GG Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 All these radio channels are owned by the same people. People who want Hillary. So, they've been doing what they're paid to do. Not quite. There's a large contingent of right leaning radio station owners.
FireChan Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 yes, he really was an underdog. and he made a really good run. I think he'd have won California if the press didn't already anoint Hillary the winner the night before. but he has no realistic path to the prez now. if I were a superdelegate i'd give him my vote at the convention but i'm not and there won't be enough superdelegates willing to do that. I think an argument can be made to vote for an outlier with no chance in the primaries just so he/she can get their message out; to be a gadfly. Bernie was certainly that and forced Hillary to say she's towards more liberal positions on many issues. in that way, it was a benefit to vote for him despite his losing. at this point, there is no more benefit to be had. FTFY. I'm sure she'll be a Bernie-lite now after she's gotten their votes.
GG Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 Trump's ascendancy is a result of the popular culture - a wealthy, powerful businessman whose name was already a household word before he became a reality television star. I believe that like so many others before him, his desire to seek high office is ego-driven, but I also believe that if he has the right cabinet and advisors - and he actually listens to them - that he'd be a lot better a president than Hillary Clinton would be. And this is the fallacy that I'm warning about. People projected their hopes on Obama, despite no history that he was an effective executive, that he could field a top notch team of advisors or that he could process the information from his advisors and make an informed decision instead of siding with his ideology facts be damned. Well with Trump, there's a well know history that he's not an effective executive, he's never fielded a top notch team of advisors, and he does not process the information from his advisors and makes an informed decision instead of siding with his ideology facts be damned. Why do you think he will change if he gets into the White House?
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 And this is the fallacy that I'm warning about. People projected their hopes on Obama, despite no history that he was an effective executive, that he could field a top notch team of advisors or that he could process the information from his advisors and make an informed decision instead of siding with his ideology facts be damned. Well with Trump, there's a well know history that he's not an effective executive, he's never fielded a top notch team of advisors, and he does not process the information from his advisors and makes an informed decision instead of siding with his ideology facts be damned. Why do you think he will change if he gets into the White House? He won't. But maybe he'll make people realize how damaging it is to give authoritarian powers to a Cheeto dust golem, and they'll make better choices in 2020.
B-Man Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 Full speech: Trump goes nuclear on Hillary FTA: It’ll take you 40 minutes to watch it but the transcript will cost you only five. The big themes are predictable — she’s a globalist and an interventionist with terrible judgment who’s used government to enrich herself and her cronies while working Americans struggled — but some of the individual lines are lightning strikes. Numero uno: We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place. Populists on both sides will nod along to that one. That’s one of six uses of the word “rigged,” in fact, in the span of about eight sentences towards the beginning. In case it’s the least bit unclear to Berniebros that he wants their votes, Trump also name-checked Sanders (a.k.a. “Crazy Bernie”) multiple times. Another keeper: Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft. So she has, and he supports that case at length. Team Trump’s angle on Hillary’s corruption is smart in that they’re not content here simply to argue that she’s crooked. What Trump tries to do in the speech is draw a contrast between Clinton’s fortunes, political and financial, increasing over the past 20 years while the working class’s fortunes declined over the same period. Quote: “he has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career.” The culprit, of course, is globalism, economic and military. Too much outsourcing, says Trump, and too many dumb, badly managed incursions into Middle Eastern politics. (He also claims that he was against the Iraq war from the very beginning, which isn’t true but Trump’s never going to let go of that useful lie.) And the populist centerpiece: Her campaign slogan is “I’m with her.” You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people. That might not be a winning message if Americans decide they don’t trust him with nuclear weapons but it’ll give Ohio and Pennsylvania something to think about. Two curiosities from the speech, though. One: It was surprisingly light on Clinton personal scandals. I didn’t expect Trump to make that a major theme but he did a good job sidelining Bill a few months ago by hammering him on the sexual assault allegations made against him in the past. His overarching point here is that the Clintons look after themselves no matter what it means for “the little guy” suffering. Bill harassing women and Hillary covering up for him fits right into that. One of the reasons Trump’s temporary Muslim ban is popular on the right, I think, is because it flatters the suspicion that truly “peaceful” Muslims are much less common than the U.S. government would have you believe. The number of actual jihadis may be small but the number of deeply illiberal Muslims who recoil from pluralist western values isn’t. Trump seems to be drawing an Obama-esque distinction here between the tiny minority of extremists and everyone else — although he does say a few sentences later about his refugee policy, “I only want to admit people who share our values and love our people.” What percentage of peaceful Muslims does that include? Presumably not zero, in which case is he rethinking his ban? More at the link:
4merper4mer Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 He won't. But maybe he'll make people realize how damaging it is to give authoritarian powers to a Cheeto dust golem, and they'll make better choices in 2020. That's sort of where I'm at. I'm also waiting for GG to explain when and how Hillary was an effective executive. She's as dangerous a person as Trump and her actions show it.
Doc Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 That's sort of where I'm at. I'm also waiting for GG to explain when and how Hillary was an effective executive. She's as dangerous a person as Trump and her actions show it. Anyone who claims HiLIARy was/is an effective executive isn't dealing from a full deck. Which is why I'll give GG the BOTD and believe he never made that claim. But she's far more dangerous than Trump because she's made horrendous decisions while in a position of power. The same can't be said for Trump...yet.
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 That's sort of where I'm at. I'm also waiting for GG to explain when and how Hillary was an effective executive. She's as dangerous a person as Trump and her actions show it. I think, if she's effective at all, it's at hiding the fact that she's not an effective executive.
GG Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) That's sort of where I'm at. I'm also waiting for GG to explain when and how Hillary was an effective executive. She's as dangerous a person as Trump and her actions show it. If I'm not mistaken this is the trump thread. Hillary doesn't deserve to be President for a whole host of reasons that are discussed in her thread. Edited June 22, 2016 by GG
Deranged Rhino Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 not to benefit me you fool. to benefit the country as a whole. if I were to vote based on who would most likely benefit me personally, i'd rarely if ever vote dem. However you want to spin it, it's still the definition of having principles, conviction, or honesty. But I don't expect those things from you. Not quite. There's a large contingent of right leaning radio station owners. And they want HRC, not Trump. The people who own these media companies are not partisan -- even the ones who lean right or left. They play both sides to assure they get the best outcome for themselves. I know that's hard to fathom for you, but the evidence is clear.
Azalin Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 And this is the fallacy that I'm warning about. People projected their hopes on Obama, despite no history that he was an effective executive, that he could field a top notch team of advisors or that he could process the information from his advisors and make an informed decision instead of siding with his ideology facts be damned. Well with Trump, there's a well know history that he's not an effective executive, he's never fielded a top notch team of advisors, and he does not process the information from his advisors and makes an informed decision instead of siding with his ideology facts be damned. Why do you think he will change if he gets into the White House? Did I give you the impression that I'm projecting my hopes on Trump? Is that what this comes down to - wanting anyone but Hillary is a qualifier for putting faith in her opponent, whoever that might be? Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear that I don't like him as a presidential candidate. I don't see how my "anyone but Hillary or that crazy socialist Bernie" stance is in any way projecting my hopes onto Trump. The apparent difference between you and me is that I'm willing to vote against the individual I think will do the most damage, and in my view, Hillary is more of a threat than Trump. Then again, I live in Texas - here, you always win the state if you have an "R" following your name, so my presidential vote doesn't count for a whole lot anyway.
B-Man Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Slate @Slate 6h6 hours ago Trump’s speech about Hillary was terrifyingly effective: http://slate.me/28QzOXe
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Slate @Slate 6h6 hours ago Trump’s speech about Hillary was terrifyingly effective: http://slate.me/28QzOXe From the article: When the speech was over, I spoke to Carl Paladino, Trump’s New York co-chairman and frequent surrogate, who said that he expects the speech to mollify some of Trump’s Republican critics. “They can’t come griping anymore,” he said. “He’s on the teleprompter, and he’s on message. It’s a lot easier when you’re scripted in your presentation.” Great. Just what the right has been clamoring for over the past seven years; someone who is only coherent when he reads directly from a teleprompter.
boyst Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 except that bernie is actually a decent human that cares about americans and says what he believes to be the truth. of course that would never play among the 50% of the repub party that find trump appealing. these are not desirable attributes to those that want to be told what they wishfully believe to be the truth. "if only all those foreigners were gone, america would be great again. i'd have a $25/hour middle class job and a pension". bernie,s contention that concentration of wealth is the problem is backed by plenty of data. it's indisputable. could he change it? probably not but many dems are looking for truth speakers. repubs, not so much. yes, many, many americans are sick and tired of the status quo. but the outlier they choose as an alternative says much about them and the party they affiliate with. and they repub pols that empowered them. how many have been featured at cpac? how many senators, congressmen or prez candidates from the right have gone on their show? how many have called them out for their lunacy and rabble rousing? I do not read your horseshit. But I have a questionYour party, therefore you (let's face it you can't free think) want to ban people on the FBI watchlist and under investigation from buying guns. Why do you support one of those people as president?
B-Man Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 DONALD TRUMP ON BREXIT: Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration. Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again. I like the implicit contrast with Obama’s Anglophobia. UPDATE: From the comments: “In a room somewhere in New York Hillary Clinton watched today’s Trump presser from Turnberry and emailed her staff to bring her another gin and tonic.”
4merper4mer Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 I do not read your horseshit. But I have a question Your party, therefore you (let's face it you can't free think) want to ban people on the FBI watchlist and under investigation from buying guns. Why do you support one of those people as president? Answer:
B-Man Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 NOT The Onion: Look what Buzzfeed thinks Trump’s doing too much of while world’s ‘on fire’ Warning: Make sure you’re not drinking your beverage of choice when reading the following tweet. Ready ? Follow BuzzFeed News ✔ @BuzzFeedNews The World Is On Fire And Donald Trump Can’t Stop Talking About His Golf Course https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/europe-is-on-fire-and-donald-trump-couldnt-stop-talking-abou?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc … pic.twitter.com/D9WvTzpA1n 10:42 AM - 24 Jun 2016
/dev/null Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 NOT The Onion: Look what Buzzfeed thinks Trumps doing too much of while worlds on fire Warning: Make sure youre not drinking your beverage of choice when reading the following tweet. Ready ? Follow BuzzFeed News ✔ @BuzzFeedNews The World Is On Fire And Donald Trump Cant Stop Talking About His Golf Course https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/europe-is-on-fire-and-donald-trump-couldnt-stop-talking-abou?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc pic.twitter.com/D9WvTzpA1n 10:42 AM - 24 Jun 2016 Trump should be more focused on important matters of state and diplomacy, like slow jamming the news or taking selfies.
unbillievable Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 Will Trump be saving tax-payers money by playing on his own courses instead of country clubs like Obama?
Recommended Posts