of said militias.  So I anticipate a scenario not unlike how we handle fully-automatic weapons now; as gun enthusiasts frequently point out, a Tommy gun isn't illegal today, just strictly regulated.

I have long held the position that the lesson to be learned from the separate histories of alcohol and tobacco in this country is that simply banning a thing is ultimately less effective than dumping obscene amounts of taxes on it and slowly increasing the restrictions so as to make it an incredible hassle.

Trump was never accused of being racist until he decided to run as a Republican.   Both Bill and Hillary have previously been accused of locking up more blacks in order to fund the private prisons

it's not coincidence that his announcement to run as a republican was delivered via a speech that declared that mexicans were rapists and criminals .. i really wonder whether it was the rapists and criminals speech or the fact that he ran as a republican that brought out the racist label.

He wasn't accused of being racist until he started saying racist things.

I doubt Trump (or any other Republican candidate, for that matter) plans to release a significant number of black prisoners, or change the laws to reduce their incarceration.  So I don't think this is a very relevant point.

Taxing and regulating a right? The Heller decision has already affirmed this right. If the court were to reverse itself, I think the repercussions for the liberals would be insurmountable.

Why do you keep saying this? Take a phrase out of anyone's speech and you can paint them for however you like.  He said they aren't sending their best and went on to say that many are rapists and criminals AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED when they commit crimes and murder people here.

Trump sucks at speaking because he doesn't run his answers through a politically correct speech writer and so many times he has to clarify.  I think he says some really stupid stuff but many of his points are legit. Many people love that he says stupid things because it means he is being honest about how he feels. I can't say I agree with that but it is refreshing to know that he will do what he thinks is best regardless of who is lining his pockets. Just like Bill Clinton ... Trump's personal life with women has been questionable but his track record of business supports both women and minorities.

On another but similar note ...  It pains me that our country is so divided. Not since the late 60's has that been the case. I remember many elections, including the one where we were terrified of Reagan and the ones where I voted for slick Willy that people had different views but were not so spread out. For instance Trump is saying some of the same things that Clinton and his wife did (leaving out the rhetoric of supposedly calling all Mexicans criminals and rapists) but people are pretending that to put up a wall is the craziest idea to ever happen. Mrs. Clinton wanted a fence. Why is it hard for people to recognize today that we need border security and job protection against undocumented aliens, just as we did when Bill ran, other than political correctness? Either way, like Dave said I fear that we continue the trend of having to either be extreme right or left and the separation continues. 

You think getting alcohol and tobacco is a hassle? More importantly, you think the gun lobby is that much less powerful than either of these?

I know this is kind of random but I don't think we put enough emphasis on respecting authority and as such we have become a much more damaged society. Sadly I know my generation was big into the F authority movement but hindsight seems to suggest that isn't the best idea.  I mean we don't even respect the office of Presidency (didn't under Bush or now Obama), the flag, the National Anthem, we don't respect police officers, clergy and we don't respect the differences of our brothers and sisters. Instead we constantly point to our differences and condemn anyone who isn't like us as evil.

A whole racist movement BLM is based on blacks being killed by cops when if fact just as many whites die by police. A black man says that all people should respect police and just put your hands on the wheel until the officers asks you do differently and suddenly they are an Uncle Tom. Really? I mean I absolutely taught my kids to do that when they were learning to drive. I'm not sure why we don't make that a procedural law.

Everyone should be concerned with unjustified killing by police but like in Baltimore, society is backing feelings and not facts and it only exacerbates the lack of respect of authority. I don't see how it will ever get better when we can't even agree to respect authority.

It's not like this one time Trump said Mexicans are rapists, then he apologized for such an offensive statement.  Trump won the GOP primary specifically because he refused to apologize and, in fact, doubled down by saying increasingly insane things... things that the GOP traditionally would have crucified any politician for uttering.

No, he sucks at speaking because he believes the ignorant and offensive things he says.

I also find this blame of political correctness to be puzzling.  It is as if conservatives think that of course everyone knows Mexicans are rapists or we should beat up protesters or POWs deserve to be mocked or David Duke isn't such a bad guy, but because of this darned Political Correctness we have to pretend we are against all those things.

When you blame Political Correctness, at the core you are saying that Trump is just saying out loud what lots of people are thinking.  I humbly submit that the people who think we should intentionally target and kill the innocent family members of terrorists deserve every bit of criticism directed their way.

To an extent, I agree.  I was shocked and confused that private citizens were allowed to point guns at federal law enforcement authorities (http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/04/18/bundysniper.jpg), and use the threat of force to take over and occupy federal property for a month... and in both cases, they were treated like kids having a backyard campout.

A black man with a lawful license to carry a gun informed a police officer that he was armed, as he is supposed to.  He attempted to comply with the officer's instructions to provide his driver's license and registration, and was instantly shot dead.  It doesn't matter if we comply with their orders, we still get killed anyway.

- I think using tobacco is becoming a pretty big hassle outside of your own home
- I think the alcohol industry dwarfs the gun industry... but I don't really think that matters, because the major alcohol fight already happened
- I think peak Big Tobacco was more powerful than the gun lobby is now

1.) I'm still waiting for these racist things he's said.  I see a lot of, "he said racist stuff" and a lot of paraphrasing.  I want to see actual quotes.  Other than the Muslim comment, it looks like a bunch of left spin to me.

2.) Someone explain why Hillary is so great by the way.  All I hear is Trump is so horrible, not WHY Hillary is great.  See if you can do it without bashing Trump.  Convince me.

What has he said that makes him racist? Apologize ... No but I've heard him clarify his remarks numerous times.

Obviously you picked things that are obviously not political correctness. I was just as shocked as you when originally Trump didn't denounce the KKK. I'm glad he adamantly does now.  

How about the fact it's politically correct to pretend Islam is a religion of peace or even to a larger extent ... pretend radical Islamism isn't a major issue with our security and emotional well being of our children. How about the fact Democratic politicians turn their back to the fact BLM isn't a racist organization or that police aren't always in the wrong? Where are the apoligies to the Baltimore police officers whos lives were destroyed. How bout the Ferguson police? It's politically correct to pretend that thugs were just good young black men who were innocent victims. Those kind of things don't sit well with most people. Unfortunately most people aren't as vocal as the paid victims and those seeking the spotlight.  

I don't know that I disagree with this.

That's kind of dramatic as people ended up dying when in fact that did happen. As well, I guess it's OK to shut down traffic let alone while stopping ambulances and people like medical staff from reaching their jobs?

My understanding was the officer told him to stop several times and yet he continued to go for whatever. It could have been his license or it could have been his gun. There is video so I am sure it will come out in court.

I'm not arbitrarily picking the 50s.

When the law was written, owning a musket to protect your farm made sense.  I don't think that the same rules apply to current weapons...or at least they shoudn't.  If you do, that's fine -- but I don't.

And everything I consider to be things I would want to help the problem are going to be stymied (understandably), because it's a constitutional right.

And I'm tired of it, so I want to repeal the amendment.

Trump: Mexican American Judge Has an 'Absolute Conflict' (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trump-mexican-judge/485429/)
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

In other words, Trump said that an Indiana-born judge cannot fairly adjudicate Trump's trial because of his Mexican heritage.  As Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan put it, it was "the textbook definition of a racist comment." (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-racist-comment/)

Given that you are a Republican, the reasons I would give to explain why I think Hillary would be a good President are likely at odds with your political priorities; things like protecting abortion rights, expanding Obamacare, pushing for more climate change legislation, helping to reduce the number of guns in this country, providing a path to citizenship for productive illegal immigrants, etc.  So I'm not sure how useful such a list would be.

Is that the most racist thing he has done since he started running?  Kind of a weak argument, but whatever. 

Fair enough on your Hillary comments. 

You do understand that is not a realistic expectation?

Abortion is legal in 2016 and has been for a while.
How can you expand Obamacare when the companies are pulling out of the marketplace due to heavy financial losses and premiums are skyrocketing. It's starting to crumble as predicted.
You mean more taxes and regulations that will do nothing.
That's not going to happen short of going door to door to confiscate them. Good luck with that one.
Why would you want to help someone already doing something illegal?

This weekend was a complete dumpster fire of a weekend for Trump. He's an unmitigated disaster.

Come November very few people will remember this past weekend.  He's Teflon Don, not much sticks to him in the minds of his followers.

What happened over the weekend?  I've been busy.  Plus, Sharknado 4 was on last night, so you know, priorities.

Trump got into a verbal fight with the parents of a soldier killed by an IED who got awarded a bronze star.  Basically called out the mom, inferred a Muslim stereotype and was basically an asshole.

To go into slightly more detail:  the dad said (paraphrased) that his Muslim family had made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and that Trump had sacrificed nothing.  Trump responded that he had sacrificed plenty - by creating businesses - and said that the mom didn't speak (along with the dad) because Muslim wives probably aren't allowed to speak.  The mom then responded and said that the reason she didn't speak is because she is still trying to cope with the loss of her son and was barely able to keep her composure on the stage with a giant picture of him on the screen.

Ultimately, I think masterfins is right: no one will care in 2 weeks.  When was the last time the media mentioned that Trump likes veterans who weren't captured?  We are in a perpetual state of "on to the next Trump controversy," and the media happily dances along as the overnight ratings come in.

I wouldn't call it a dumpster fire disaster. The media, like usual, blew something WAY out of proportion.

I would be very interested in hearing what the correct proportional response is to, say, a Presidential candidate proposing to ban everyone of a specific religion from entering the country.

It is clear that Trump can even handle the basic presidential duty of comforting the families of fallen miltary heros. 

Trump probably likes people that weren't killed by the enemy.

First off when the Dad said "that his Muslim family had made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and that Trump had sacrificed nothing" with all due respect ... he was being an arrogant prick who is trying to live off his dead sons honor. His family didn't sacrifice ... his son did. He did it on his own accord and many of us are thankful for him and others like him.  His family suffers the consequences of his decision to serve but they made no sacrifice for this country.

I'm one of the first to support our military and if his family wants to honor him by telling his story that's awesome but don't pretend you deserve the same honor and that someone else doesn't. That's complete BS and propaganda for the weak. No one is forced to serve and Trump doesn't have to either.  We all get the same freedoms regardless.

The worst part of this whole story is how the liberal Media is treating it so they can deflect form all of hillary's controversies. Just like they made Trayvon and Michael Brown martyrs for no reason ... they are doing the same to this man so they can avoid asking Hillary why 75% of the US thinks she should be charged.  He's a name caller no better than the person he is attacking but has turned into a hero all due to deflection. 

The idea that surviving family members of fallen soldiers have "sacrificed nothing" is an interesting and innovative new perspective on military service in this country.

Given that the NC GOP was just lambasted after attacking Tim Kaine for wearing his Blue Star pin while giving his convention speech (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/north-carolina-gop-tweet-apology-tim-kaine/), I would think this point was already settled... but apparently, it is indeed open season on the families of those who serve.

The thing is that the guy brought Trump into the conversation. You want to honor your dead kid, fine. Trump has nothing to do with it. It was pure political posturing and the media eats that shit up.

You're both trying to blame the Khans and the media when the plain and simple fact is that this was yet another unforced error by Trump.

When the GOP trotted out the mother of Sean Smith (who died in Benghazi) to personally blame Hillary Clinton for the death of her son, there is a very straightforward course of action in response: say nothing and move on.  Hillary didn't immediately start attacking that grieving mother because that is a transparently stupid choice.  Just say NOTHING and move on.

But Trump can't say nothing.  He HAS to respond with a counterattack; his fragile ego demands it.  This is yet another reason why he would be a terrible President.

There's a difference. Hillary was involved and she personally blamed Hillary. There is nothing Hillary could have said. Trump had absolutely nothing to do with this guy's sons death, but yet he was brought into the conversation for no reason whatsoever.

But she was responsible as well as lying about it afterwards to blame it on a movie. She is directly involved. Trump had nothing to do with is son serving or dying.

Trump is immature when dealing with people. i won't say he's not smart because he has time and time again proved critics wrong. I just find the coverage of the two candidates completely different by most media.

Hillary's email scandal and the media looks at who to blame for doing it rather than what is in the emails, or the lies etc. It's absolutely crazy how much about her gets ignored while Trump gets attacked for everything.

I'll also admit that I think Trump has no chance to win. I think the media picks the winners more than anything else and until they decide a conservative story is more interesting then we will be stuck with repulsive people like Hillary and Trump.

Oh, there's definitely something Hillary could have said; for example, Hillary could have said that the people who were personally responsible were the people that actually killed Sean Smith.

But Hillary chose not to respond, because counterattacking the grieving parent of a person who died in the service of this country is (rather obviously) a childishly stupid move.  Political campaigns have lustful dreams just hoping their opponent would take such bait.

I might invite you to take a look at the job description for POTUS...because "dealing with people" is pretty much the job.

Not completely accurate.  While there is no draft now.  Not true when Trump got a medical deferment to avoid Vietnam. (That same war in which McCain was a POW and hence not a hero in the eyes of Trump.) It was a bone spur in his foot, but he couldn't say which foot when asked.  

The potential first husband got a lot of critisism for his avoidance of the Vietnam war draft.  Donald Trump has been largely immune.  

Actually he was brought in for a very specific reason.  To counter balance Trump's xenophopia towards Muslims and point out there are Muslims in our military dying for this country.

America loves stupid,and I'll never under estimate America's stupidity,especially for the stupid. :(  Both sides IMO can take that as a slight.I don't really care...It's just how I feel

Donald Trump may very well be the least qualified person to ever get nominated by a major party.  Hell, I would take a moron like Sara Palin over him.   

And if had stopped with that it would have been fine. Trump would be the only person I see with egg on his face.

Seems like VFW agrees (http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2016-Articles/VFW-Supports-Gold-Star-Families/) that Gold Star families have, indeed, sacrificed a great deal for this country:

VFW Supports Gold Star Families
To ridicule a Gold Star Mother is out-of-bounds

August 01, 2016

WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump has a history of lashing out after being attacked, but to ridicule a Gold Star Mother is out-of-bounds, said the new national commander of the near 1.7 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Auxiliary.

“Election year or not, the VFW will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression,” said Brian Duffy, of Louisville, Ky., who was elected July 27 to lead the nation’s oldest and largest major war veterans organization.

“There are certain sacrosanct subjects that no amount of wordsmithing can repair once crossed,” he said. “Giving one’s life to nation is the greatest sacrifice, followed closely by all Gold Star families, who have a right to make their voices heard.”

Once again, organizations from all across the political spectrum - left, right, and non-partisan - come together to agree that Trump's statements are outrageous and unacceptable.  But I'm sure we will continue to hear apologists making excuses for him, because their team selected him as captain this time.

Spider we all know that VFW is a left leaning organization.   ;)

Seriously, when you have folks like Sally Bradshaw announcing they will vote for Hillary over this is, it is a big issue. 

I recently saw this article (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/01/roger-stone-trump-should-insist-on-including-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-in-the-debates/) which said that Trump should insist that Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green) be included in the debates, and I could not agree more.

Insisting that Johnson and Stein (especially Stein!) are included is all upside and no downside for Trump: Stein will do nothing but attack Hillary, Johnson will do the exact same "If I avoid engaging Trump I can pick up the moderate conservative vote" nonsense that caused every other GOP primary candidate to lose, and Hillary will spend all her time defending herself from Stein while trying to squeeze in attacks on Trump that will be lost in the media frenzy over Determined Warrior Jill Stein.  Plus, we've already seen that Trump does best when there's chaos between multiple candidates on stage attacking each other; he's never had to defend himself one-on-one, and he consistently steps on rakes in one-on-one interviews, to say nothing of a one-on-one debate.

And if Hillary raises any objection to including Johnson or Stein, even better for Trump: he can say that she's trying to rig the election against third-parties and refuse to participate.

This is so perfect for Trump that I would be willing to bet money that it happens.  (Roger Stone, the man who tweeted the idea, is a high-level Trump surrogate, so Trump will definitely be aware of all this.)

They should be included. At this point in the election all candidates should always be included. Up until the actuall election, everyone should be treated 100% equal. Otherwise it is a rigged election process, as we saw with the way Bernie was cheated.

Wow.... I always wonder how people can just defend Donald Trump and then, it just happens. I literally cannot understand how his supports can do nothing but not care about what he says or does. The guy is completely clueless and would be a complete disaster as President.

All?  1,817 candidates have filed an intention to run with the EC.

A good case can be made for including Johnson.  He is on the ballot in all 50 states.  Stein is on the ballot in less than half.  If you include her why not Darrel Castle he is on almost as many ballots as she is?

Yes, very much so.

I've never seen a candidate actually suggest it, but if we're talking ideal scenarios....

i'm really surprised about CF's stance:


out of curiosity .. does that stance extend to spouses of slain soldiers .. or children of dead soldiers? Or is it just dad's that can't be influenced by the death of their child.

So the Wife or child of a slain soldier are being arrogant pricks when they see their husband/father's sacrifice as agent of and reason for change.

The fact that they immigrated from a country and are of a religion that Trump specifically wants to exclude from this country and then they turn around and sacrifice as much as any parent or soldier ever has for this country speaks something about the absurd position Trump wants to put us all in.

It seems to me that this year's Republican primary is the shining example of why NOT to let your debate stage become a circus.

Johnson in the debate would be interesting:  

The question is what is his debate strategy. Does he aim his sites at Hillary and make a case to the "Bernie or Bust" wing of the democratic party?  Or does he take his aim at Trump and offer himself as the a viable option to the large number of Republican's who don't like Trump.  

If I was in his shoes, I would marginalize Trump, call him unfit to be President, and make his theme of the debate "you need to choose between me and Hillary" and attempt to make it a two person race.  

No matter the outcome of the election the DNC will continue to exist.  But this election if things go well for Johnson could change the two party system from DNC vs RNC to DNC vs Libertarian Party. Even before Trump arrived on the scene a large portion of the republican voters were more aligned politically with the libertarian party than the RNC.  Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative Republicans for whom LGBT, abortion etc isn't a driving factor in how they vote but choose R because of guns or tax policy.  

I know plenty of "republicans" who are more aligned with the Libertarian platform than the RNC one.  

And what about the hardcore hard right, Trump isn't there candidate anyway.  He is pro-choice (but opposes federal funding of planned parenthood, no different than Johnson).  He supports LBGT rights and is generally not in agreement with the hardright on the hot button issues.  Granted Johnson isn't either.  But if Johnson can portray himself as the sane alternative Hillary's liberal agenda, while sucking the life out of the Trump campaign he could have his party replace the RNC as one of the two major parties, relegating the RNC to third party status.    

I find it very cynical that Trump received the huge backlash over the Khan Family fiasco, when certain Democratic supporters were burning the U.S. Flag outside their convention AND booing a MOH recipient that was speaking inside at the DNC convention.

Those "Democratic supporters" weren't running for President.
Trump is.

The bold is the difference.  

I, a democrat, who am voting for Hillary can make outrageous comments, disrespect Veterans, or even burn an American flag and it would not in any way reflect on Mrs. Clinton's ability to serve as our country's leader, unless Hillary endorsed such behavior.  Clinton is not responsible for every nut job that prefers her to Trump.  Just as Trump is not responsible for every nut job that supports him.  However, if affirms to the nut jobs than that is on him.  

It is absolutely not a double standard to hold the candidates themselves to a different standard than the people who support them.  

A few years from now, I think there are going to be a lot of people who insist that they were never on board with Trump and they opposed him from the start.  The rewriting of history will be as swift as it is thorough.

Right now, you have Congressional leaders of the Republican Party who state publicly that Trump's various positions are racist, unconstitutional, and at odds with the fundamental values of this country... but they can't let the Democrat Party win, so they're pulling the lever for Trump.  It's naked political cynicism.

Make no mistake, I'm not pro Trump. However, I'm very anti Hillary.

That's insanely hypocritical. It's no different than Bernie calling Hillary unqualified to be POTUS and then turning around and supporting her. No different than Obama ads saying "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page". But now he supports her. Wow Barack, what kind of people do you support?

If you want Trump to win, you are pro-Trump.  Own your position.
 
Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are not currently running against Donald Trump; their criticisms of him are not the normal back-and-forth of a contested primary, but simply other Republican Party members trying to control the damage.

This is not even remotely similar to Obama or Bernie (or Ted Cruz, or Jeb Bush) criticizing their opponent during (<--- this part is important) a primary.  The proper analogy would be Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid issuing a press release in 2008 that Barack Obama's statements were racist and/or unconstitutional, and that they disavow them... but they'll be voting for him anyway.

So far today, Trump has kicked a crying baby out of his rally (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-kicks-out-baby-rally-226566) and, when a vet presented him with a Purple Heart medal as a gift, said, "I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier." (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-purple-heart-226565)

However, the day is not yet over!  Trump has yet to attack, degrade, or otherwise insult apple pie, baseball, or puppies.  So stay tuned.

I'm just a little over sensitive to the whole "hero" type things these days.  We use words like that so much they have lost their value.

I don't think many people voting for Trump are doing it for him. They are doing it because they feel alternative is worse. I know Stroke pointed out being president is dealing wiht people but it's not the same. Trump is a businessman and a very successful one. Before someone throws in his bankruptcies how about the 100s of times he didn't file bankruptcy and those businesses are booming? Trump likes to talk trash n the street but face to face he is fair and deals accordingly. That's what everyone says that deals with him so that's what I'm counting on.

Like I mentioned previously ... I'm a big Rubio fan but he lost. In my opinion I can't let that affect the Supreme Court nominees so unless I actually did buy into the fact that I think he would destroy the country I could never vote for a criminal like Hillary. It isn't like he can make it any more divisive than it has gotten in recent years.

It's the same thing. Criticizing someone and then supporting them when you just want your party to win.

The CEO of the DNC just quit because of the email scandal. Maybe we will see a blip on the news tonight when they show that she went to work on Hillary's staff and are done crucifying Trump.

It is the lead story on cnn.com so stop pretending the media hasn't covered this story in detail and only focuses on Trumps problems.

Rubio was at my work last week doing a press conference.

How is it that Hillary gets a pass on the Benghazi and email thing?  Blatant neglect.  That's what we want in a president?  And that's better than a guy that says meansie things?

Speaking only for myself:

1) Hillary isn't even the proper target for Benghazi complaints, as she does not deploy military assets in the case of an attack; the proper target would be Obama (the commander-in-chief), but he's not up for re-election, so obviously there's no interest in investigating him.  More importantly, any investigation is a nakedly-political farce; during the Bush Administration, there were 13 attacks on U.S. embassies, resulting in over 60 deaths (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/) and not one of them resulted in an investigation of Administration officials.

2) Hillary's two immediate predecessors, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, both used private e-mail accounts when in office (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748).  The difference is that while Hillary had her own e-mail server with her own system administrator, Powell and Rice were using third-party e-mail accounts... which means that any number of system administrators for those (unvetted, private) third-party companies would have had access to Powell or Rice's e-mail accounts.

In both cases, events which occurred and were considered ordinary and unremarkable during the Bush Administration suddenly became high crimes when Hillary was involved, worthy of investigation at the very highest levels.

Just remember....Politics comes to from to ancient Greek words:

Poli = many
tics = small blood sucking disease carrying vermin.

I find the whole email "scandal" thing to be a fox news scandal. As in it's in their political interest to keep it going so they blow it up.

I think at worst, her email decision precludes Hillary from ever taking a job as a CTO. Other than that .. kinda meh about the whole thing.

As far as Trump being a good businessman, i wouldn't bring up his many bankruptcies .. even though they are relevant to a business man claim. I'd bring up the small businesses he stiffed and the people he conned into trump University.

Sure he could...please point your time machine to South Africa in the 70's.

If it wasn't for the fact that I live here too, I'd almost wish that you could see what sort of insanity Trump would bring to the oval office. Any time I hear Trump speak, I wonder if the people supporting him are even listening to the stream of ridiculous shit pouring out of his pie hole? If they are, how can they not realize what a complete con man this guy is?

Republicans did 30 or 40 hearings/investigations into Benghazi and couldn't pin anything on anyone.  It's time to let that dead horse go and stop kicking it.

The same can be said for Hillary supporters. This is just one of the many things that point out how dishonest and underhanded she is.  https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI How can anyone ignore these things other than extreme confirmation bias?

as well ... I'm not sure how you can support someone who gets takes money from countries that want us destroyed.

CF, it's actually really simple.  Hillary is as dishonest, underhanded, and corrupt as her husband: a man that had a pretty successful two-term Presidency and left office with a 66% approval rating.  And during his time in office, Republicans tried to investigate him for everything under the sun, and ultimately decided to impeach him because he lied about getting a blowjob.

After a quarter-century of the right constantly screaming "Wolf!  There's a wolf RIGHT OVER THERE!" in our ears, it's difficult to believe the impending doom of the nearby wolf.  The GOP has consistently tried to use investigations to achieve what they can't accomplish in elections against the Clintons; the only reason we even know about the e-mails in the first place is because of the completely unrelated Benghazi investigation... in which multiple GOP committees have determined no actionable wrongdoing on Hillary's part.

And you know, it doesn't exactly help that you all have been screaming the same thing about the current President, too.  If seemingly every Democrat is a wildly corrupt despot that's trying to destroy the republic, why is Hillary any worse than the many other Democratic Presidents we've had?

Trump is not Romney or McCain or even GWB.  He's not even close.  It is ridiculous for anyone to pretend that this is just another Democrat vs. Republican election, or that Hillary is just as bad as Trump.  Hillary is a standard politician, no less terrible than her husband; Trump is a total effing maniac that wants to ban an entire religion from this country and encourages his supporters to assault protesters.

Hillary is much worse than Bill was or at least what we thought about Bill at the time. I voted for her against Obama because at the time I was thinking at least it will be another extension of Clinton. Her politics are no where near where Bill was.  As far as as a person she's no better than Trump so you have to pick your politics IMO. 

If you're actually picking Trump based on all of the comically psychopathic shit he's said in this campaign, then your politics are absolutely terrifying to me. I can overlook the religious right position you're entrenched in, because if someone wants to believe in some all-powerful-but-completely-unverifiable deity, then more power to ya...but to seriously want someone like Trump in charge of this country? It defies reason.

There-in lies the difference as I'm not basing it on his current political trash talking. I'm really giving him the benefit of the doubt and basing it on how he's run his businesses and dealt with people in the past. He was loved by most people not named Rosie before he ran Republican.  I hope his trash talking ends sooner rather than later. 

This is just anecdotal, but Trump stiffed a member of my family for iron-work performed for him.  Just refused to pay for it.  Short of suing Trump, the family member really couldn't do anything about it.  We haven't had a very high opinion of him before this, but that's just my family.

In what specific ways is she worse than Bill?

I mean, she's more liberal than he was, but that isn't an argument for corruption or dishonesty, just that you don't agree with her policy priorities.  As I am sure you remember, Bill lied under oath in court.  So how is Hillary "much worse" than Bill?

I have always thought he was a buffoon and think you have a really long wait on that. This has always been his personality and any change would just be posturing for the campaign.

Yes me too but I can't stand most of Hollywood. Regardless of how I felt about him the truth is generally people liked him. Those around him and those that watched his show and bought his books etc. I can't stand Kanye West but obviously a lot of people do including people I do have general respect for. So I just can't say most dislike him just because I do.

I think (pre-politics) people "liked" Trump in the same sense that they "like" Simon Cowell; they liked him for being an arrogant jerk.  I don't say that as an insult... as a showman, that was his brand, and it was a successful brand.

Prior to his involvement in politics, what was Trump's signature line?  I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that being harshly uncaring was his trademark schtick.

I'm not sure if your being serious but Trump has been in the public eye waayyy before the tv show. In fact, that's what got him the tv show. He was popular guy who a lot of "liberal" people supported.

watch this video and you'll see that in the interviews. You'll also see that he has been interested in politics a long time.
https://youtu.be/OCabT_O0YSM

For a 30-minute video, sorry, you'll have to provide the summary.  And I do understand that Trump was already famous for being rich, not unlike Mark Cuban.  But he didn't start having stuff like dolls that recite his sayings until "You're Fired" became his catchphrase.

I would also like to reemphasize my previous point: when someone talks about how terrible of a candidate Hillary is, I just want them to explain how she is worse than her husband, or even Obama.  For the last 8 years I've heard nothing but how Obama is The Worst President in American History, how he's a tyrant that's trying to destroy the country.  And the list of grievances against Bill Clinton is just as long, full of attacks on his character and moral fiber.  So how is Hillary any worse?

It seems easy enough to me; I'd say GWB was our worst President since either Nixon or Hoover (depending on how heavily you weigh intentions vs. competence) but Dubya is practically Lincoln compared to Trump.  After 9/11, Dubya easily could have demonized all Muslims as Trump is doing now, but he made a specific effort to make sure that we did not go down such a road.   And I never saw GWB insult POWs, or encourage his supporters to assault protestors, or insist that a American-born judge is unfit to serve because of his race.

For all her faults, Hillary is a standard politician.  Trump is not.  The attempt to equivocate the two is, in my opinion, the thing that will be most difficult for Republicans to erase after this election is over.

Lets assume Trump is honest and sincere.
  
(1) A wall we can't afford that won't stop the majority of all illegal immigration.  (People who enter the country legally and overstay their visa)

(2) Pulling out of NATO.

(3) Increased nuclear proliferation.  

(4) A huge tax cut for the rich that drives up the deficit.  

(5) Killing of terrorist families in violation of international treaties.

(6) Blatant use of torcher in violation of international treaties.

(7) An unconstitutional religious test on immigration.

(8) An unconstitutional limiting of the freedom of the press.

(9) A law compelling people to say "Marry Xmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" which would be overturned on the ground it violates the Constitution.        

(10) The arresting of political opponents.

(11) A curtailing of the 1st amendment by requiring the defendant to have the defendant prove actual truth in a slander case instead of the plaintiff needing to prove falsehood.    

So, everything a candidate says on the campaign trail is trash talking? I thought it was, you know, campaigning. You're not only not basing your opinion on all of the psychotic nonsense coming out of his mouth...you're ignoring it completely.


Basing it on how he's run his businesses? You mean the way he inherited his original bankroll? Do you mean the way he manipulates and twists the tax laws? Do you mean his penchant for filing bankruptcies? Or, do you mean the way he stiffs small business contractors for the money he owes them?

There is no logical equation that adds up to Trump being a good decent tolerable president.

I think the nuclear angle is being undersold.  I have ~100% confidence that the United States of America would survive a Hillary Presidency, or a Romney Presidency, or a Rubio Presidency.  I do not have the same confidence that it would survive a Trump Presidency.

He is exactly the kind of person to think, "Why are we wasting all this time on ISIS?  Let's just nuke them and be done with it," at which point Russia or any other power will also have the green light to switch to nuclear warfare.  This is not dissimilar to how our preemptive war in Iraq gave Russia the rationale for invading Georgia and Crimea without provocation.

It's interview clips so you can watch a few to get an idea of what I'm talking about. You don't have to watch the whole video but I'm sure you watched long enough to figure that out.

Hillary lies at every turn to deal with anything uncomfortable.  Far as I know Bill is known for lying about having sex but stood by his politics. In fact many people ignored all the sex claims because they liked his politics.

Wors??? Ever hear about a guuy named Jimmy Carter? If W was so bad he wouldn't have been re-elected but I do agree that Donald has said some dumb things.

And this is exactly what people like about Trump. Agree with him or disagree with him he's genuine and isn't looking to line his pockets to pass laws. He isn't afraid to offend people if he feels it is the correct answer to give and we are so starved in this country to get rid of political correctness that many people don't really care what he says.

Sweet mercy... A lot of people hate lawyers, but if you have to go to court, who do you want representing you? Johnnie Cochran or Ronald Fucking McDonald?

disagree on most.
not sure if i agree with this.  given how much he has flip flopped it is hard to call him genuine.  It is one thing to have your opinions evolve over years (such as clinton on gay marriage) it is another to change you position multiple times in the same weekend.
Totally disagree.  His tax plan does little for most people but helps billionares HUGE
I will agree with that he doesn't care who he offends.  A war hero like John McCain.  The Kahn family.  Our third largest trading partner who we share a large boarder with.  Our allies in Nato.  Members of his own party and every congressional leader on both sides of the isle he would have to work with if elected.  All Mexicans.  All Muslims.  Etc. 

i Won't concede that Hillary is a compulsive liar either. THat's Fox News talking points. I haven't seen or heard anything from her that supports that claim.

This looks to me to be a case of Fox crying wolf and story becoming fact.

Kinda like the midnight ride of Paul Revere.

Here's Wikipedia's entry for Clinton Administration controversies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies).

There are 49 items on that list, all of which were allegations of legal or ethical wrongdoing (and not simply "convtroversial" policy proposals that were debated heavily), including Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate.

I'll say it again: Hillary is a fairly standard politician, no more corrupt or dishonest than her husband, or any number of other Presidential candidates in previous cycles.

I don't evaluate how good a President was by whether they win re-election.  I think GHWB was a far better President than his son, yet he lost and GWB won.  Nixon was the most personally corrupt President in the history of the republic (as opposed to having corrupt cronies, like Grant and Harding) and Nixon won reelection.

Jimmy Carter was incompetent, but in boring, mundane ways; he wasn't spectacularly incompetent enough to start a war of choice while in the middle of an unfinished war that he started less than 2 years prior, nor did he preside over the worst economic collapse in over 75 years.  Jimmy Carter was about a D+; GWB was a low F.

No sir, that's called lying. She will say anything to get what she wants. Your messiah Obama thinks the same judging from his campaign ads, "she will say anything and change nothing". Meaning she's a liar. I guess her opinion of her welcoming ceremony with children evolved into a hot insertion under sniper fire. You gotta be fucking kidding me.

 I honestly cannot believe how far left this site is. Quite entertaining, haha.

I am ignoring it just as you guys ignore how repulsive Hillary is.  Neither candidate is a great person although I'd argue if Trump would keep his rhetoric down during his campaigning he looked a whole lot better.

He has hundreds of successful businesses and a few bankruptcies ... which is a perfectly legal tool to use. this means his failure rate is very small and non-existent if you admit that bankruptcies are just a part of doing business.

Except when she is caught lying on other networks.

https://youtu.be/bQO3KwHh7gY

https://youtu.be/IvTJYkTq8BI

Has she told falsehoods?.....yes. 

At a greater rate than Bill Clinton, George W Bush, George H Bush, Ronald Reagan, Mitt Romney?  No!

And her frequency of false statements pales in comparison to the frequency in which false statements leave Trumps mouth.  So to that extent the ideas she is trustworthy than other politicians is a Repub myth.

She is not as honest as her opponent in the primary.  But she is more trustworthy than her opponent in the general election.   

I'm a white,40 yr old (be 41 in less than 2 weeks),underemployed (somewhat by choice),with no college degree,living in the Midwest. Not exactly great feelings on my future,but I keep thinking Trump's message/things he says should resonant with me some how.... ???  If he's trying to get me into voting for him,the more he talks the more I want to support Hilary. (It doesn't help I'm bombarded by the media of Donald Trump...Local Network T.V. has almost become almost unwatchable. The local Politicians are adding to that problem significantly)

This remark is so off base it really discredits anything else you say. You are smarter than that. At least I admit I look past some of Trump's faults. I'm not completely disregarding them. 

Like has been mentioned ... even Obama used to bring up how much Hillary lies. There is so much evidence out there against her there really isn't anything you could say to make her, or yourself, look better by ignoring it.

edited to add CNN is reporting that as of today she is still conmuing to lie.\

"I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here," she said. "What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify."
Clinton went on to repeat that she "never sent or received" classified information on her private email server -- a statement that is inconsistent with Comey's testimony on Capitol Hill.
"And I would go back to where I started, I regret using one account, I have taken responsibility for that," Clinton said.
The email controversy has continued to dog Clinton's presidential campaign, particularly as she suffers from the widespread perception among voters that she isn't honest or trustworthy.

Yes, during their primary Obama accused Hillary of lying, and Hillary also accused Obama of lying.  That's the point we are making: you are saying that she is significantly more dishonest than previous candidates, and we are saying that any and all of them can be accused of having lied.  Which makes Hillary a pretty standard politician, in comparison to Trump who is an outrageous buffoon.

You guys are in complete denial and yet you want people to take you seriously? Do you even read papers or watch the news?

From Los Angeles Times today

Hillary Clinton says she takes it 'seriously' when polls show her as untrustworthy

Ahead of last week's Democratic National Convention, a CNN/ORC poll found that 68% of respondents said Clinton isn't honest and trustworthy. That was up from 65% earlier in July and 59% in May.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-hillary-clinton-says-she-takes-it-1470421885-htmlstory.html

Rasmussen
Wednesday, June 01, 2016

Republicans have a lot more confidence in Donald Trump’s honesty than Democrats do in the honesty of Hillary Clinton.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 30% of all Likely U.S. Voters think Trump is more honest than most other politicians. Just half as many (15%) think Clinton is more honest than most of her peers.

In both cases, however, a plurality thinks Trump (45%) and Clinton (46%) are less honest than most other politicians.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/how_do_voters_weigh_clinton_s_honesty_vs_trump_s

and plenty more just by using Google. You should try it

I don't dispute that people think Hillary is less honest.  There is plenty of evidence of that in this thread.

I am saying that perception is inaccurate, and that Hillary is no less honest than her husband or any number of other previous Presidential candidates.  And whenever I ask why people think Hillary is less honest than her husband, I receive vague answers that don't address the many, many lies Bill Clinton was also accused of.

The fact that we are sitting here while conservatives try to pretend that Bill Clinton - the man they attacked endlessly while in office - is now somehow magically quite honest in their eyes is a pretty clear example of how ridiculous this is.  And when I ask if Hillary is more honest than our current tyrannical dictator-in-chief who is hellbent on destroying this country, all I get is crickets.

Congratulations you found an example where she lied.  Want more go here...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

They have rated 27% of the statements of her's that they analyzed as either mostly false, false or pants on fire.  And 50%as True or mostly true.  

However with Trump only 15% where true or mostly true; and 70% mostly false, false or pants on fire.  

That makes her considerably more honest than Trump.

She is about even with Obama 48% True or mostly true and 26% in the false categories.  

Close to Sanders 52% positive and 28% negative  

Her Husband has scores of 48% positive and 23% negative.  

Want more?

(https://i.imgur.com/uOU48BM.png)

No one wants your stinking communist pinko facts round these parts. We don't hold much for facts here.

Politifact? Haha, yeah sure.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

In other news, the former political director of a Republican PAC determines that the reason why an independent non-partisan journalism watch group reports Republicans lie more is not because they lie more but because the independent source is bias. 

Wait that is was the news.  Trump and Gingrinch lie more often than Clinton or Obama but lets blame the press for pointing that out.     

Truthiness

I guess Snopes isn't biased either, haha. Spin it any way you want, that's your job as a liberal. Only to spin and deflect.

Leave it to TDMMC for the best fictional entertainment in politics on the interwebz. And the admin wonders why these forums need a shot in the arm, lmfao!

Everyone is aware that facts have a well-known liberal bias.  Just like science!

So it looks like it can be summed up as: Hillary is dishonest because she lies, and her statements are lies because we say they are.

I'd also like to point out that even if one believed that the PolitiFact chart had things exactly backwards, Hillary would still be in the same ballpark as the current President and the primary candidate this cycle that got the highest marks for honesty (Sanders).

Given that my point was only that Hillary is a standard politician (and not that she is more honest than most, which is what that chart shows), you have to do some major jumping through hoops to somehow arrive at the conclusion that Hillary is exceptionally dishonest.  Let me guess: PolitiFact is only skewing the results for Hillary, but not Obama?

Two of the top five "least dishonest" candidates are Republicans and the right is still complaining about bias.  Sad!

I think the problem is when you get your news from AM radio, Fox News, and sites like The Blaze, pretty much anything will seem decidedly liberal.  Anything short of state controlled Iranian daily news is to the left of the spectrum for these folks.  The echo chamber is too strong.  The idea of a liberal media is as completely laughable as gay conversion therapy. 

I also find it interesting that the modern Republican party has aligned itself so totally with fundamental Christianity, that the two are nearly indistinguishable from one another in ideology. It's as if a definite, strong monotheistic POV has completely integrated itself into the political/religious culture of a group of certain people who want to run things their way.  Or you know, a theocracy...which is totally okay from their POV as long as they're the ones in charge of which religion gets to control things, as their religion is the only right one anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/evan-mcmullin-conservative-trump-clinton/index.html

Why????

I am all for stopping Trump, but a third party protest candidate already exists. McMullin won't be taking votes away from Trump but Johnson.   

Facts? Like you guys are interested in facts. This site is one of the worst places for confirmation bias I have ever seen. I have many liberal friends and like myself, they concede things on their side isn't really rosey either. You guys can't even admit what 2/3rds of the country have already realized. Talk about slow learners.

Another non FOX story ...

CNN’s Tapper: Fact Checkers Are Going To Run Out Of 'Pinocchios' Calling Out Hillary's Lies
https://youtu.be/iWift0zqyZ8

Religious social conservatives have nowhere go.

Darrell Castle already on the ballot in ~20 states and their platform is the religious social conservative wing of the republican party. 

I don't know what you expect from "liberals" when any source to the left of Fox News is immediately declared a leftist shill.  Which fact-checking organization do you think is legitimate... any of them?  Because I'm willing to bet that any fact-checking group that isn't OPENLY conservative will give very similar results to the ones I posted.

Again, it's funny that you're talking about Pinocchios given when you simultaneously declare that the enormous mountain of Pinocchios given to Trump are all meaningless.  Hillary would have to have nothing but press conferences about e-mails for the next three months to catch up to Trump (and that's if Trump stopped adding more lies to his collection).

I am conceding she has been less than truthful about the overblown email story.  (1 lie)  And "fact checking" organization call that a lie.

Here is a list of Trump lies.....

* Says he saw videotape "of the people taking the money off the plane" to pay ransom to Iran for hostages.

* Says "Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "

*"I’m beating (Kelly Ayotte) in the polls by a lot."

*"Youth unemployment is through the roof."

*"We have a fire marshal that said, 'Oh we can't allow more people’ ...  And the reason they won't let them in is because they don't know what the hell they're doing." 

*"As usual, Hillary & the Dems are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games."

*He claimed the NFL sent him a letter about the debates. 

etc etc etc.

I am not claiming Hillary has never lied, nor are the vast majority of her supporters.  But she is a lot more honest than her opponent.  Hillary is not perfect, she was not my first choice, heck she wasn't even my second choice among democratic candidates this election cycle until  O'Malley dropped out.  But Trump lies with a frequency that surpasses any and all other politicians. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/republican-national-security-letter-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html

Every election you get one or two defectors:  e.g. Zell Miller, Colin Powel, Joe Lieberman.

But I have never seen anything like this.  Both living Presidents, the last presidential candidate for the party, several of this year's candidates, organizations that have supported only Republican candidates. 

(Don't bother tell me that you know of democrats that aren't voting for Hillary, I am not talking about random internet posters or your brother-in-law's cousin.  I am talking about lifelong members of the party that have held positions in the party and government.) 

You mean the "establishment people"?  I am bothered to see some leaving but one could argue that actually helps his cause as that is what he is running on. And let's be honest. The Bush's and the Clinton's are a very tight group already so it isn't a big leap for them.

Many of the people who voted for Trump in the primary aren't typical establishment Republicans and that is why people like Bush never had a chance. All the money in the world and attacks on other candidates couldn't get him votes. The establishment people are in the minority these days and is also why Hillary had so many problems with Sanders.

Trump's only hope is to get independents and fringe democrats because he never had all of the republican party.

I will concede to you his base loves the rejection of the establishment republican's.   


This hurts him with both those groups.

Rivals are one thing, but when 50 republican national security experts come out against Trump that has to raise doubt in the minds of anyone but his most ardent supports at Trumps ability to keep this country safe.  Independents are going to take note.

This letter, Trump's attack on the Khan, and Trumps apparent lack of knowledge that Russia invaded Ukraine  have done more to unify democrats against Trump than anything either HRC, Sanders or any democrat could possibly ever say. 

While I don't dispute the accuracy of your statement, I think you may be understating the task ahead for Trump.

I'm not sure that these "fringe Democrats" - otherwise stated as people who are very receptive to Trump's message of a rigged economy and political system, but who are willing to overlook what he says on everything else - hadn't already jumped ship to the GOP by 2010.  Additionally, in this country "independents" is code for "extreme partisans," and while the extreme right is an easy get, I don't see why any extreme leftist would get on board with Trump (outside of a naked "punish the Democrats" vote).

It's hard to believe Trump is anti-globalism when all his Trump-branded products are made overseas.
It's hard to believe Trump is for helping the middle class when he wants to implement massive tax cuts for billionaires with no way to pay for them.
It's hard to believe Trump is anti-war when he's talking about aggressively destroying ISIS (and intentionally targeting their families in the process).

However, I don't deny that "Make America Great Again" is a potent lure for a certain group of people who want to return to the way things used to be, and for those people, policy details may not be as important as the promise of restored order to an older hierarchy.

Trump said early in the debates he has things made out of country. That was one of the first things he was questioned on. He went on to say he would make doing business out of the country less desirable and he himself would have to change.

As far as the middle class thing it comes down to politics. Republicans believe making it easier to do business helps everyone and Democrats believe making the rich pay for the poor helps everyone. Nothing new here.

Not sure about the anti-war he is supposed to be but we do need to be more aggressive on Isis and Isis type organizations.

Look ... I'm far from a die hard Trump fan but I'm also far from bailing unless a better option comes along and it isn't Hillary. Her offices in Philadelphia were just raided and every week wiki leaks gives us more of the crap she has done. I heard someone say that Trump says stupid things but Hilary has actually done a lot of stupid things and hasn't learned anything except she can get away with murder.

Upon further reflection, I don't think that is the key.  The key is turnout and who chooses pragmatism vs. symbolism.

The number of undecided or sway-able voters form the perspective of Trump vs. Clinton is almost nil.  E.g. someone who hasn't decide if they are voting for Trump or Clinton.  

Here are the issues:  

Trump is not getting the Sanders supports.  The question: do the Sanders voters vote for Hillary or do they stayhome/Stein/Johnson?

Trump is not getting the #NeverTrump republicans.  The question do these folks vote for Hillary or do they stayhome/Johnson/McMullin?

Hillary is not getting the teaparty, birthers, single issue pro-life, single issue pro gun far right of the republican party that considers Trump to liberal from them.  The question: do they vote for Trump or stayhome/Castle/McMullin?

Hillary will win the Hispanic vote by a large margin.  Question is what will the turn out be.  Can she motivate enough of them to register to vote, go to the polls and overcome what "voter id" or other barriers the republicans can put in place to limit their turnout?  

Hillary will win the the African American voters that registered for the first time in 2008 so they could vote for Obama and have only voted twice in their life 2008 and 2012, can she get them to vote for a third time?

Will Trump be able to organize the "angry white guy" that is not registered to vote to register and vote?  


Case in point.  Zero chance you are voting for Hillary.....but if you vote for McMullin or stay home that is a half a vote for her. 

But that cuts against the populist economic position you are ascribing to Trump; the position that's supposed to pull in disaffected blue-collar Rust Belt Democrats.  Remember, Trump is supposed to be against free trade (an anti-conservative position) because he wants to protect the jobs of the working class, which is not "making it easier to do business."

So if the argument is that Trump will fight against the moneyed interests to help the middle class (by blocking free trade globalization like TPP), it's tough to square that with Trump giving enormous tax cuts to the top earners.  If you're saying that Trump is likely to pull votes by promising trickle-down tax breaks and supply-side economics... that's a strategy to capture Rust Belt Republicans, not Rust Belt Democrats.

It is difficult to hear statements like this from Republicans without hearing them really saying "and it isn't a Democrat."  I mean, you guys have been saying that Obama is a tyrant bent on destroying the republic for the last 7 years, and that he has been the worst president in the history of the nation.  Are we supposed to believe that if only it were the proud socialist Bernie Sanders in her place, you'd be lining up to pull the lever for him?

When your volume has been stuck at 10 for many years, it's hard to turn the volume up.

Doesn't matter HRC doesn't need to convince CF DolFan to vote for her to win.  If one out of five his type vote for Johnson, Castle or McMullin she wins a landslide.   

Trump suggested today that if he were to lose the election the recourse his followers would have would be to assassinate hillary.

nice

WOW! Do you really believe that? 

Spider to answer your question. No, I would not vote for Bernie Sanders. He's a quack in my opinion. But if the Democrats put up someone more credible I could see myself voting for them. Someone from the Blue Dog Coalition maybe?  Joe Biden would have even been a better option.

Listen, I've detested the things Trump says since before he was a politician but this is not what he said and you and others trying to make this into something when there are real things out there does not help the cause. Don't try to create things when there is so much already out there.

OK lets cut the crap right here, I heard what he said,  I didn't read a report about what he said, I listened with my own ears.

He said and I quote:


Don't give me any bullshit about what he's saying.

last i checked the 2nd ammendment isn't about voting or protesting or any of that. It's about owning guns.

If no-one can do anything about Hillary or about Judges she nominates except maybe people with guns, then what is your conclusion about what he's saying?

It's obvious to me what he's saying .. and the reason this IS something is because you have a guy telling his followers that if they hillary gets elected, they should let the guys with guns fix it.

and CF, yes i exactly believe that is what Trump was saying. Guns do one thing .. and that's kill stuff, they serve no other purpose. So if they're gonna fix hillary with guns they are talking about assassination.

Then you don't live in the modern world. Give it a break, we all know the quote and anyone taking where you are is instigating. Trump is a buffoon but he was not suggesting violence. He doesn't think and didn't use his "best words".


So incorrect. Your statement here is biased and so incorrect. Are you even aware of the competitions at the Olympics?

And not for nothing .. but Al Baldasaro (Trumps current adviser on veterans affairs)  said this last month:


or maybe he wasn't suggesting that the kill Hillary there either. and I'm way off base.

You know .. i understand where you're coming from .. It's such an abhorrent and irresponsible thought that you can't even relate to Trump for making the comment. Your instinct is to say "woah woah woah .. he can't possibly be saying what he is .. he must just have mis-spoken"  I get it and it does you credit as a human being.

Unfortunately you are being naive. 

Nothing in this man's history or in his campaign so far makes me think that what he said isn't exactly what he's trying to get across to his base.

Maybe I would buy that if he had not suggested violence in the past.  If he had not offered to pay the legal bills of his supports who beat up peaceful protesters. If he had not said, "I'd like to punch him in the face."  If he hadn't said, “I think if this country gets any kinder or gentler, it’s literally going to cease to exist.”  Then maybe I would believe that it was a poorly worded call to get people to the polls.  But he has gone too far too many times to get the benefit of the doubt.

You mean the Blue Dog Coalition of self-identifying conservative Democrats?  Seems like your primary problem with the Democrats is that they keep nominating liberals, not that their candidates are somehow remarkably dishonest or not credible.

Biden wouldn't beat Hillary, Bernie, or even Elizabeth Warren in the primary, in any reasonable version of reality.  Biden wasn't even close to competing wiith Hillary or Obama in 2008.  Anyone to the right of Biden - your Jim Webbs, your Joe Manchins, any Blue Dog - are the equivalent of me saying, "If only the GOP would nominate Susan Collins for President, then maybe I could consider voting for them."

Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson on the "Second Amendment people" quote (emphasis added):

“He was saying what could happen, as you said, what could happen,” she told Jake Tapper on “The Lead” after he pointed out that Trump specifically referred to events after the election.

“He doesn’t want that to happen,” Pierson said. “And in order to stop that, people that support their Second Amendment rights need to come together and get out there and stop Hillary Clinton from winning in November.”

So, Phishfan, if the reasonable* viewer would never think that Trump was talking about Hillary being assassinated if she wins, what is the event that Katrina was referring to... the thing involving "Second Amendment people" that "could happen" AFTER the election but that Trump "does not want to happen"?

*note: I feel compelled to point out that "reasonable people" would not assassinate politicians in the first place.  I'm not worried about "reasonable people" shooting politicians and starting an armed revolt because Trump told them the election was rigged and they have to defend the Second Amendment.  I'm worried about the unhinged lunatics that Trump is driving into a frenzy.

He didn't ask or tell anyone to kill or assassinate anyone. He used simple words that could be interpreted 1000s of different ways. Anyone can assume anything about what they think he meant? It doesn't even matter, it's just more liberal shenanigans. Trump clarified his statement and said what he meant. If people want to think that he said something different, even after he has already clarified himself, then that reflects on them and their stupidity as a person.

The same thing happened a week or two ago with Hillary had to clairify her. " we are going to raise taxes on the middle class."  The right blew it out of proportion, just like the left is blowing this out of proportion. More silly games!

So Hillary was unclear as to whether she was going to raise taxes on the middle class, and Trump was unclear as to whether someone should assassinate his Presidential campaign opponent if she wins.

Both sides do it!

So now Wikileaks is offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of whoever shot DNC staffer Seth Rich ... who apparently was the DNC leak.  I guess Hillary had nothing to do with that either even though the leaks go directly after her. Turn your back on the 50 plus Clinton death list members and pretend she is a good person while berating Trump for making bad jokes about death? Haha ... that can't be easy to do is it?

The Clinton Body Count makes its illustrious return!  Shall we proceed directly to Vince Foster, or is that more of an October discussion?

It is also interesting that what was a "hack" last week is a "leak" now.

That's not what I said. You seem to be spinning shit again. He never said assassinate or kill whatsoever. If you heard a secret message, go put on your tin foil hat.

I said that both of their statements were made to be something they weren't by the other party and then were subsequently clarified by them. So yes, both sides do it. Meaning, blowing shit that doesn't matter out of proportion. Just like you are doing. You should stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

i had forgotten about the clinton death squads. They're comprised of jason Bourne style hit men. The fact that there's no proof is in itself proof that they are just that good.  That and the liberal media knows all about the Bourne squads and just refuses to report on them.

It's getting to the point that Hillary will literally be compared to Emperor Palpatine and uses the dark side of the force to kill DNC leaks.

Would you expect anything less than that style smear campaign from some who literally calls for a religious test for immigration, racial disqualification for judges, want to greatly curtail the rights of a free press and free speech, claims to know more about conducting a war than the generals, will not rule out using nuclear weapons, has called for his supporters to assault those protesting his rally, will not honor our NATO treaty, has called for increased use of torcher and the killing of the families of terrorists?         

Paul Ryan thought it was a reference to assassination and thought it was a joke in poor taste.
Even Trump's own spokesperson said that Trump was referring to something "he didn't want to see happen."
So clearly there is some wiggle room in what his intentions were.

I think this tweet (https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/763129659848523776) sums up this whole thing nicely:

"One thing about being POTUS is poorly phrased or indiscreet words can cause market meltdowns or international incidents."

If your statements can be interpreted by people in your own party as maybe being commentary on assassinating political rivals, perhaps you're not cut out for the job.

In other news the wall between the USA and Mexico will need to be 22 stories tall. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-tower-suction-cups/index.html

Ronald Reagan's daughter does. 

Who is she? I mean ... the liberal who spent most of her life estranged from the family. She hated her parents but latched on when Daddy got sick.

It's kind of like Bill Cosby. When the first few women came out I didn't blink an eye but sooner or later number start to add up you have to realize there is something there.

As well, the wiki leaks confirm a lot of what the conspirators have been saying but somehow Democrats pretend that doesn't matter and "who" hacked or leaked is the only thing that matters. Trust me ... I know I'm not changing anyone's opinion. People don't look for truth they look for confirmation to what they already believe. 

Two issues content and the hacking. Both are important lets take them one at a time:

Content -- As a Bernie supporter the wiki leaks did confirm for me what I already knew the Debbie Wasserman and the DNC where biased and prefered Clinton over Sanders and did what they could to help Clinton.  I knew this long before the email leak.  That was not news.  I also know that Reince Priebus and the RNC are biased and wanted literally anybody other than Trump as their nominee. 

On that score the DNC and RNC is no different the is only differences are the DNC was more effective (Debbie got who she wanted, Reince didn't) and we have an email trail with the DNC and not the RNC.  But anyone who thinks that the RNC did not show as much if not more bias in this election than the dems is delusional. Hardly a reason to switch my party affiliation from D to R.  It could be a valid reason for some to embrace Stein or Johnson, but not enough for me to leave the party.  But is not at all relevant in a discussion of Dem v Rep or HRC vs DJT.  As for me I am supporting Tim Canova in his primary bid against Wasserman, because of this.   

I am some what bothered by the DNCs lack of fair play and not offering my candidate and even playing field.  But political parties having favorites is the norm not the exception and is completely legal.  I would like to see that change, but the release of emails really didn't expose anything we already didn't know or something that is unique to one party or one election cycle.  Nor did I expect when Sander's launched his primary bid that the democratic party was going to treat someone who is NOT A DEMOCRAT on equal footing with a lifelong Democrat with many friends inside the DNC. 

The hack -- Unlike the obvious bias the hacking into the DNC was criminal activity.  And who committed that crime is relevant.  Based on the timing of the release it is obvious that it was done to hurt Clinton and help Trump (as opposed to if it had been released weeks earlier when the hack occurred it potentially could have resulted in a Sander's nomination.) So whoever did this was not looking for justice for the disaffected Sander's supporters but looking to aid Trump.  If Trump or the RNC was behind this than this would be an electronic version of Nixon and Watergate.  So I would like to know who hacked and why. 

 

So does this mean that as more Republicans denounce Trump, you have to realize that they have a point, or what...?  I don't really understand the Cosby reference.

In this case, the "conspirators" are Bernie supporters who think the election was stolen from them.  I am somewhat skeptical that you would actually prefer Bernie to be the Dem nominee, so your sympathy for the Bernie Bros seems like alligator tears.

Again, I also find it bizarre that you can so casually jump from these e-mails being a Russian hack to it being an insider leak without missing a beat.  If these e-mails were hacked by the Russians (as even Trump was saying a couple weeks ago), why did the Clinton Death Squads kill Seth Rich?  After all, the death squads don't just kill people indiscriminately... so since we know he was killed by the death squads, I guess he must have been a political target because he must have also leaked the e-mails that Russia hacked!  Mystery solved.

You guys are ridiculous.  At least you're consistent with your hippocracy.

"Clinton Death Squad?  That's ridiculous!"

"TRUMP SAYS FOR GUN RIGHTS PEOPLE TO KILL HILLARY!"

"TRUMP WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DNC HACK!"

How can you all talk out both sides of your mouths like that?

Can we just send Donald to Afghanistan because every time he opens his mouth a grenade drops out.  >:D

In the latest episode of Both Sides Do It, we are now expected to believe that the following events are equivalent:

- Republican nominee makes comments on "Second Amendment people" stopping Hillary and her appointed judges; comments that are condemned by mainstream outlets (including Republicans) as implying that she could be assassinated
- the Clintons are accused of actually having a DNC staffer murdered because he leaked campaign e-mails (e-mails that were also hacked by Russia?)

No one here said Trump was responsible for hacking the DNC.  Furthermore, such an accusation is incompatible with the claim that the DNC e-mails were not hacked at all, but were actually leaked by an insider.

You know, the insider that the Clintons had killed.  By their death squads.

I am not saying Trump was responsible for hacking the DNC.  I am just saying people have wondered about the timing of the release.  I am not saying anything, I am just hearing people talk and people are wondering about it. Believe me the people want to know whats going on and who hacked the DNC.  I don't know who hacked the DNC.  But people are talking about how the hack benifited Trump.  Believe me.  Its bigly.  I am  not saying he was behind it.  I am just saying a lot of people are wondering if he was behind it.  I am not saying it.  I don't know. 

In the latest episode of Both Sides Do It, we are now expected to believe that the following events are equivalent:
In the latest episode of Hipocracy, here and now...

- Republican nominee makes comments on "Second Amendment people" stopping Hillary and her appointed judges; comments that are condemned by mainstream outlets (including Republicans) as implying that she could be assassinated -- You're assuming and projecting.  "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know,"

2nd amendment:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is belief that Hillary will infringe those rights.  Who can do something about that?  2nd amendment people?  That's a logical conclusion.  Assuming they are going to kill her is not.

- the Clintons are accused of actually having a DNC staffer murdered because he leaked campaign e-mails (e-mails that were also hacked by Russia?)--Exactly, my point.  It's a ridiculous statement, no more than Trump wants Hillary assassinated.

No one here said Trump was responsible for hacking the DNC.  Furthermore, such an accusation is incompatible with the claim that the DNC e-mails were not hacked at all, but were actually leaked by an insider.--
Really?  No one here?
Seems like someone did say that.

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/bd/bd9b8293473456f32ec166c7bc09e67ced6b07355ee9793dd8ed6b5efb6d031b.jpg)

I wasn't backpeddling I was doing a trump impersonation. 

Made me laugh, so I'll give you props.

Republican Joe Scarborough said (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump/?tid=sm_tw), "The GOP nominee was clearly suggesting that some of the “Second Amendment people” among his supporters could kill his Democratic opponent were she to be elected."  MANY other mainstream media outlets have drawn the same conclusion.  The Secret Service has spoken with Trump about his comments.

And you're saying that anyone who interpreted his comments as a suggestion of assassination (i.e. Fox News (http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/09/geraldo-rivera-trump-s-2nd-amendment-comment-federal-crime-if-he-means-what-he-said/212281)) is just as crazy as the people who believe the Clintons have a secret death squad that kills their political enemies.

OK.

I read that as "If Trump did x it would be as big of a scandal as Watergate," not "Trump did x."

But let's run with your interpretation.  "Trump was the one who had the DNC servers hacked" is not equivalent to "The Clintons have had a secret death squad that has been assassinating political enemies since the '90s," not least because there isn't even any proof these people were assassinated to begin with, much less by the Clintons.  There is historical precedence in this country for a high-level politician stealing opposition data (Watergate); there is no precedence in this country for secret political assassins.

It's like saying that believing the IRS was targeting conservatives is the same as believing that 9/11 was an inside job planned by Dubya.  It's false equivalence.

A false equivalence of two false statements?  Seems equivalent to me.

Sure, as long as you are willing to agree that "Hillary is secretly in the tank for the big banks" and "Donald Trump is actually a KKK Grand Wizard who plans to sterilize all Mexicans" are also equivalent.

Ok ... I'm done with the he said she said as it doesn't even stay on the same topic anyway.

Simple question that I have. I think we can all agree that quality of life for most people is worse than it was 10 years ago so what will she do differently than what Obama has been doing for the last 8 years? If your answer is we are doing better then please don't bother answering.


Median Household Income

2005 --$56,058
2014   --$53,657

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/us/

Great question and I'm happy to discuss this topic.  There's a lot to unpack in this statement.

First, Obama has been President for a little over 7.5 years, not 10 years, so I think the premise of the question is a bit flawed.  Comparing to 10 years ago would be a comparison to the peak of our bubble economy that was built on matchsticks.  I think if you were to ask people in 1938 if they were better off than they were in 1928, an even greater number would answer no; that doesn't mean that FDR was a failure, only that it takes time to recover from such a serious economic downturn.

Second, to answer your question: hopefully very little!  The last two Democratic Presidents have left the economy in much better shape than they received it, so I anticipate that Hillary would continue similar policies.

Not sure why you choose 10 years.  My take we are better off today that we were 8 years ago. If not for the 22nd amendment I would have no problem  voting for Obama for a third term.

But in this election that is almost irrelevent.  Even if we accept your flawed premise of a slightly lowered standard of living and your premise that Hillary Clinton is the same person as Obama and we ignore that much of what Obama has tried to do has been blocked by Congress, it doesn't matter.  It might have mattered in a Hillary vs. Jeb Bush election. 

The unhinged racist sexist demagogue that was nominated by the GOP has made Obama and Hillary irrelevant.  With every passing day it is literally in a choice between Trump and whatever is behind door number 2, you have too pick door number two. 

So I guess no one cares about the Muslim parents that Donnie insulted less than two weeks ago.  How about a poll as to how many more Trump gaffes (for lack of a better word) will occur before election day?  I figure about six.

Six?  He does that in a week.  Since insulting that family, he has the comment that could be seen as calling for a political assassination, picked a fight with a baby (literally), failed to endorse Ryan, accused the president of founding ISIS, and was unaware Russia already went in to the Ukraine.   

I'm with Hoodie...I'll definitely take the over. From what I can tell, the TGR (Trump Gaffe Ratio) can be determined by projecting the number of times that Trump will open his mouth, and then multiply that number by 0.8.

I'm setting the over-under on number of Presidential debates before Trump mentions Monica Lewinsky or Vince Foster (during a debate) at 1.5.

So no answer? If you had said things were better "socially speaking" I wouldn't agree but could understand. Financially you are off your rockers and go to attacking the number of years I chose instead of answering the economy question I just asked.

I picked 10 because that is the number that popped in my head and a "typical" time frame that people use.

If we go back only 8 years the margins are even worse than the numbers I used.

2007   $57,936
2008   $57,211

Our National debt has more than doubled under Obama (and continues to grow) and people are making less money than when he took office 8 freaking years ago. If you think this is OK then I would assume you think it's ok to not pay your bills. Most of us have had few, if any raises, since Obama took office and a large portion have taken pay cuts with more responsibilities.

So if this is your idea of Utopia then it must not take very much to impress you guys. Congrats to the women in your lives.

It's ironic that the conservatives here have watched GWB put us into the worst recession since the 30s, follow it up with republican mandated austerity cuts as we were in a recovery all the while resisting even simple items like a plan to repair and rebuild infrastructure. (bridges, roads, etc) .. and then have the complete lack of self awareness to complain about the economy.

Look in the mirror.

I directly answered your question:


I'm not sure how much more direct I can be.

That's another issue with those numbers: if you take them at face value, "most Americans" were still doing quite well in 2008 and 2009 when we were in the middle of the worst economic collapse in 75 years.  It makes one wonder how useful that statistic is as a measurement of the health of the economy.

Obama's most recent budget deficit is over $1 trillion (with a T) lower than the deficit he inherited from GWB in 2009:

(http://www.bobcesca.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/deficit_chart_benen.jpg)

Well, that's because he was handed the second-worst economic catastrophe in the history of the republic, and it takes time to improve things.  I am in favor of continuing the improvement path Obama has put us on, rather than reversing it with more GOP policies.

National Debt
GWB - $10,024,724,896,912.49
BHO - $19,391,704,027,667.12

Total term % Increase
GWB - 76.7%
BHO - 93.4%

What are you talking about?

YR-----PREZ-------------------ADD/SUB DEBT----------CUMULATIVE DEBT-------YR+---TOTALTERM+---END OF TERM % TOTAL DEBT
2001   George Walker Bush   $133,285,202,313.20   $5,807,463,412,200.06   2.3%   76.7%   24.0%
2002   George Walker Bush   $420,772,553,397.10   $6,228,235,965,597.16   7.2%   76.7%   24.0%
2003   George Walker Bush   $554,995,097,146.46   $6,783,231,062,743.62   8.9%   76.7%   24.0%
2004   George Walker Bush   $595,821,633,586.70   $7,379,052,696,330.32   8.8%   76.7%   24.0%
2005   George Walker Bush   $553,656,965,393.18   $7,932,709,661,723.50   7.5%   76.7%   24.0%
2006   George Walker Bush   $574,264,237,491.73   $8,506,973,899,215.23   7.2%   76.7%   24.0%
2007   George Walker Bush   $500,679,473,047.25   $9,007,653,372,262.48   5.9%   76.7%   24.0%
2008   George Walker Bush   $1,017,071,524,650.01   $10,024,724,896,912.49   11.3%   76.7%   24.0%
2009   Barack Hussein Obama   $1,885,104,106,599.26   $11,909,829,003,511.75   18.8%   93.4%   48.3%
2010   Barack Hussein Obama   $1,651,794,027,380.04   $13,561,623,030,891.79   13.9%   93.4%   48.3%
2011   Barack Hussein Obama   $1,228,717,297,665.36   $14,790,340,328,557.15   9.1%   93.4%   48.3%
2012   Barack Hussein Obama   $1,275,901,078,828.74   $16,066,241,407,385.89   8.6%   93.4%   48.3%
2013   Barack Hussein Obama   $671,942,119,311.43   $16,738,183,526,697.32   4.2%   93.4%   48.3%
2014   Barack Hussein Obama   $1,085,887,854,036.50   $17,824,071,380,733.82   6.5%   93.4%   48.3%
2015   Barack Hussein Obama   $326,546,285,750.51   $18,150,617,666,484.33   1.8%   93.4%   48.3%
2016   Barack Hussein Obama   $1,241,086,361,182.79   $19,391,704,027,667.12   6.8%   93.4%   48.3%


http://www.polidiotic.com/by-the-numbers/us-national-debt-by-year/ (http://www.polidiotic.com/by-the-numbers/us-national-debt-by-year/)

Really comes down to how you measure 2009. 

(1) Do you take a snap shot of what the debt level was at noon on Jan 20 2009 and say any debt accumulated from the moment on is Obama's

OR

(2) Do you consider the debt accumulated as a result of budgets signed by Bush to belong to Bush and debt accumulated as a result of budgets signed by Obama to belong to Obama.   

The (national) debt and the (budget) deficit are not the same thing.

In order to lower the total national debt, we must run budget surpluses (as opposed to budget deficits).  The last President to run a budget surplus was Hillary's husband; his Republican predecessor - with control of both houses of Congress - decided that a budget surplus necessarily means the people are being taxed too much and implemented enormous tax cuts that immediately destroyed the surplus.

Long story short: Dubya inherited a budget surplus and left his successor with a 1.5T budget deficit.
Obama inherited a 1.5T budget deficit and has cut that by two-thirds.

I hate to remind you but W has been gone almost 8 years. No one is buying it any longer

Okay, I read your post wrong, but at this point, I have to agree with CF.

Why am I mentioning George W. Bush 8 years after he left office?  Great question.  I propose a thought experiment: if the GOP gets control of Congress and the White House, what will be their tax policy?

According to PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/07/politifacts-guide-2016-candidates-tax-plans/), here is the 10-year impact on federal revenue from each of these candidates' proposed tax policy:

Hillary: increases by $500B~$1.1T
Trump: reduces by $10T

And just for comparison's sake, so we get a better idea of the "sense of the parties" on this matter (and not just these two individuals):

Bernie: increases by $10T~$15T
Cruz: reduces by $3.6T~$13.9T

So the point that I am making is not one that is specific to Dubya, but to Republicans as a party: arguing over debts and deficits is a complete waste of time, because it's a smokescreen.  Republicans had control of the White House and Congress with budget surpluses in hand, and they immediately passed massive tax cuts to get us back to deficit status.  And they will gladly tell you right now that if they get control, they will do exactly the same thing again.

As Dick Cheney put it, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

You lost me at politifacts...not a secrete that it's biased.

Ahhh, the Clinton surplus myth. He raided the SS fund.

"If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt -- meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve -- we didn't actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn't decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right?"

Facts have a well-known liberal bias.

[citation needed]

Go google it, I don't have time to argue about shit that you damn well know is true.

I heard the reason Trump won't release his tax returns is because he donated to NAMBLA.

"Maybe that’s right, maybe that’s wrong, but I don’t know why he doesn’t release his records."

People are telling me the reason why Trump hasn't released his tax refunds is that he has donated to NAMBLA.  I don't know. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.  I don't think Crooked Trump would do something like that.  I would like to think Crooked Trump wouldn't do something like that.  But lots of people are talking.  You tell me is the reason he hasn't released his tax refunds because he donated to NAMBLA.

It's kind of a waste of time for me to fact check your easily disproven claims when you will categorically dismiss any non-partisan source I cite, but let's try anyway (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/):

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."

The reality-based community (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community) strikes again!

"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year." And the debt increased every year under Clinton!

I figured it would be totally pointless to ask you to provide any sort of evidence for the claims you keep firing off - first it's the "SS fund," now after that's been quickly shot down, it's time to throw something else against the wall and see what sticks - so I decided to look into the underlying rationale behind your argument.

It turns out that this is more "unemployment rate" conservative logic.  By that, I mean: we have used the Bureau of Labor Statistics U3 Unemployment Rate as the official measurement of the "unemployment rate" since the '40s.  We used it for the Reagan administration.  We used it for the Clinton administration.  We used it for the Bush administration.  Yet suddenly, when that rate starts decreasing rapidly under Obama, conservatives immediately insist that the U3 rate is misleading and inaccurate, and we shouldn't be using it at all.  (But they were fine with hammering Obama with it when the number was terrible!)

So let's talk about deficits and surpluses.  The (unattributed...) quote you provided above is from a website (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30) that has taken great pains to explain why we should not consider the Clinton surplus a real surplus (namely: because the gov't used surplus money to buy bonds from itself, which immediately converts all that surplus into debt).

The rather obvious and simple hole in this logic is that using the same math that we have been using to evaluate EVERY OTHER budget for decades, Clinton ran a surplus.  The numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office!  So yet again, conservatives are trying to change the definition of terms when they don't like the outcome.

It doesn't matter what kind of fuzzy math or cooking the books you use. If your total debt is going up, you don't have a surplus. If Spider doubles his income next year, but conversely doubles his debt. He most certainly hasn't run a surplus.

Even if we abandon the math the CBO has used to calculate every other President's budget and torture the numbers to show that Clinton technically had a deficit instead of a surplus... you realize that the same math would still show Dubya increasing that deficit by several hundred billion dollars the next year, right?

That's the point.  If you really care about the national debt and budget deficits, then you should never vote Republicans into federal office, because their first move will be to pass deficit-exploding tax cuts.

Katrina Pierson is starting to remind me of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

I think that if there's going to be real fiscal reform, it can't come from the current GOP, but will have to come from the Libertarian wing.

The biggest piece of the spending pie comes from military spending + veterans.  If you don't work to cut that down BIG TIME, the little stuff doesn't matter.  Both parties are pretty hawkish at the moment, with the GOP leading the way with expansion. 

Libertarians are a step towards isolationism and a smaller military.   Maybe they'll take over after Trump embarrasses the party and some of those parts of the platform will be adopted.

It only makes sense, politically.  I think the GOP really hurt themselves and had the opportunity to go left of the Dems on certain small-government ideas -- legalizing vices (drugs, sex, gambling) ...being the anti-prohibition party, essentially, like they do with guns.  And then, be the anti-war party.  Instead, they claimed to be small government, but not for social issues -- and then unable to follow through on the fiscal ones, either.

If Trump loses bad, and Johnson has a good showing you may either see many repubs leave switch parties or the republican party modify to become more libertarian. 

Entirely untrue. It's the republicans pushing for a constitutional convention for the states to ratify a bill to mandate a balanced budget. It would be kind of hard to pass " deficit-exploding tax cuts" when you have to have a balanced budget.

Of course the GOP is pushing for a balanced budget amendment when a Democrat is in the White House.  Republicans are extremely concerned about deficits when they aren't in power.  But when they are in power, it's deficit-exploding tax cuts, now and forever.

To wit: when last the Republicans had control of the White House and both houses of Congress, they didn't balance the budget or fight for a balanced budget amendment... instead, they passed deficit-exploding tax cuts.

So, is it a good or bad thing that government has given itself the power to create near-infinite amounts of money and near-infinite amounts of debt out of thin air?

Is it a good or bad thing when government can run up trillions in dollars in debt, so that it must seize a surprising percent of the average American's taxes just to pay the interest?
 
Is it a good or bad thing that this in effect makes every single person in the "land of the free" a DEBT SERF?

Republicans and Democrats both have run up the debt and had deficits.  Fuck Carter, Reagan, Big Bush, Clinton, Little Bush, and Obama. They are history don't matter at this point. Regardless of who the next POTUS is, we need term limits and a balanced budget mandate. You're trying to argue that one is better than the other, when in fact they are both the problem. You act like the Republicans don't realize that a balanced budget mandate would apply to them if they win.

Republicans literally don't care about the deficit when they are in a position to do something about it, only when they are not.  When they are actually given control, they only care about tax cuts and reducing spending on social programs that they are already ideologically opposed to; for example, Social Security has run a surplus for decades and the Republicans still can't stop talking about how we need to slash it (i.e. "entitlement reform").

If we returned to the Bill Clinton-era tax rates (across the board) and raised the cap on Medicare and SS earnings, we could eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt.  But no one is interested in that; even Democrats are running scared from the very idea of raising taxes on anyone but the ultra-rich.

So if there is no longer a constituency for raising taxes high enough to pay for spending that we have already authorized, and the party that purportedly wants to "cut spending" wants to cut revenue even faster than spending, why should ANYONE care about the deficit?  Again, as Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."  When Bill Clinton actually took the deficit seriously and raised taxes enough to pay for spending we have already authorized, he immediately lost both houses of Congress.

And that's exactly why we need balanced budget amendment and term limits. You're still playing the "we're right, you're wrong" game. I don't know about your household, but when money is tight for me. The first thing I do is curtail my spending, not look for a new job or income. Clinton lost Congress because no one wants to pay higher taxes for an out of control government to flush down the toilet.

I don't like comparing my personal finances to those of a government that:

a) is accountable to the will of the electorate
b) can print as much money as it pleases

To me, talking about curtailing spending is a non-solution, as everyone can think of lots of spending that they never agreed with in the first place to cut.  Anyone that talks about cutting spending is exclusively talking about cutting spending they don't like; if spending cuts aren't important enough to also cut things you are in favor of, then spending cuts aren't very important at all.

But more to my point: I have zero interest in talking about spending cuts with people who think it's a good idea to cut taxes when we are already running a deficit.  Anyone who is really serious about the national debt would not propose a SINGLE tax cut until AFTER we have cut spending enough to be in surplus, and even then would not propose any tax cut that would take us into deficit.  The last 20 years of American politics have proven that these people do not exist.

Just one more important point to add:

The reason why no one really cares about the deficit can be summed up in the famous quote from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

- If Republicans take office and start slashing spending on anything that matters (specifically: our three biggest expenditures, Social Security/Medicare/military), there will be a voter revolt and they will be thrown out.
- If Democrats take office and start increasing taxes on anyone but the ultra-rich, there will be a voter revolt and they will be thrown out.

It is incredibly difficult to convince a politician to vote for policies that will result in his own unemployment.  So instead, Republicans take office and slash spending for people who don't vote (primarily: the poor) while doing huge tax cuts, and Democrats take office and increase taxes almost entirely on the rich while increasing safety net spending.

Kind of like Obama and his filp flopping double speak.

(https://s4.postimg.org/dkl87z9m1/debt_ceiling.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/dkl87z9m1/)

In short, yes: opposing a raise of the debt ceiling is a normal action for a minority party that's powerless to stop it.
But it was unheard of for the majority party to block a debt ceiling increase, as such an action would immediately devalue the dollar more than having the Treasury print up and pay out the entire debt at once.  It makes no sense whatsoever to "protect our currency" by instantly destroying it; the entire value of the dollar is literally the "full faith and credit" that the United States will pay its debts.

I do find it funny that you like analogies to household finances, because refusing to raise the debt ceiling is like "saving money" by refusing to pay your bills.  The spending has already been allocated by previous gov't actions, and refusing to raise the debt ceiling does not change that fact.

Actually it would be like buying a new house, car, and boat and they paying the monthly bills with a credit card and then making the minimum monthly payments until they become too expensive to pay. You see Spider, if you keep your bills manageable, you don't have to go into more debt to pay your bills, it's common sense math. Do you go into debt to pay your monthly bills? If so, you're living beyond your means, just like our government. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment. So that regardless of who's in power, we will stop bleeding money before it's too late.

I don't think you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If we refuse to raise the debt ceiling our debt obligations still exist and continue to accumulate, so we are simply choosing which of these obligations to default on.  Defaulting on a debt is not "making minimum payments"; it is refusing to pay a debt that you owe.

They are not all obligations. Plenty of it is willful overspending. Pay our obligations and eliminate the fluff. You don't eat steak and lobster when you are essentially bankrupt. You pay your essential bills and eat bologna sandwiches. It's called being responsible. It's called having a budget and sticking to it. That's why there needs to be a balanced budget amendment. Just because you don't raise the debt ceiling doesn't mean that you don't pay your bills. It means that you don't spend more than you make.

Forcing a balanced budget isn't necessarily a good idea. Aside from the arguments made by others above, there are plenty of other reasons. Primarily, it limits a governments options when dealing with an economic downturn. If unemployment is high, tax income is (usually) down, but the government has a lot of expenses that can be moved around. Particularly, moving up things like road maintenance can decrease unemployment, reduce expenditures on unemployment benefits, get the maintenance done cheaper (since unemployment is high), saving a ton of money in the long run. The government needs more flexibility, not less.

That doesn't make running a huge deficit a good thing, of course, particularly when the economy is doing well.

ALL of the spending that requires the debt ceiling to be raised are obligations.  The best case scenario is to choose which debts to default on, and defaulting on ANY of them would devastate the value of the dollar... especially since a debt default specifically means that the U.S. has decided that it is simply unwilling to pay its debt (as the U.S. is always able to pay any debt issued in USD, by definition).

I know fact checking isn't allowed, but let's try the known commie rag Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/10/15/10-questions-on-the-u-s-debt-ceiling/) as a source this time:

Does raising the debt ceiling approve new spending?

Raising the debt ceiling allows Congress to pay for things that it has already decided to spend money on. Around one-third of federal spending is discretionary, for which Congress approves annual spending bills with specific instructions about how to spend the money. The other two-thirds is mandatory, meaning money is spent on certain programs established by existing law, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The debt ceiling has become a difficult vote for lawmakers because it’s viewed as one way to force fiscal restraint. If your bank doesn’t increase your credit card limit, the thinking goes, you’re going to have to cut back on spending.

Many economists and investors say that’s a flawed analogy because Congress has already voted to approve the spending. In that sense, refusing to raise the debt limit is a bit like dining and dashing at a restaurant. Congress knew the bill was coming when it ordered the meal. Refusing to raise the debt limit is like running out of the restaurant before paying the check.

You just proved my point. 1/3 of the money spent is discretionary. Which means, aside from what's been approved in the past, if there is a balanced budget mandate they won't have the option to spend all of that discretionary money. moving forward that fluff money wouldn't be approved. You people seem to think that the government can just keep spending at will and there will be no repercussions. I guarantee that when this whole ponzi scheme collapses that you nutty liberals and the media will find a way to blame it on Bush, LMFAO

Yes, things like paying defense contractors for goods and services they have already provided are "discretionary."

A "balanced budget mandate" has nothing to do with it; we are talking about spending that has already been legislated.  The idea that it is somehow more fiscally responsible to pass legislation that calls for spending and then refuse to pay the bill that arrives at the end is total nonsense.

To use your analogy again, refusing to raise the debt limit is like balancing your budget by keeping the same house, car, cable TV, cell phone, internet, etc. and then saying, "Well, if I just stop paying my bills then the rest of these issues will sort themselves out."

That's what I've been talking about for 2 pages. If you have a balanced budget or evan a surplus, you wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling because the spending going forward would have to fall within that mandated balanced budget. I have a feeling you already know this, but you have issues of some kind and have to argue with everyone about everything.

Lets see if you can follow. Balanced budget amendment = a balanced budget = not spending more than you can afford to spend = not adding debt = not having to raise the debt ceiling. Jesus Christ, it's simple math.

Then pass a balanced budget amendment, or pass new legislation in Congress to reduce the spending.

But don't instantly torpedo the value of the dollar (and the U.S. credit rating) by refusing to pay the bills for things Congress has already committed to.  The point of balancing the budget is supposed to be protecting the value of the dollar (otherwise, there is literally no reason to care about the national debt), but an intentional debt default would do far more to undermine the value of the dollar than any amount of money we could print for decades.

It's easy to say have a balanced budget, but as Spider said there are certain mandated expenses (S.S., interest on existing debt, gov't employee pensions, wages, military, etc. etc.).  Sure you could cut some programs, but there are times when the economy is so bad that the government has to spend to fuel the economy; so if there was a balanced budget law then the only way to balance it would be to raise taxes.

No, the government propping up the economy is the problem in the first place. The economy we have today is fake, meaning it can't support itself. In order to fix this mess that the past 50 years of administrations have created, the country would have to suffer to an extent. Not suffer to the point of not eating or going without shoes. But suffer as far as losing this "I want it now" feeling of entitlement. Even if we did that, we would still have the best standard of living on earth. We are hooked on artificially low interest rates, debt, and cheap money created out of thin air. Just like a heroin junkie, remove the junk and suffer through the withdrawls. Sadly, I feel it's past the point of no return since most people have the "I want it now" lifestyle but don't have jack shit to back it up.

I agree with most of what you are saying here, probably not to the painful extent you do, but I agree.  Interest rates need to go up, in the long run this will help.  IMO the problem is that so many people now are invested in the stock market that no one wants to see it dip, and with a rise in interest rates the market will go down.  It will go back up, but the politicians don't want to deal with the headaches it creates, or the impact on their legacies.  However a balance budget amendment isn't needed to solve this problem.