Deranged Rhino Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Trump to give anti-Clinton speech "I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week, and we are going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons," he said during a primary night rally in New York. "I think you are going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend." Trump went on to lambast Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, for turning "the State Department into her own private hedge fund," accusing her of rewarding countries who donated to her family foundation. He went on to bash her for using a private email server to "keep her corrupt dealings out of the public record." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/282622-trump-to-give-anti-clinton-speech The next five months are going to be unbearable...
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Trump to give anti-Clinton speech "I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week, and we are going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons," he said during a primary night rally in New York. "I think you are going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend." Trump went on to lambast Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, for turning "the State Department into her own private hedge fund," accusing her of rewarding countries who donated to her family foundation. He went on to bash her for using a private email server to "keep her corrupt dealings out of the public record." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/282622-trump-to-give-anti-clinton-speech The next five months are going to be unbearable... I'm already nauseous after last night's and this morning's fawning Clinton coverage. Trump certainly isn't going to make it better.
Magox Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Are you interested in confiding with us which candidate, in your opinion, would be best for this country? Why? At this stage of the game, I'm beginning to pay attention again purely for entertainment purposes. In regards to voting, I know with 99.99% certainty that I will not be voting for either Hillary or Trump. I assume I will research Gary Johnson and see if he is a palatable alternative.
Observer Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) "If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot." By Prof. Ann Althouse "His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case. Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot." Writes Scott Adams, saying in what might be the funniest and best observation about judges I've ever read (and being an long-time law professor, I've read a lot). The leading presidential candidate makes a racist comment about a judge. You post an article about how bias leaks into the judiciary. The two are not related and it's this mental gymnastics that is an embarassment to the Republicans as they attempt to accept their nominee. Don't worry: The Bernie supporters feel your pain this morning. Their #HillYes hashtags will be hard to tweet but they're coming. At this stage of the game, I'm beginning to pay attention again purely for entertainment purposes. In regards to voting, I know with 99.99% certainty that I will not be voting for either Hillary or Trump. I assume I will research Gary Johnson and see if he is a palatable alternative. Johnson looked better before I started looking harder and listening to him speak (the guy is a long ways from confidence inspiring). But if he's got a shot at 10%, I'm in. Pulling the lever for Trump is a 0% possibility for me. Only Trump's mouth in the next 5 months can convince me to vote for Hillary. I just worry about Trump so much that occasionally I get pulled to the possibility of a Clinton vote. At least with her I'd know the pain to come. I'm 0-fer in presidential votes since 1992. Hate to break a streak. Edited June 8, 2016 by Observer
Canadian Bills Fan Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 I just cant get past that smug look that Clinton always has CBF
Chef Jim Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Maybe Trump had a point. This if from Sotomayer: My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. And this: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life, I just cant get past that smug look that Clinton always has CBF Kind of like this one?
B-Man Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 The leading presidential candidate makes a racist comment about a judge. You post an article about how bias leaks into the judiciary. The two are not related and it's this mental gymnastics that is an embarassment to the Republicans as they attempt to accept their nominee. That you claim that you cannot see the significance of Professor Althouse's article is not really surprising. It fits in with your "one-note" responses. You should read her, or Scott Adams, or (at least) some type of diverse writings before you continue. While I am not a supporter of his, it is funny to see you refer to The Donald as "The leading presidential candidate"...
Observer Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 While I am not a supporter of his, it is funny to see you refer to The Donald as "The leading presidential candidate"... He is, according to the Fox and ABC polls, and all the momentum.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 I'm already nauseous after last night's and this morning's fawning Clinton coverage. Trump certainly isn't going to make it better. Did you know she might be the first woman president??!!
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Did you know she might be the first woman president??!! Cis or trans?
Observer Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) The possible leader of the free world. Edited June 9, 2016 by Observer
meazza Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 The possible leader of the free world. http://www.mediaite.com/online/in-interview-with-foxs-bret-baier-clinton-delivers-rambling-non-answer-on-economy/ What difference at this point does it make?
B-Man Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 I went back a few pages and I can't see where anyone linked to The Donald's statement about the Judge comment controversy so I will add it. After his initial comments provoked controversy, Trump returned to the subject several times and dug the hole deeper. Finally, yesterday, Trump tried to put the matter behind him with this statement. Trump’s statement consists mostly of a defense of Trump University and whining about Judge Curiel’s treatment of him, but this part is salient: It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent. The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges. All judges should be held to that standard. I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial. The statement concludes: Normally, legal issues in a civil case would be heard in a neutral environment. However, given my unique circumstances as nominee of the Republican Party and the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade, I have concerns as to my ability to receive a fair trial. I am fighting hard to bring jobs back to the United States. Many companies – like Ford, General Motors, Nabisco, Carrier – are moving production to Mexico. Drugs and illegal immigrants are also pouring across our border. This is bad for all Americans, regardless of their heritage. Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality. I am not aware that Trump had any knowledge of Curiel’s affiliation with the racist group La Raza when he launched his initial attack. It is a fair question. I hope it is not the case. While this lawsuit should have been dismissed, it is now scheduled for trial in November. I do not intend to comment on this matter any further. Hallelujah. But the cows are pretty well out of the barn. And I really doubt that he has the self discipline to stick to that Trump’s original comments were not really racist, as Paul Mirengoff wrote a little while ago. But they were criminally stupid. No real politician would have committed such an unforced error. Perhaps Trump fans who thought it would be great to nominate a man who is not a politician are now seeing the downside of selecting an amateur.
Observer Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 http://www.mediaite.com/online/in-interview-with-foxs-bret-baier-clinton-delivers-rambling-non-answer-on-economy/ What difference at this point does it make? Not as bad as the Sanders interview where he showed zero grasp of the economy. Hillary isn't proposing to do anything different than Obama--which is why that's not an easy question for her. I don't know why she evaded except that's just in her nature.
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Not as bad as the Sanders interview where he showed zero grasp of the economy. Hillary isn't proposing to do anything different than Obama--which is why that's not an easy question for her. I don't know why she evaded except that's just in her nature. He's a socialist. By definition, zero grasp of the economy IS his grasp of the economy.
4merper4mer Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Get it through your thick skull, I'm not interested in comparing the two. I'm not interested in choosing teams. I'm not interested in picking the lesser of two evils. I'm not interested in repeating the same damn thing over and over and over every !@#$ing day. I'm not interested in engaging in the mental gymnastics that the sheeple have to do in order to justify their support of their preferred candidate. There are two people running for the office of POTUS.....you're not interested in comparing the two......on a web board designed to discuss politics.....and I'm the one with a thick skull?????? P.S. Claiming the moral high ground while standing off to the side and calling everyone else a sheeple, is not exactly unique. In fact it sort of makes you.....a sheeple.
Magox Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 There are two people running for the office of POTUS.....you're not interested in comparing the two......on a web board designed to discuss politics.....and I'm the one with a thick skull?????? P.S. Claiming the moral high ground while standing off to the side and calling everyone else a sheeple, is not exactly unique. In fact it sort of makes you.....a sheeple. No, I'm not interested in comparing the two because they both don't represent the values that I share. There really isn't much difference in the magnitude of sucktitude between the two. Is this really a difficult concept for you to grasp? And I get it, you have no desire to talk about Trump, because it's a losing venture but you'd rather deflect and parrot the same old drawn out Hillary bull **** day after day after day. Yes, she sucks. Yes, she's untrustworthy. Yes, she's a hypocrite. Yes, she's dishonest. Yes, WE GET IT!!! And the fact that you believe that people should come to a politics board and blindly support their team pretty much speaks to your mentality. That's fine, that's how you roll, I don't. I come here to discuss politics, issues and criticize things that I dislike politically because it's a politics board. Contrary to your narrow beliefs this is not a "Time to choose political sides" board. Maybe it is for many people but not for me.
....lybob Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 The possible leader of the free world. T-rump says he can not be treated fairly by those with a Mexican heritage, Muslims, menstruating women, not my African-Americans or anyone with a strong bias against fraud oh and babies who get upset about a little good nature ribbing of the disabled
/dev/null Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Only Trump's mouth in the next 5 months can convince me to vote for Hillary. I just worry about Trump so much that occasionally I get pulled to the possibility of a Clinton vote. At least with her I'd know the pain to come. At least we'd know going into the 2017 baseball season that the first pitch would be thrown like a girl.
4merper4mer Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 1. No, I'm not interested in comparing the two because they both don't represent the values that I share. 1A. There really isn't much difference in the magnitude of sucktitude between the two. Is this really a difficult concept for you to grasp? 2. And I get it, you have no desire to talk about Trump, because it's a losing venture but you'd rather deflect and parrot the same old drawn out Hillary bull **** day after day after day. Yes, she sucks. Yes, she's untrustworthy. Yes, she's a hypocrite. Yes, she's dishonest. Yes, WE GET IT!!! 2A. And the fact that you believe that people should come to a politics board and blindly support their team pretty much speaks to your mentality. 3. That's fine, that's how you roll, I don't. I come here to discuss politics, issues and criticize things that I dislike politically because it's a politics board. Contrary to your narrow beliefs this is not a "Time to choose political sides" board. Maybe it is for many people but not for me. 1. OK fine, then why are you in this thread? 1A. Closest thing to an opinion you've offered. Thanks for that. I disagree because I think she is an out and out criminal and, importantly, has the political infrastructure behind her which will allow her to continue to get away with shameful and harmful behavior. Trump OTOH, while an idiot, will take all sorts of criticism and have curbs put on his ability to do stupid/harmful things. This is and advantage IMO. That's just my opinion though. I am totally cool with you having yours as outlined in 1A. 2. False. Not sure whether that is on purpose or not. I don't like Trump as a candidate AT ALL. He is pretty funny sometimes as a public figure but IMO that is where he should stay. The Republicans got what they deserved in the process though because they tried to force feed Jeb Bush down everyone's throats....then Rubio...then doofus Kasich. You can check out other threads to see negative comments I made on Trump. I also made negative comments on the R's enabling him by being massively stupid. He basically out-outsidered Cruz so he won. I don't think the R's accounted for him at all. Their whole plan was to beat Cruz. It backfired. Both parties had plan to beat people that were running for their nominations this year. That is not the sign of a healthy system. I don't really think Trump outsmarted them 100%. I think there was some smarts too it, but also a lot of luck. If Bernie were a little smarter or luckier or both he could have won. 2A. It is easy for you to win an argument when you make up crap about what someone else is saying, then criticize it. 3. Solidification of 2A and establishing false moral high ground. Good one. Edited June 9, 2016 by 4merper4mer
Recommended Posts