DC Tom Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 It only came up because he's been planting that seed rather loudly at his campaign events. Good counter-counterpoint, in fact. And I doubt he's going to have much of a choice, anyway. What's he going to do, throw a tantrum and hold his breath until he turns bluish-orange? (What would that even be? Fuchsia?) Find a judge to swear him in as the AntiPresident?
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 We know you love her and all but splitting heirs about types of deductions with things he may have said/meant seems speculative. I'm sure the Clinton foundation is on the up and up right? Yeah, but I would expect a man who claims that he's the most versed candidate in our tax laws to use the proper tax terms. Sort of like laughing at everyone claiming that Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever.
B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) HELL, AL GORE CONCEDED AFTER THE ELECTION, AND THEN UN-CONCEDED LATER: Mickey Kaus: “Imagine asking Gore in Oct 2000 if he’d accept the result of the election. What would it mean? Rightly not enforceable.” JOURNALISM: Reporters at Vegas Debate Caught Cheering for Hillary. FACT-CHECK: Hillary Clinton claimed the Heller decision was about toddlers. It was actually about whether a 66-year-old police officer had the right to keep a gun at home. IN THIS LAST PUBLIC DEBATE DID HILLARY GIVE US HER PUBLIC POSITION OR HER PRIVATE POSITION?: It’s a reasonable question to ask. In an extremely well-paid speech Hillary delivered to the National Multi-Housing Council, she said “you need both a public and a private position.” Check it out. April 24, 2013. 10 Edited October 20, 2016 by B-Man
frostbitmic Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I'm not sure which is worse, Hillary's "you're a d-bag" smile or the Donald looking like grumpy cat. Either way, one of these two buffoons will be the next President and we the people lose.
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Yeah, but I would expect a man who claims that he's the most versed candidate in our tax laws to use the proper tax terms. Sort of like laughing at everyone claiming that Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever. You'll have to excuse the unwashed that can't see your girl's credentials properly. There will always be people like that. Don't let it bother you. There are even some who think Andrew Luck is not the greatest QB if all time. Baskets of deplorable state like that often die clinging to their guns and religion. I do think your anti-Trump spin is a little silly on this particular point though. What candidate hasn't oversimplified something in a debate format? Would you prefer he go line by line and explain everything he did?
Magox Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 In regards to the "not accepting the election results" My personal opinion of how things will transpire: My view: it is much ado about nothing. However, Trump is doing this as a way to attempt to save face to his adoring fans on his looming crushing electoral defeat. In other words, he's a sore loser. The Media: as usual will go hyperbolic and look to help secure the victory for Hillary by continuing to make this an issue for the next couple days, despite their blatant hypocrisy of making similar claims themselves in 2000 and 2004. Pathetic bunch they are. Democrats: will show their hypocrisy by doing the same, however it would be criminal of them not to use this as a political hammer to beat down their GOP opponents. This is simply another case of Trump being so thin-skinned and unable to control his nonsensical internal urges to have to defend his inane narcissism. For someone who knows the media so well, his entire team knew what the correct answer should have been, yet he simply could not control himself. So rather than focus on hammering Hillary over Open borders, the wikileaks stuff etc etc. he will lose another 2-3 days having to talk about whether or not the elections are rigged. The big loser of the night? Down-ballot GOP candidates. But hey, Dante said it and his views were reflected by the GOP primary results, that they were tired of these mealy-mouthed GOP candidates. Well, you got what you wanted. Hope you are happy with the results.
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I do think your anti-Trump spin is a little silly on this particular point though. What candidate hasn't oversimplified something in a debate format? Would you prefer he go line by line and explain everything he did? No need to go line by line, but attributing it to depreciation is deception, not simplifying it. But you'll have to wait for a cold day in he'll until trump admits that the deduction is due to his businesses filing bankruptcy.
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) No need to go line by line, but attributing it to depreciation is deception, not simplifying it. But you'll have to wait for a cold day in he'll until trump admits that the deduction is due to his businesses filing bankruptcy. Because your girl and others running for office have never deceived anyone. Geez dude at least criticize how his approach might harm the country. There seems to be plenty there. Calling him out for oversimplification/deception/lying hardly justifies your disdain because there is no contrast on the other side. He did it describing his tax situation. She did it with national secrets on a server in her bathroom. Those two things when compared don't help your cause. Call him a Putin puppet like she did. That might resonate. So rather than focus on hammering Hillary over Open borders, the wikileaks stuff etc etc. he will lose another 2-3 days having to talk about whether or not the elections are rigged. LOL software guy right? Do you really believe that? If it wasn't the "accepting results" question the press would have found something else and/or planted it. They would spend two days asking him why his left shoe was tied a little more loosely than his right if they needed to. Edited October 20, 2016 by 4merper4mer
Magox Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 LOL software guy right? Do you really believe that? If it wasn't the "accepting results" question the press would have found something else and/or planted it. They would spend two days asking him why his left shoe was tied a little more loosely than his right if they needed to. Says the talk radio guy.
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Because your girl and others running for office have never deceived anyone. Geez dude at least criticize how his approach might harm the country. There seems to be plenty there. Calling him out for oversimplification/deception/lying hardly justifies your disdain because there is no contrast on the other side. He did it describing his tax situation. She did it with national secrets on a server in her bathroom. Those two things when compared don't help your cause. Call him a Putin puppet like she did. That might resonate. I would have had a similar response if someone in this thread had tried to claim that Hillary did NOT violate laws and regulations, or at least wasn't deceptive in how and why she set up her server. But speaking of puppets, do people stop to think exactly why Putin is staging cyberwarfare against Hillary to help Trump? Do people remember that whenever Trump faces a serious challenge he crumbles faster than his gambling empire?
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Counterpoint: "Will you accept the results of the election if you lose?" is a loaded question to ask of the candidate trailing in the polls three weeks before the election. Wallace was returning to it because Clinton already said she would. It's not a trick question, except that Trump only accepts his version of reality. It's a stupid issue and Trump's idiotic answer will just further serve to distract the media from substance. Wallace's questions were well organized. Of the topics they hit on, I would have liked more discussion of: 1) Immigration - I would have liked a lot more specifics from them both but especially Clinton. She pivoted out of this into Wikileaks and Wallace was in a tough spot because the Wiki digression was compelling, but he could have returned to it 2) Wikileaks, transparency vs secrecy, roles of foreign governments 3) Entitlements - both were dodgy and unspecific because both will grow government. Wish Wallace had pressed them more 4) ISIS/Syria - Trump can't talk specifics on this because he's dumb but Wallace shoudl have pressed on this to contrast with HRC Less of the "fit to lead" topic. That was useless pablum for the stupid. Edited October 20, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I would have had a similar response if someone in this thread had tried to claim that Hillary did NOT violate laws and regulations, or at least wasn't deceptive in how and why she set up her server. But speaking of puppets, do people stop to think exactly why Putin is staging cyberwarfare against Hillary to help Trump? Do people remember that whenever Trump faces a serious challenge he crumbles faster than his gambling empire? You're so right. I'm sure Putin is scared of your girl. Either way it is really a good thing if we all agree to ignore the content of what Clinton is doing because of the origin of the information. It's patriotic to look the other way when confronted with scandal, incompetence, deceit, collusion, corruption, felony, and subterfuge. If we didn't look the other way we'd be giving in to dictators.
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 You're so right. I'm sure Putin is scared of your girl. Either way it is really a good thing if we all agree to ignore the content of what Clinton is doing because of the origin of the information. It's patriotic to look the other way when confronted with scandal, incompetence, deceit, collusion, corruption, felony, and subterfuge. If we didn't look the other way we'd be giving in to dictators. He's clearly preferring one patsy candidate. Who knows, maybe Trump set him up with a special bunga bunga evening. And you have to excuse me that I'm not as enthusiastic about giving ultimate control to a man who has trouble mastering 4th grade English and a I'm rubber you're glue debating styles. You're in the tank for a man who got fired from a company bearing his name.
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 He's clearly preferring one patsy candidate. Who knows, maybe Trump set him up with a special bunga bunga evening. And you have to excuse me that I'm not as enthusiastic about giving ultimate control to a man who has trouble mastering 4th grade English and a I'm rubber you're glue debating styles. You're in the tank for a man who got fired from a company bearing his name. I'm not voting. You're voting for a lifelong commie with a history which is "less than truthful" and who is capable of anything IMO. You're certainly willing to ignore her negatives if nothing else. We know she will willingly spit on the graves of people she got killed and mock their parents in public. I certainly never liked her before that, but if that doesn't demonstrate enough to at least be critical of her, we might as well pack it in. I don't like Trump. I think his administration would be chaotic at best. I can't vote for that. You can't either. Fine. But to pretend that 4-8 years of Hillary won't move us in the wrong direction, perhaps inexorably, is folly. Would chaos be preferable? It's hard to say because the world is in a bad enough place where we are today and I'm not sure we'd do well adding chaos on top. If we were in a little better shape right now, I might think chaos was less dangerous. If Trump caves so easily as you say, then congress should be able to handle him, right? I am sure that sending the message that the things she has done are ok by voting her in to the highest office on Earth would be interpreted as free reign by not only her, but by others in power. Do you think that's good? I mostly watched a crappy team that hasn't won in 108 years because even they have a better chance than these two, but I did see part of her answer on the Supreme Court. Great stuff there. Nothing about following rules or anything in her litmus tests. Just give the people what they want....or at least give the people she likes what they want. But that kind of populism all good right? It's just the Trump kind that would hurt us.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 "Mr Jefferson, will you accept the results of the election?" "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 I see Former is off his meds again today but he did raise one good point in there. Her Supreme Court answer was horrific. I support a living Constitution whose meaning may change over time. But there's belief in that, and then there's advocating that the Court be legislative, which was Hillary's entire answer. Trump put out a list, sure, but if he nominated Harambe to the court, no one would be shocked. "Mr Jefferson, will you accept the results of the election?" "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy. Jefferson's advocacy for ritual bloodletting is well known. He was deeply influenced by the French Revolution. Here's the thing: We don't need TJ's draconian chaotic revolution if people would just vote the powers-that-be out. But Americans won't do it.
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I'm not voting. You're voting for a lifelong commie with a history which is "less than truthful" and who is capable of anything IMO. You're certainly willing to ignore her negatives if nothing else. We know she will willingly spit on the graves of people she got killed and mock their parents in public. I certainly never liked her before that, but if that doesn't demonstrate enough to at least be critical of her, we might as well pack it in. I don't like Trump. I think his administration would be chaotic at best. I can't vote for that. You can't either. Fine. But to pretend that 4-8 years of Hillary won't move us in the wrong direction, perhaps inexorably, is folly. Would chaos be preferable? It's hard to say because the world is in a bad enough place where we are today and I'm not sure we'd do well adding chaos on top. If we were in a little better shape right now, I might think chaos was less dangerous. If Trump caves so easily as you say, then congress should be able to handle him, right? I am sure that sending the message that the things she has done are ok by voting her in to the highest office on Earth would be interpreted as free reign by not only her, but by others in power. Do you think that's good? I mostly watched a crappy team that hasn't won in 108 years because even they have a better chance than these two, but I did see part of her answer on the Supreme Court. Great stuff there. Nothing about following rules or anything in her litmus tests. Just give the people what they want....or at least give the people she likes what they want. But that kind of populism all good right? It's just the Trump kind that would hurt us. That's a mighty big presumption of who I'm going to vote for. But as of now, the choice between the two top spots is a sniveling crooked royalist and a stupider version of Obama. Good luck with that.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Her Supreme Court answer was horrific. I support a living Constitution whose meaning may change over time. But there's belief in that, and then there's advocating that the Court be legislative, which was Hillary's entire answer. There is absolutely zero difference between the two. What you advocate for is a self-restrained Court with the ability to legislate, putting your faith in lawyer rather than law. This always regresses to the power hungry rising to power to further their own ends.
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 That's a mighty big presumption of who I'm going to vote for. But as of now, the choice between the two top spots is a sniveling crooked royalist and a stupider version of Obama. Good luck with that. Sorry about that. I took your objections to anyone criticizing her to be advocacy.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 There is absolutely zero difference between the two. What you advocate for is a self-restrained Court with the ability to legislate, putting your faith in lawyer rather than law. This always regresses to the power hungry rising to power to further their own ends. Interpretations change over time. That's the beauty of the Constitution. How would the commerce clause be interpreted in the age of the Internet? Jurisdiction as well. Hillary said she wants to choose judges to advocate for the common man and listed some specific issues. Of course, so did Trump--he just picked the other side of issues.
Recommended Posts