U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Sponsored by Betty Croker's Hamburger Helper)

[elth]

First time there's been a significant convention bounce since 2000. Have to wait until after the DNC to get stabilised numbers, but there's no doubt Trump's winning the campaign right now.

Just confirms that Trump isn't negatively affected by drama, though.

[ItalAussie]

I found this interesting:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

1-3 are purely circumstantial, and 6 seems like the natural consequence of things he's said. The ones regarding his staffing are interesting (but hardly damning on their own).



4. Then there's Paul Manafort, Trump's nominal 'campaign chair' who now functions as campaign manager and top advisor. Manafort spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close Putin ally. Manafort is running Trump's campaign.

5. Trump's foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom. If you're not familiar with Gazprom, imagine if most or all of the US energy industry were rolled up into a single company and it were personally controlled by the US President who used it as a source of revenue and patronage. That is Gazprom's role in the Russian political and economic system. It is no exaggeration to say that you cannot be involved with Gazprom at the very high level which Page has been without being wholly in alignment with Putin's policies. Those ties also allow Putin to put Page out of business at any time.


Most of these are circumstantial, but this bit really isn't:


7. Here's where it gets more interesting. This is one of a handful of developments that tipped me from seeing all this as just a part of Trump's larger shadiness to something more specific and ominous about the relationship between Putin and Trump. As TPM's Tierney Sneed explained in this article, one of the most enduring dynamics of GOP conventions (there's a comparable dynamic on the Dem side) is more mainstream nominees battling conservative activists over the party platform, with activists trying to check all the hardline ideological boxes and the nominees trying to soften most or all of those edges. This is one thing that made the Trump convention very different. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the platform. So party activists were able to write one of the most conservative platforms in history. Not with Trump's backing but because he simply didn't care. With one big exception: Trump's team mobilized the nominee's traditional mix of cajoling and strong-arming on one point: changing the party platform on assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. For what it's worth (and it's not worth much) I am quite skeptical of most Republicans call for aggressively arming Ukraine to resist Russian aggression. But the single-mindedness of this focus on this one issue - in the context of total indifference to everything else in the platform - speaks volumes.

I wouldn't have thought anything of the links, except for that last one. That's really weird.

[Bernanke]

Bernie also has a former Yanukovich-advisor on his staff, but the last point really is the one that ties all of the circumstantial stuff together.

If there's anything that might scare away baby boomers it's Russia.

[Davgooner]

A 'bounce' of any kind after the shitstorm that was the RNC is frightening.

[Bartholomert]

I'll still be surprised if he wins. The bulk of the polls still favour Clinton, and he won't have a convention bounce in November.

Lots of time though, so cockiness this early is a bit of a risky strategy. Does remind me the board in 2012, mind.

Keeping drinking the koolaid buddy, RealClearPolitics has Trump leading in 5/6 last polls, many of which suffer from sampling bias against him:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I've never before seen a man transcend all barriers thrust in front of him by what I had long ago accepted to be an untouchable and intractable political elite, this election will be in the history books as the moment when the tide was turned against the seemingly inevitable collapse of Western civilization, where the people rose up to again became Masters of their Destiny:

http://iyon.addictinginfoent.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/trump-american-constitutional-god.jpg

[niko_cee]

Without having paid much attention to this of late the one thing that strikes me is that Trump has the better slogans. And if the whole EU Referendum taught us anything it was that catchy slogans about taking back control of things etc are very potent. Hilary is such an uninspiring mook as well. Trump probably couldn't have conceived a better opponent to run against on an anti-establishment/angry white man ticket. If he wins it certainly will be one for the history books, although I don't know if it'll be in the positive sense Mert suggests or as Western society's Sarajevo moment.

[Pepe]

Hillary's seethe when she loses is almost enough to make it worth it. Add four years of comedy and then it's hard not to be pro-Trump.

[Bernanke]

And given that he wanted to have Kasich as VP handling "foreign and domestic policy", how much harm can he really do in 4 years? :rosebud:

[phonics]

Trump is going to be doing an ama over at /r/The_Donald

:drool:

[Pepe]

I bet he chimps out within five minutes.

[Davgooner]

Hillary's seethe when she loses is almost enough to make it worth it.

Almost.

[Disco]

I'd love his ama to be spammed with questions about his tiny hands, mainly because he seems to have absolutely zero sense of humour about the subject.

[phonics]

Think you're missing out on what /r/The_Donald is

http://imgur.com/WWCzzqT.png

[Bartholomert]

O lawd, Trump at 57.5% likelihood of winning the election, Clinton at 42.5% according to Nate Silver's Election Forecast:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

:happycry::happycry::happycry::happycry::happycry:

[Lewis]

The American electoral math[s] is the most boring thing in the world, but Michael Moore (http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/) of all people had a good point about how 'The Donald' can afford to lose the likes of Florida as long as he concentrates on places like Michigan and that wanker cheese state who might be receptive to his protectionist bollocks.

[Boydy]

O lawd, Trump at 57.5% likelihood of winning the election, Clinton at 42.5% according to Nate Silver's Election Forecast:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

:happycry::happycry::happycry::happycry::happycry:

The other two forecasts on that page predict Hillary winning.

[Disco]

Think you're missing out on what /r/The_Donald is

http://imgur.com/WWCzzqT.png

So that's where mert gets all his copy pasta from, I did wonder.

[phonics]

So that's where mert gets all his copy pasta from, I did wonder.

Technically it's all just 4chan talk that beta cucks such as /r/the_donald copy and then charlie cucks such as mert then find in memes on 9gag.

[GS]

Bounce or not, my view remains that it's difficult to see Trump building the necessary voting 'coalition' to win.

The situation isn't helped by Hillary Clinton being utterly dislikable. However, I'm not building the Anderson Shelter just yet.

Some Sanders supporters are causing a scene, apparently:

757629499261452288

This isn't the time to purge people who aren't true believers, lads. Stop being wankers and be pragmatic, for fuck sake.

[niko_cee]

Maybe they figure that 4 years of Trump catastrophe would be better for their agenda than 8 years of establishment Hillary?

[mikem]

Republicans always get a bounce at their convention and Democrats always protest theirs. Not the end days, just usual service.

More interestingly, David Duke is back after being inspired by Trump. Hopefully this brings back my favorite home state politician Edwin Edwards. Last time he ran against Duke he sold bumper stickers saying "Vote for the Crook; It's Important" because there was a bit of graft in it.

[Raoul Duke]

This Russian influence seems likely. There's been an ongoing attempt from Obama and chums to destabilise Putin's government in a circumspect way (see: World Cup/Olympic scandals, Panama Papers). This feels like Russia trying to get their own back (by helping an enormous fucknugget get elected)

[Lewis]

lol (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-leaked-dnc-emails-beware-of-hackers)

[GS]

The Guardian group had £173m odd worth of losses recently. We won't have to put up with their sanctimonious shite for much longer.

[GS]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-sanders-urges-protesters-226148

That's going well, then. That they're booing, heckling and chanting for "Bernie" demonstrates why he should have chucked it well before he did - this is the consequence of dragging it out and whipping these idiots up into thinking there's some sort of REVOLUTION underway.

[Davgooner]

Are they disrupting the coronation? :happycry:

[Bartholomert]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-sanders-urges-protesters-226148

That's going well, then. That they're booing, heckling and chanting for "Bernie" demonstrates why he should have chucked it well before he did - this is the consequence of dragging it out and whipping these idiots up into thinking there's some sort of REVOLUTION underway.

So delicious.

https://media.giphy.com/media/uqPDIEPMODKne/giphy.gif

[GS]

Are they disrupting the coronation? :happycry:

He lost, and he lost a long time ago. Unless you're a mental, you get behind Clinton as the alternative is Trump. If you'd rather Clinton lose to prove a point, then lol at you.

[Bartholomert]

He lost, and he lost a long time ago. Unless you're a mental, you get behind Clinton as the alternative is Trump. If you'd rather Clinton lose to prove a point, then lol at you.

These people aren't rational, otherwise they wouldn't support Bernie in the first place.

[GS]

It's perfectly valid to vote for him to begin with. This is just rejecting the results of democracy when you don't like the result. See: the left, Remain voters, the SNP.

[elth]

Anyone who thinks Sanders' progressive agenda will be in any way advanced by a President Trump is a delusional moron.

If the Democrats implode because their far left would rather Hitler than Blair, what even is the point of politics.

[ItalAussie]

Incidentally, if it is actually true that Trump is a patsy for Putin, then it's one of the most masterful pieces of political manoeuvring to have ever been pulled off. First-class stuff.

[Bernanke]

I'm sure he's not a patsy for him, he's getting a full intelligence briefing this week and I doubt the CIA/FBI would let that happen if there was a single shred of truth to those accusations. However, that Russian intelligence might actively be working for Trump to win is another question.

Cory Booker is pretty freaking great. Should make a run in 2020 if Hillary loses or in 2024 if she wins.

[Bartholomert]

Incidentally, if it is actually true that Trump is a patsy for Putin, then it's one of the most masterful pieces of political manoeuvring to have ever been pulled off. First-class stuff.

He's not and it's a laughable accusation by desperate Democrats seizing on anything to distract from their corruption.

[ItalAussie]

He's not and it's a laughable accusation by desperate Democrats seizing on anything to distract from their corruption.

Nobody's really talking about it, though. And you have to admit that the convention thing is a bit weird. If you asked me to rank the full list of issues by how much I'd guess Donald Trump cares about them, Ukraine would rank somewhere distantly below the Antarctic Treaty. But apparently, it's the single policy issue he cares enough about to intervene with.

Couple that with some of his other statements - admiration for Putin, whole-hearted rejection of NATO, etc. - and it's got to be at least slightly disquieting. It's certainly possible that he simply sees Russia as a key ally and wants to stay in their good books, but even that's hardly encouraging. Especially at the expense of the North Atlantic.

That said, if a foreigner was to pick a Presidential candidate, they'd always default to the kind of brash, macho, hyper-patriot that everyone stereotypes America as loving. :D


EDIT: It's all fine though. Even if Trump does want to deep-six NATO, Boris will save the day.

[Bernanke]

Michelle's speech was incredible.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYYI43_mYWc&feature=youtu.be

The contrast with the RNC is astonishing.

[elth]

Trump as a patsy for Putin isn't credible. Trump as a Putin sympathiser and Putin therefore quietly using a little soft power to support him and undermine Clinton certainly is.

Russia fear is a bit overblown anyway - the Red Army isn't going to be marching into Warsaw even with a President Trump - but Putin would be right in assessing that Trump is a lot less likely to try to stop Russia re-establishing the Soviet sphere of influence in Russia's immediate neighbours.

[Davgooner]

He lost, and he lost a long time ago. Unless you're a mental, you get behind Clinton as the alternative is Trump. If you'd rather Clinton lose to prove a point, then lol at you.


It's perfectly valid to vote for him to begin with. This is just rejecting the results of democracy when you don't like the result. See: the left, Remain voters, the SNP.

You're underestimating the contempt for Hillary among Bernie's supporters then, and to suggest people just throw away their beliefs as soon as their candidate has lost is fucking bizarre. Trump is dangerous enough to force enough people to hold their nose and do so I reckon, but the arrogant contempt for voters who actually have principles is wank.

You really are a massive, boring, old-before-your-time, cunt.

[niko_cee]

I'm still really struggling to come to terms with Revolutionary Dave.

[Bartholomert]

It is just baffling to me the depth of the mental illness of Clinton supporters. She openly undermined the democratic process by rigging an election, colluded with the media to distort public opinion, and is actively suppressing speech criticizing any of this. And in response to this what do you do? Fucking nothing?

How can you save this society? People have totally lost it.

[Bartholomert]

DNC thought: how many of the people in that building will be on the front lines if war were to break out protection the nation's borders? Probably none, it will be those evil scum conservative white males who would be willing to sacrifice themselves to protect them.

[Bartholomert]

Nobody's really talking about it, though. And you have to admit that the convention thing is a bit weird. If you asked me to rank the full list of issues by how much I'd guess Donald Trump cares about them, Ukraine would rank somewhere distantly below the Antarctic Treaty. But apparently, it's the single policy issue he cares enough about to intervene with.

Couple that with some of his other statements - admiration for Putin, whole-hearted rejection of NATO, etc. - and it's got to be at least slightly disquieting. It's certainly possible that he simply sees Russia as a key ally and wants to stay in their good books, but even that's hardly encouraging. Especially at the expense of the North Atlantic.

That said, if a foreigner was to pick a Presidential candidate, they'd always default to the kind of brash, macho, hyper-patriot that everyone stereotypes America as loving. :D


EDIT: It's all fine though. Even if Trump does want to deep-six NATO, Boris will save the day.

HE IS AN ISOLATIONIST. Holy crap. He has consistently been against intervening in stable countries.

Ital how could you possibly take this seriously?


Trump as a patsy for Putin isn't credible. Trump as a Putin sympathiser and Putin therefore quietly using a little soft power to support him and undermine Clinton certainly is.

Russia fear is a bit overblown anyway - the Red Army isn't going to be marching into Warsaw even with a President Trump - but Putin would be right in assessing that Trump is a lot less likely to try to stop Russia re-establishing the Soviet sphere of influence in Russia's immediate neighbours.

This. Plus Putin probably sees Trump as an ally more willing to overlook 'necessary' domestic actions to ensure stability within the government, as well as a ruthless partner in the fight against terror.

[Lewis]

I'm still really struggling to come to terms with Revolutionary Dave.

So is Dave.

[ItalAussie]

DNC thought: how many of the people in that building will be on the front lines if war were to break out protection the nation's borders? Probably none, it will be those evil scum conservative white males who would be willing to sacrifice themselves to protect them.

Like Trump, who was first to put up his hand in a time of war.

On the other stuff, if it makes you feel better, I don't actually believe that Trump is a patsy for Putin. I do think he's very sympathetic to Putin's agenda, which is what led to his convention behaviour. That's worrying for the future of NATO though.

His convention behaviour is weird though, given that he apparently didn't care one jot about any other item on the agenda. Like, if it was just not intervening in Ukraine and a bunch of other things, then fair play, he's an isolationist. But to totally ignore anything else on the agenda, then drill in on that one issue, suggests that keeping Russia happy is at the very least one of his foremost priorities.



EDIT: Holy hell, apparently the FBI think the DNC hackers were Russian government. You'd struggle to make this up. :D

[Mazuuurk]

He's not and it's a laughable accusation by desperate Democrats seizing on anything to distract from their corruption.

Good stuff, they've finally figured out Trumps own tactic and started using it. That shit works over there :harold:

[Bartholomert]

Like Trump, who was first to put up his hand in a time of war.

On the other stuff, if it makes you feel better, I don't actually believe that Trump is a patsy for Putin. I do think he's very sympathetic to Putin's agenda, which is what led to his convention behaviour. That's worrying for the future of NATO though.

His convention behaviour is weird though, given that he apparently didn't care one jot about any other item on the agenda. Like, if it was just not intervening in Ukraine and a bunch of other things, then fair play, he's an isolationist. But to totally ignore anything else on the agenda, then drill in on that one issue, suggests that keeping Russia happy is at the very least one of his foremost priorities.

EDIT: Holy hell, apparently the FBI think the DNC hackers were Russian government. You'd struggle to make this up. :D

Is this the same FBI that didn't recommend charges for Hillary :rolleyes:?

[ItalAussie]

If you truly believe that your own security forces are openly corrupt against you, then your country is already lost.

[Bartholomert]

If you honestly believe that your own security forces are openly corrupt against you, then your country is already lost.

Do I think they are corrupt? Yes. Do I think the Russians probably did this. Also yes.

The Liberal political infiltration runs deep, the issue is that Conservatives are generally more averse to intervening in neutral state institutions because of quaint beliefs in ideas like objectivity, reason, morality, etc; the Left is not constrained by any such limitations. So they win every time. In a nutshell we are so so fucked, we need Trump to clear house.

[Bartholomert]

http://www.behindthename.com/name/donald



Given Name DONALD

GENDER: Masculine
USAGE: Scottish, English
PRONOUNCED: DAHN-əld (English) [key]

Meaning & History

From the Gaelic name Domhnall which means "ruler of the world", composed of the old Celtic elements dumno "world" and val "rule".

It was Ordained.

[GS]

You're underestimating the contempt for Hillary among Bernie's supporters then, and to suggest people just throw away their beliefs as soon as their candidate has lost is fucking bizarre. Trump is dangerous enough to force enough people to hold their nose and do so I reckon, but the arrogant contempt for voters who actually have principles is wank.

You really are a massive, boring, old-before-your-time, cunt.

Sanders spent months declaring Clinton the enemy to whip his supporters up. That's fine. When it was clear he'd lost, he kept going and hammering the same points home anyway - making it inevitably far more difficult to bring the party back together. It's difficult for him to say "we need President Clinton" after constantly and repeatedly stating she was an appalling human being for several months, usually followed by thunderous applause.

It's not a case of "throwing away your beliefs". It's recognising you now have a binary choice and being pragmatic. If Sanders' supporters don't put their shoulder into it because "Hillary, lads" and Trump wins, then lol.

It's not 'arrogant contempt', by the way. It's pity.


So is Dave.

There's no-one more zealous than a convert. See: Tobias.

[mikem]

I'm sure he's not a patsy for him, he's getting a full intelligence briefing this week and I doubt the CIA/FBI would let that happen if there was a single shred of truth to those accusations. However, that Russian intelligence might actively be working for Trump to win is another question.

Cory Booker is pretty freaking great. Should make a run in 2020 if Hillary loses or in 2024 if she wins.

People either loved Booker's speech or went "meh". I thought he did a good job of weaving the African American literary cannon into a happy America speech for all comers. These things rarely pan out (see Chris Christie) but as of now you would think that the next big presidential hopefuls on our side include Booker, Warren, and Garcetti.

[Boydy]

There's no-one more zealous than a convert. See: Tobias.

See also: yourself.

[Bartholomert]

People either loved Booker's speech or went "meh". I thought he did a good job of weaving the African American literary cannon into a happy America speech for all comers. These things rarely pan out (see Chris Christie) but as of now you would think that the next big presidential hopefuls on our side include Booker, Warren, and Garcetti.

You are wildly out of touch if you think any of them would do anything other than get slaughtered by a half competent GOP nominee.

[GS]

See also: yourself.

I changed my mind about things when I left university and experienced the working world, as I suspect most sensible people do.

[Bernanke]

People either loved Booker's speech or went "meh". I thought he did a good job of weaving the African American literary cannon into a happy America speech for all comers. These things rarely pan out (see Chris Christie) but as of now you would think that the next big presidential hopefuls on our side include Booker, Warren, and Garcetti.

I think Kaine might be in the running as well if he gets 8 years as VP. He has surprised me so far.


You are wildly out of touch if you think any of them would do anything other than get slaughtered by a half competent GOP nominee.

Got anyone particular in mind?

[mikem]

[QUOTE=Bernanke;117584]I think Kaine might be in the running as well if he gets 8 years as VP. He has surprised me so far.


VP may as well be Siberia anymore. I've no idea why progressives wanted one of their few stalwarts exiled there.

Mert - hmm, maybe I said "hopeful" for a reason. Or you could just reflexively attack anything that does not swear allegiance.

[Bartholomert]

IMO Kaine would be a great Democrat nominee.

I think the fundamental issue with why there don't seem to be any good Democrats is that at the end of the day people want a tall, handsome charismatic alpha male (preferably with a few plausible rumors suggesting womanizing tendencies) to lead them, and men with those qualifications are simply not liberal enough to satisfy the base. Clinton in his prime was the last one I can remember that fit the bill, he'd be a Republican today anyways.

[elth]

Warren's too old. I can't see the Dems running a 70+yo Warren back to back from Hillary, although if Trump wins or Clinton only chooses to serve one term then it's more possible.

I suspect a Clinton will bookend this generation of Democratic politics, one way or the other. The next Dem nomination will be younger.

[Raoul Duke]

The Democrats could basically do with someone like Trudeau, the Canadian. Similar liberal values but not a thousand years old.

[Bartholomert]

The Democrats could basically do with someone like Trudeau, the Canadian. Similar liberal values but not a thousand years old.

Trudeau is probably the best you'll get from a liberal. Dude is as beta as you would expect from a progressive but the underlying genetic quality + genuine subconscious entitlement that comes from his background is elite tier, so that it balances out to the extent that he projects some natural leadership value (his wife is hot; that's a big indicator).

[Lewis]

That bloke's an embarrassment.

[Bartholomert]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-daybreak-poll-methodology-20160714-snap-story.html

Trump 47-40 Clinton

[Pepe]

The Democrats could basically do with someone like Trudeau, the Canadian. Similar liberal values but not a thousand years old.

O'Malley was quality. All that optimism. :drool:

[Bernanke]

Trump is the first major party nominee in forty or so years that has not released his tax returns. The last one was Nixon.

There's something going on.

[ItalAussie]

Trump is the first major party nominee in forty or so years that has not released his tax returns. The last one was Nixon.

There's something going on.

That's likely just because he vastly overstates his charitable contributions. It's a minor thing in the big scheme, although an unsurprising bit of nastiness.

[GS]

Why is releasing tax returns even a thing? It's made its way over here as well, and it's fucking stupid.

[Shindig]

He's asking Russia to hack Clinton's emails which contain personal information? That ... sounds illegal.

[mikem]

No, he is asking Russia to hack her server during her time at State because he worries it contains hidden classified information. Which is ok because of Benghazi.

[niko_cee]

You sort of have to wonder how this would be playing out if it was Trump who was claiming the Russians were trying to sabotage his campaign. I can't imagine they would be given much credence. Is it a good idea to start fighting in the gutter now? I suppose someone has to keep flying the flag for McCarthyism. There is obviously a fear that the original idea that he'd eventually sabotage himself (before now, obviously) was very wrong. Maybe that's a good thing.

His comments were obviously not an incitement of any sort.

[Shindig]

It'll get real dirty between now and November. I bet Trump is wallowing in filth but his support is much, much less likely to care.

[Bartholomert]

I would strongly encourage you not to take a tongue in cheek joking comment, made after saying that there would be serious consequences if it was proven that Russia was proven to be behind the DNC leak, seriously.

More significantly, Trump up 2 in the latest Reuters poll, he was down 11 three weeks ago:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/27/bounce-reuters-poll-shows-trump-in-lead-for-first-time/

[mikem]

I think his actual quote is something along the lines of hopes they have it and can share. Which is silly if you think the material is classified but not incitement. I'm 1000% not voting Trump and think that the Russia conspiracy stuff is one of the dumbest things I've heard.

I think Trump is becoming a bit of a victim of his media success. He got a pass on policy for a long time because he was an amusing story that could get eyeballs. Now they want their typical policy related fight and he is not giving it to them. They need a new story for the daily campaign churn and they have picked up that they can bait him and get him to double down about almost anything. If you notice she also got him to respond to her personally.

His hope is that the resentment of both the media and policy elite that works in the flyover states continues to play. Hers is that she gets enough women in the Midwest to say what my wife does about him "ughh that creepy guy at work who always tries to look down your shirt."

[niko_cee]

It isn't that hard to find the actual quote. It doesn't say that.

[mikem]

Find it instead of have it sure. But if you think it may be classified? Why would you want them to have it at all even if they were an ally?

I'm obviously missing your point completely.

[Lewis]

The debates are going to be sensations. 'Hillary' will already have a crack team of twenty-six year old wankers coming up with snarky put-downs that won't resonate beyond Twitter, and he'll shitpost her into having a stroke. If I was him I would go with the Bill Clinton is a sex offender stuff straight off the bat, and then run a cigar under my nose as she stumbles around for an answer.

[Pepe]

Even 'Bernie' had her in full seethe mode within five minutes every time. The Donald will don her senseless. She can go join 'Jeb' who is still crying in some corner.

[Lewis]

'Jeb is a mess!'

[GS]

Trump would go with the Lewinsky line as well, wouldn't he. The television could be fucking spectacular.

"I'll stand up to Vladimir Putin!"

You can make up your own innuendo.

[Pepe]

His guacamole recipe was shit.

[niko_cee]

Find it instead of have it sure. But if you think it may be classified? Why would you want them to have it at all even if they were an ally?

I'm obviously missing your point completely.

My point was that this:


Donald Trump has "actively encouraged" foreign powers to hack his presidential rival Hillary Clinton, her camp says.

Is a bit of a daft line to take on the back of his comments. Not that the whole Russia angle isn't a bit of a foray into mentalville as it is.

[mikem]

Yes, that is just dumb and went right over my head. That whole talking points memo story is just a ludicrous stringing together of coincidences.

[Bartholomert]

Trump would go with the Lewinsky line as well, wouldn't he. The television could be fucking spectacular.

"I'll stand up to Vladimir Putin!"

You can make up your own innuendo.

"She couldn't satisfy her husband, how could she possibly satisfy the American people?"

:drool:

[Bartholomert]

Also the Russian angle is pretty outrageous tin-foil hat speculation that would be immediately dismissed and mocked if it was anyone other than Clinton who stood to benefit from the obfuscation.

[ItalAussie]

Also the Russian angle is pretty outrageous tin-foil hat speculation that would be immediately dismissed and mocked if it was anyone other than Clinton who stood to benefit from the obfuscation.

What's your evidence here, out of curiosity? Otherwise, you're just brashly making an assertion.

[ItalAussie]

The transcript of Trump's post-election speech - the one where he slags off Ted Cruz - is amazing.

He did get one thing absolutely correct in his campaign. Trump could shoot a man in the middle of fifth avenue and it wouldn't affect his supporters one jot.

[Vim]

Likewise, any good things he says or does won't affect the anti-Trump bandwagon one jot.

[Bernanke]

Yeah, I more and more feel like this election will be about getting your base to turn out rather than fighting for independents. That's why Trump hasn't "pivoted" at all which some people expected him to do after the primary.

The one thing that could break away from this is if any well-known Repubs endorse Gary Johnson, otherwise it's gonna be pandering towards their respective camps for 3 months.

[ItalAussie]

Yeah, I more and more feel like this election will be about getting your base to turn out rather than fighting for independents. That's why Trump hasn't "pivoted" at all which some people expected him to do after the primary.
I read somewhere that they're estimating the "true" middle ground as about 6%, and that political strategists have largely decided that there's more value in energising your base than pivoting towards the middle.

I've been binge-watching Veep lately, and it just makes me feel a bit despairing. :D

[elth]

Mic drop of a speech from Obama, but doubt it swings many votes.

[ItalAussie]

Mic drop of a speech from Obama, but doubt it swings many votes.

I don't think anything swings votes at this point; there's very little middle ground left in US politics. It's a matter of energising the base. That speech should play well in that regard - it was a hell of a piece of oratory. The man can speak.

[Bernanke]

Bams speech is one of the best I have ever seen.

[Bartholomert]

What's your evidence here, out of curiosity? Otherwise, you're just brashly making an assertion.

You don't get to say, 'the Republican nominee is colluding with the Russians to manipulate the outcome of the election' without having evidence. Burden of proof is on the accuser.

The funniest part of course is that Democrats are okay with manipulating the democratic process when they are the ones doing the manipulating :lol:

[Bartholomert]

I read somewhere that they're estimating the "true" middle ground as about 6%, and that political strategists have largely decided that there's more value in energising your base than pivoting towards the middle.

I've been binge-watching Veep lately, and it just makes me feel a bit despairing. :D

This is totally wrong; 38% of the country is registered as independent. Moreover, Trump is pulling many many Democrats over to his side, and a significant amount of Republicans are similarly voting for Hillary. You're repeating the outdated conventional wisdom from past elections.

[ItalAussie]

This is totally wrong; 38% of the country is registered as independent. Moreover, Trump is pulling many many Democrats over to his side, and a significant amount of Republicans are similarly voting for Hillary. You're repeating the outdated conventional wisdom from past elections.

I only read this in an article, which noted that lack of political registration isn't as reliable on voting patterns as it used to be. I read that they estimated that about 6% of voters were in the "legitimately could swing" basket. It's not nothing, but it's miles from 38%.

This is the opposite of conventional wisdom, which is that you go extreme in the primaries and pull to the centre in the election itself. Whereas for the first time, we are likely to see things go the other way this year, because campaign managers are prioritising getting out their own base over winning the undecideds.

EDIT: I did get all this third-hand from articles, of course. I'm fairly sure I littered enough "apparently"s throughout to make that clear.

[ItalAussie]

You don't get to say, 'the Republican nominee is colluding with the Russians to manipulate the outcome of the election' without having evidence. Burden of proof is on the accuser.

The funniest part of course is that Democrats are okay with manipulating the democratic process when they are the ones doing the manipulating :lol:I mean, you saw the article - it's not random assertions. As I said at the time, most of it is circumstantial. But there are enough notes of weirdness - Trump ignoring every other aspect of the platform in favour of Ukraine, and the DNC hackers apparently being Russian government - that it's worth taking a closer look.

It's not strong evidence, and I doubt that it's true - I imagine Russia want Trump to win because of their own reasons, and Trump likes Putin because he respects hardman dictators, neither of which are of the level of collusion. But it's enough that you can't just brashly write it off completely without some explanation. I mean, you can - you can do whatever you please - but it's not really as convincing as move as you think it is.

[Bartholomert]

https://twitter.com/mikedogli/status/758578450760204288

Comment below captures it well:


Progressive Democrats order aggressive police force to protect their border wall from undocumented delegated

[Bartholomert]

I mean, you saw the article - it's not random assertions. As I said at the time, most of it is circumstantial. But there are enough notes of weirdness - Trump ignoring every other aspect of the platform in favour of Ukraine, and the DNC hackers apparently being Russian government - that it's worth taking a closer look.

It's not strong evidence, and I doubt that it's true - I imagine Russia want Trump to win because of their own reasons, and Trump likes Putin because he respects hardman dictators, neither of which are of the level of collusion. But it's enough that you can't just brashly write it off completely without some explanation. I mean, you can - you can do whatever you please - but it's not really as convincing as move as you think it is.

There's also circumstantial evidence that the Clintons ordered a bunch of murders over the years for their own political gain (including a DNC staffer last week). That's not generally how serious public discourse is supposed to happen.

[phonics]

All we can be sure of is Ted Cruz' dad killed JFK.

[ItalAussie]

Uh huh.

In other news, seems like Biden got the attack speech, in a similar vein to Christie for the RNC. Did a good job with it too - he's an incredibly likeable person, which is a nice contrast.

[Bernanke]

http://i.imgur.com/G9l6vks.jpg

[Bartholomert]

Good article as to why Bernie supporters and Conservatives are actually quite similar in their grievances:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/28/sanders-voters-have-a-lot-more-in-common-with-conservatives-than-they-think/#disqus_thread

[ItalAussie]

Apparently it's time to ditch the Geneva Convention.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-sees-geneva-conventions-out-date?cid=sm_fb_maddow

This is so far from sensible political discourse that you can see the curvature of the horizon. Bugger me. Even Bush-Cheney never came remotely close to floating that balloon.


EDIT: This is MSNBC, so it's pretty partisan, but the quoted lines can be found elsewhere.

[Shindig]

When's the Geneva convention stopped America in the last decade?

[Bernanke]

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/breaking-hours-after-first-intelligence-briefing-trump-likely-leaked-classified-secrets/


@Bencjacobs (Political reporter for The Guardian)
Trump is now complaining "we pay rent for our base to Saudi Arabia"


@yarotrof (Greater Middle East columnist of The Wall Street Journal)
If there is now a US military base in Saudi, it is classified and mentioning it should have legal consequences.

Please let there actually be a base there. :D

[Lewis]

I would assume it was a reference to Eskan Village, which the Saudi Arabian government owns, but lol if it isn't.

[GS]

759439104341897217

[ItalAussie]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/30/donald-trump-muslim-father-khizr-khan-democratic-convention-speech

In all seriousness though, what does Trump have to say before someone influential from his own side of the aisle tries to get him to tone it back a little?

Like, what's the worst thing he could possibly say before he starts to take hits from his own side? Because currently, we've ruled out slagging his own party's war hero for being captured and put in a POW camp, making comments about a judge that even most of his own party acknowledge were racist, inciting foreign powers to hack his opponents, rejecting the Geneva Conventions, and taking pot-shots at the parents of a US military casualty. I'm honestly struggling to think of what he could actually say that would shed party support at this stage. Any one of those things would be a guaranteed campaign-killer in any other election.

In all honesty, I half-suspect that the reason none of it sticks is because he continually follows every outrageous statement with another one so quickly that we don't really have time to process any of them: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop

[Bartholomert]

759439104341897217

This is a joke pollster run by Democrats, they are so desperate for any positive news that they are promoting Pravada like 'facts/studies'

[Bartholomert]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/30/donald-trump-muslim-father-khizr-khan-democratic-convention-speech

In all seriousness though, what does Trump have to say before someone influential from his own side of the aisle tries to get him to tone it back a little?

Like, what's the worst thing he could possibly say before he starts to take hits from his own side? Because currently, we've ruled out slagging his own party's war hero for being captured and put in a POW camp, making comments about a judge that even most of his own party acknowledge were racist, inciting foreign powers to hack his opponents, rejecting the Geneva Conventions, and taking pot-shots at the parents of a US military casualty. I'm honestly struggling to think of what he could actually say that would shed party support at this stage. Any one of those things would be a guaranteed campaign-killer in any other election.

In all honesty, I half-suspect that the reason none of it sticks is because he continually follows every outrageous statement with another one so quickly that we don't really have time to process any of them: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop

Democrats have called every single major Republican candidate racist, misognyist, etc for the last 50 years. People just don't care about the manufactured outrage anymore.

[ItalAussie]

Democrats responded quite favourably to the convention. Even if you think their situation is dire, they don't.

Although if you're right, that's arguably the best situation to be in. Like how the Romney camp in 2012 didn't seem to realise how screwed they were at any point, and got legitimately blind-sided on election night. If they'd caught on earlier, they might have been able to do something about it.

EDIT: At the poll thing.

[ItalAussie]

Democrats have called every single major Republican candidate racist, misognyist, etc for the last 50 years. People just don't care about the manufactured outrage anymore.

So you don't think any of those statements were actually over the line? Any one of those would have sunk McCain or Romney (or Obama or Bush or anyone else).

As an honest question, how outrageous a statement would Trump have to make before he'd get some public dissent from within his party? Advocating actually dropping the bomb on someone? Would that do it? I'm not even sure it would. I'm beginning to think he could promise to drop a nuke on Portugal and have it as mainstream Republican policy within a fortnight.

[Bartholomert]

So you don't think any of those statements were actually over the line? Any one of those would have sunk McCain or Romney (or Obama or Bush or anyone else).

As an honest question, how outrageous a statement would Trump have to make before he'd get some public dissent from within his party? Advocating actually dropping the bomb on someone? Would that do it? I'm not even sure it would. I'm beginning to think he could advocate dropping a nuke on Portugal and have it as mainstream Republican policy within a fortnight.

You need to realize that these things he's saying aren't outrageous to most Republicans, he is channeling our thoughts and often times what he's saying is far closer to the Truth than the politically correct version the media / Left is promoting.

[ItalAussie]

You need to realize that these things he's saying aren't outrageous to most Republicans, he is channeling our thoughts and often times what he's saying is far closer to the Truth than the politically correct version the media / Left is promoting.

So you think he was right in all five of those cases? John McCain, the "Mexican" judge, inciting foreign hackers, the Geneva conventions, and the parents of the war victim?

Was any of those five statements out of line? It's fine for you to say "yes" to all of them, but I'd like to see where you think the baseline is.

[Bartholomert]

Democrats responded quite favourably to the convention. Even if you think their situation is dire, they don't.

Although if you're right, that's arguably the best situation to be in. Like how the Romney camp in 2012 didn't seem to realise how screwed they were at any point, and got legitimately blind-sided on election night. If they'd caught on earlier, they might have been able to do something about it.

EDIT: At the poll thing.

They're not used to losing or having to contend with reality. November is going to be deeply satisfying.

[Bartholomert]

So you think he was right in all five of those cases? John McCain, the Mexican judge, foreign hackers, the Geneva conventions, and the parents of the war victim?

Was any of those five statements out of line? It's fine for you to say "no" to all of them, but I'd like to see where you think the baseline is.

Yeah. I mean in every single case he is justified in what he's saying or the media has distorted his words. I don't think anybody cares about these gaffes, we're sick of having to police our speech to remain in line with the sensibilities of the center-left media, who will portray Republicans badly regardless of the content.

Probably the best example is that Sotomayor, the Hispanic female justice on the Supreme Court, pretty much has said far more racist things about the influence of a judges background in his decision making. Nobody cared when she said it, it's just a hypocritical double standard and Republicans see that.

[ItalAussie]

Yeah. I mean in every single case he is justified in what he's saying or the media has distorted his words. I don't think anybody cares about these gaffes, we're sick of having to police our speech to remain in line with the sensibilities of the center-left media, who will portray Republicans badly regardless of the content.

Probably the best example is that Sotomayor, the Hispanic female justice on the Supreme Court, pretty much has said far more racist things about the influence of a judges background in his decision making. Nobody cared when she said it, it's just a hypocritical double standard and Republicans see that.

I just want to be very clear. You think he was right to say what he said in each of those five cases?

[Bartholomert]

I just want to be very clear. You think he was right to say what he said in each of those five cases?

I mostly don't care or see any as being a 'scandal'; he's making valid (if admitedly poorly worded at times) points for the most part.

Are you capable of seeing the lol hypocrisy and dishonesty of the media on the judge question?

[ItalAussie]

I mostly don't care or see any as being a 'scandal'; he's making valid (if admitedly poorly worded at times) points for the most part.
"Poorly-worded"

That roughly translates as "I know it's beyond the pale, but I can't possibly acknowledge this fact". See also, the Republican Party stance. They know, and it really comes across as that you do too. I presume you can't be induced to address each of the five statements? Let's play "How many statements does Mert support?", with a score from zero to five.

Any other politician would have been savaged for making any of those, let alone all of them. And they're based on direct quotes, without any editorialisation:


One sample quote for each, with no added commentary:


“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”


Let me just tell you, I have had horrible rulings. I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall.


But it would be interesting to see — I will tell you this — Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That’ll be next.


The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight. We can’t waterboard, but they can chop off head. I think we’ve got to make some changes, some adjustments.



Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a “nice guy” and that he wished him “the best of luck.” But, he added, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.”


Are you capable of seeing the lol hypocrisy and dishonesty of the media on the judge question?
I'm skeptical, but if you showed me something appalling in her own words, without a smear associated with it, I'd acknowledge that it was the wrong thing to say.

[Bartholomert]

You seem genuinely mystified, it's 6 AM here but I'll address each one individually later if you're interested. And no I'm not being an apologist for the Republicans, I never cared about these things and neither do most reasonable people. It's just the Leftist machine desperately trying to promote their candidate and smear her opponent.

Sure, and please know that if you don't condemn her, you are so deeply conditioned and biased against Republicans as to render your future opinions meaningless, no offense but it's the truth:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/justice-sotomayor-ethnicity-may-and-will-make-a-difference-in-judging/

[ItalAussie]

Those aren't comparable statements.

Sotomayor is saying that race will have an effect on perception in the case of judging in general. She's talking highly generally, and not even affirming that as a positive thing. I think her statement on being a Latina woman was ill-advised, and I'd disagree with it - I'd hope that in a perfect world, judges would be primarily informed by the letter of the law. But even then, she's expressing it as a hope, rather than a truth claim. The strongest claim she actually makes is that race affects perspective, which is like saying that the sky is blue. She's not saying that it does or should supersede the law itself, either in general or in any specific case.

But none of that is comparable to the statements Trump made, which even his own party did criticise. Very specific accusations against a very specific judge based solely on his racial heritage.

It's a weak attempt to link together Trump and some (any!) progressive figure (who, unlike Trump, is not running for President). But reading the transcript of Trump's interview is downright painful, and it's no surprise that Paul Ryan, as well as a bunch of other lesser Republic figures, couldn't avoid calling the statements racist. Paul Ryan is actually the person I feel most sorry for here, because you just know he didn't sign on for this. :D

Have you read the transcript of the Curiel interview? It's teeth-edgingly awkward to read.

But that's the thing, it's been replaced by other statements now, on different topics, of equal outrageousness. Trump says so many things so quickly that it's impossible to bring things back into the spotlight.

[Bartholomert]

Yeah you have no credibility and are blinded by prejudice.

[ItalAussie]

Five for five?

[Bartholomert]

Maybe this will provide insight:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=172077353

[mikem]

I'm loathe both to post in the middle of Mert displaying just how Trump's crowdsurfing communication style works, which is the real answer to Ital's question or to post a YouTube video Harold style, but I'm curious. To people outside of the US I was wondering if you have a version of the left that resembles this or are you just stuck with the class warfare stuff, or is it distinctly American? And Mert, feel free to miss the point entirely and reflexively attack it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARt1GGM7d4

[Byron]

Yeah you have no credibility and are blinded by prejudice.

This would be quite amusing coming from most people but from someone who literally cannot see any point of view othe than his own it's laughable. Just out of curiousity, do you see any Left wing policies as good? Any at all?

I'd almost want Clinton to win just to see your meltdown, despite her being such an odious indvidual.

[Bartholomert]

Yes. I'll be happy to list them after you and Ital tell me the right wing policies you support.

[Shindig]

Yeah, that pattern of speech is very American. Not even sure where that got popularised in time? Civil Rights movement? British politicians rarely go for that. Its not the kind of thing you learn at Eton.

[GS]

Yes. I'll be happy to list them after you and Ital tell me the right wing policies you support.

No-one can be solidly left or right - they'll usually have a mixture of positions. Pretending otherwise doesn't really help you in defending your own position.

[Bartholomert]

No-one can be solidly left or right - they'll usually have a mixture of positions. Pretending otherwise doesn't really help you in defending your own position.

I know. I want Ital and Byron to list a policy of Trumps they favor over Clinton, and in return I'll do the same.

Surely as objective, high minded, politically neutral they should have no problem doing so...

[GS]

It's a fair question for them to ask - it shouldn't be answered only on the basis that "you do it first". It's a bit juvenile.

You should answer the question - Ital won't stiff you a response when he's back online, and it's certainly a worthwhile discussion to have.

I'll say that whilst I have a lot of sympathy with Republican views on things like states rights and the government leaving people alone, I couldn't be voting for one on the basis of their views on abortion (and appointing judges using this as a litmus test) or the second amendment as it currently stands.

[Lewis]

I'm loathe both to post in the middle of Mert displaying just how Trump's crowdsurfing communication style works, which is the real answer to Ital's question or to post a YouTube video Harold style, but I'm curious. To people outside of the US I was wondering if you have a version of the left that resembles this or are you just stuck with the class warfare stuff, or is it distinctly American? And Mert, feel free to miss the point entirely and reflexively attack it.




That strain of the left with its base of young people and idiots (so the official opposition lol) basically sustains itself on sharing terrible memes ('The government doesn't want you to share this...') and self-indulgence, so it is quite similar.

[ItalAussie]

I don't agree with many of Trump's stances (from here):

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

I do generally tend to favour non-intervention in international matters, and broadly speaking I think that moderate Republicans interpret the second amendment correctly, even if I don't like what they get from it. Also, I strongly disagree with the TPP.

Trump's pretty lightweight on policy details, but I do disagree with the right in general on tax, on health, on welfare, and on education. I find "the wall" too obviously ludicrous to get worked up over, but I disagree with whatever limp physical manifestation of that policy would wind up appearing. More because it's stupid, than anything. :D

Remember, I don't really have much riding on the US. I'm well out of it.

[Shindig]

Every time I watch an interview with Trump I just imagine Mayor Roy Chubby Brown.

[ItalAussie]

The article by the guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal" is a fascinating window into what makes Trump work.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

Not everything in the article would be considered a criticism by everyone. Just interesting character insights. It's just an interesting picture of who he actually is as a person. I don't think anything there would be a great surprise, either.


In those days, Schwartz recalls, Trump was generally affable with reporters, offering short, amusingly immodest quotes on demand. Trump had been forthcoming with him during the New York interview, but it hadn’t required much time or deep reflection. For the book, though, Trump needed to provide him with sustained, thoughtful recollections. He asked Trump to describe his childhood in detail. After sitting for only a few minutes in his suit and tie, Trump became impatient and irritable. He looked fidgety, Schwartz recalls, “like a kindergartner who can’t sit still in a classroom.” Even when Schwartz pressed him, Trump seemed to remember almost nothing of his youth, and made it clear that he was bored. Far more quickly than Schwartz had expected, Trump ended the meeting.

Week after week, the pattern repeated itself. Schwartz tried to limit the sessions to smaller increments of time, but Trump’s contributions remained oddly truncated and superficial.

“Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said.

In a recent phone interview, Trump told me that, to the contrary, he has the skill that matters most in a crisis: the ability to forge compromises. The reason he touted “The Art of the Deal” in his announcement, he explained, was that he believes that recent Presidents have lacked his toughness and finesse: “Look at the trade deficit with China. Look at the Iran deal. I’ve made a fortune by making deals. I do that. I do that well. That’s what I do.”

But Schwartz believes that Trump’s short attention span has left him with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.” He said, “That’s why he so prefers TV as his first news source—information comes in easily digestible sound bites.” He added, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.” During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump’s desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.

Other journalists have noticed Trump’s apparent lack of interest in reading. In May, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News, asked him to name his favorite book, other than the Bible or “The Art of the Deal.” Trump picked the 1929 novel “All Quiet on the Western Front.” Evidently suspecting that many years had elapsed since he’d read it, Kelly asked Trump to talk about the most recent book he’d read. “I read passages, I read areas, I’ll read chapters—I don’t have the time,” Trump said. As The New Republic noted recently, this attitude is not shared by most U.S. Presidents, including Barack Obama, a habitual consumer of current books, and George W. Bush, who reportedly engaged in a fiercely competitive book-reading contest with his political adviser Karl Rove.

[Byron]

Yes. I'll be happy to list them after you and Ital tell me the right wing policies you support.

Well for one I don't support nuclear disarmament. It's a nice sentiment but totally unfeasible in this day and age especially given we won't be convincing the likes of North Korea, Pakistan or India to disarm.

I support harsh prison sentences for certain crimes, especially where rehabilitation is unlikely or unfeasible or for crimes such as drunk driving, pedophilia and the like.

Your move.

[mikem]

That strain of the left with its base of young people and idiots (so the official opposition lol) basically sustains itself on sharing terrible memes ('The government doesn't want you to share this...') and self-indulgence, so it is quite similar.

Probably wasn't clear. I meant if there was a form that's essentially religious rather than secular. We used to have a trade union version, a version from the universities, and a religious one. I'm curious because this is the first time I've really seen the Democratic Party of the South that I grew up with fully on display at our convention.

[Disco]

Tony Blair got sniggered at for going to church so no, not really. There just isn't the kind of fervently religious section of society to play to, it's more jumble sales and lying about how much you go to church because you want to get married in one (because paying for the privilege is apparently not enough).

[Magic]

Did anyone see Trump's response to the Muslim father of a soldier? So good. :D

[phonics]

I liked the "he doesn't have the right to go on stage and say I haven't read the constitution." bit.

[Shindig]

Did anyone see Trump's response to the Muslim father of a soldier? So good. :D

That was the thing that got me. Acting relatively solemn and then ... "Of course they shut their women up, don't they? Those animals."

Next week President Trump ends a memorial to tornado victims by announcing he's going to find the real killers.

[Magic]

It's actually unreal he's a candidate. Fucking hell.

[Bartholomert]

Well for one I don't support nuclear disarmament. It's a nice sentiment but totally unfeasible in this day and age especially given we won't be convincing the likes of North Korea, Pakistan or India to disarm.

I support harsh prison sentences for certain crimes, especially where rehabilitation is unlikely or unfeasible or for crimes such as drunk driving, pedophilia and the like.

Your move.

Fair enough.

I think open carry is a bad idea and creates more problems than solves, especially in an active shooter situation.

[Magic]

Open carry and active shooter are such shite American terms.

[Bernanke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdQD0SANgY

The man is clearly deranged. Literally crazy grandpa. It's Sarah Palin levels of bad.

[Lewis]

'I have one of the great temperaments'. Can't Andrew Neil do some freelance work with him?

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CotJFERXYAAIXEV.jpg

It's like a child.

[Bartholomert]

People are so ready to like Trump...he needs to just stop doing incredibly retarded shit

[Lewis]

Cut your losses, mate. You're not part of it.

[Bartholomert]

For those still clinging onto the antiquated notion that the mainstream media operates under any pretense of objectivity:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/30/exclusive-pat-caddell-blasts-reuters-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/

[Magic]

Are you purposely posting like a second year law student?

[Bartholomert]

Cut your losses, mate. You're not part of it.

I just wanted John Kasich man, center right economically, moderate socially = prosperity every time...

[GS]

Trump has two key cards he can play which may help people to overlook the fact he's just not up it: 1) Clinton's a wanker and 2) SUPREME COURT MATE.

I think it's fair to say that he's not an intellectual heavyweight, and the more the campaign goes on the more he's likely to be slowly eviscerated by the media. At some point - surely - this shit has to start sticking to him. There's only so many times he can embarrass himself.

The debates could be a particularly dreadful lowlight for the pair of them.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Is there any way I can filter out all coverage of this from my life? Every possible outcome is absolutely terrible.

[Bernanke]

The debates could be a particularly dreadful lowlight for the pair of them.

Debates is where Clinton shines though. She did in -08 against Obama, and will this time as well. Also, after the Benghazi-hearings I can't see Trump getting under her skin at all.

[GS]

You're assuming Trump conducts the debate within sensible parameters.

If he gets personal - which he almost certainly will when riled - then fuck knows what impact it might have.

[Bartholomert]

You're assuming Trump conducts the debate within sensible parameters.

If he gets personal - which he almost certainly will when riled - then fuck knows what impact it might have.

This. He has a lot of material to truly fluster Hillary with and ask her questions a fawning media dare not bring up.

Also the latest in lol hypocrisy of the media:

http://i.imgur.com/8ZLvFAXl.jpg

[Bernanke]

I mean sure, if he live on national TV accuses Bill of being a rapist or something, that would be out of what you could prep for ahead of a debate with him. Still though, take a look at the Benghazi-hearings. She doesn't rattle easily.

[ItalAussie]

I mean sure, if he live on national TV accuses Bill of being a rapist or something, that would be out of what you could prep for ahead of a debate with him. Still though, take a look at the Benghazi-hearings. She doesn't rattle easily.

It was basically hours of listening to her political opponents slander her without actually having a case. I can't see her running into problems in a debate.

She'll know that her best debate strategy is to keep her cool while baiting Trump into saying something beyond the pale, so you'd imagine that it'd be part of her debate prep.

[Bartholomert]

It was basically hours of listening to her political opponents slander her without actually having a case. I can't see her running into problems in a debate.

She'll know that her best debate strategy is to keep her cool while baiting Trump into saying something beyond the pale, so you'd imagine that it'd be part of her debate prep.

LOL. Are you kidding me? Even most Hillary supporters recognize the long laundry list of scandals which she could justifiably be targeted for, it's so embedded in popular culture they even have click bait slide-show articles about it:

http://www.lifedaily.com/16-most-notorious-hillary-clinton-scandals/

[John]

How did that get started if the left leaning media won't talk about her being a shit?

[Bartholomert]

How did that get started if the left leaning media won't talk about her being a shit?

Because 1. It's so egregious it can't be ignored; 2. Bernie Sanders progressives have influence and they hate Hillary arguably more than Republicans.

[Disco]

For fucks sake, just elect someone will you, this has been going on for what feels like a thousand years.

[ItalAussie]

LOL. Are you kidding me? Even most Hillary supporters recognize the long laundry list of scandals which she could justifiably be targeted for, it's so embedded in popular culture they even have click bait slide-show articles about it:

http://www.lifedaily.com/16-most-notorious-hillary-clinton-scandals/

They should have a series of Benghazi hearings by panels populated with her political opponents. No way that could fail to indict her.

[John]

Because 1. It's so egregious it can't be ignored; 2. Bernie Sanders progressives have influence and they hate Hillary arguably more than Republicans.

Why weren't the Bernie Sanders mob flagging up her voting history in a big way? It's too late now since biffing her would lead to a Republican win, but thirty seconds with it and I knew she'd abstained from a vote to stop children's toys being made from toxic materials so it can't be too hard to find plenty of shameful stuff in there.

Obviously Trump can't do it because a policy based campaign is the last thing he wants, but it seems like a missed opportunity.

Unless it was flagged up and this liberal media conspiracy you're always telling us about just suppressed the whole thing.

[ItalAussie]

Oh, another thing that I agree with Trump on is raising the federal minimum wage, which he recently came out in favour of (up to $10). But given that Trump is on the record as saying it should be raised, kept where it is, lowered, eliminated, and left to the states, I'm not entirely sure whether I believe that to be his plan going forward. But if he settles on that, then good for him.

[Mazuuurk]

Wait so he wants to raise the minimum wage, but also bring back all the precious Production to USA?

He's republican, and I assume something of a hardcore capitalist, so I can't see how raising minimum wages will in any way benefit himself or his agenda :cab:


But I suppose he just does that - outright just lies about everything in the knowledge that whoever calls him out on it wouldn't be voting for him in the first place, and will struggle to reach those who will with the information (that he's lying) as well.

[Bernanke]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-and-trump-are-both-promising-an-extreme-supreme-court/

http://i.imgur.com/UJ3gtzx.png


One of the most enduring legacies of the next president will flow from a few words in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: the power to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. With the court still shorthanded after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, and with two of its sitting justices older than 80, the next president will shape the court, and through it the law of the land, for decades to come.


Clearly, the court will take a different shape under a President Trump than it would a President Clinton. But just how different, and how quickly? Very different and, if Clinton wins, very quickly. If Donald Trump is elected president, the Supreme Court may, seat by vacated seat, move rightward toward its most conservative position in recent memory. If Hillary Clinton is elected, the court may quickly become the most liberal it’s been in at least 80 years.


One thing is certain: This is a high-leverage election, judicially speaking. In addition to Scalia’s vacant seat, about one justice is expected to die in the next four years, and just over two in the next eight years.

This is honestly what the election really is about. It will shape the judicial direction of the US for a generation.

[Bartholomert]

Why weren't the Bernie Sanders mob flagging up her voting history in a big way? It's too late now since biffing her would lead to a Republican win, but thirty seconds with it and I knew she'd abstained from a vote to stop children's toys being made from toxic materials so it can't be too hard to find plenty of shameful stuff in there.

Obviously Trump can't do it because a policy based campaign is the last thing he wants, but it seems like a missed opportunity.

Unless it was flagged up and this liberal media conspiracy you're always telling us about just suppressed the whole thing.

They were. Their complaints were suppressed (although to a much lesser extent than the treatment conservatives get). That's why they are so pissed.

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coz0YBOXgAAkyC4.jpg:large

This yo team mert. This yo team.

[ItalAussie]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/

Straight transcript of Trump's ABC interview. Every paragraph has something new and special. Worth reading the whole thing, just to get an idea of how scatty he is when he's talking off the cuff.

If a candidate is just continually saying stupid shit that is obviously false or needs to be rolled back, it reaches a stage where you have to think that it's not "misspeaking" or "poor phrasing", but rather a representative look at their thought processes. At some point you have to wonder whether he's honestly all there.

[mikem]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coz0YBOXgAAkyC4.jpg:large

This yo team mert. This yo team.

That is not even the worst thing Roger Stone (of the Cruz killed JFK story) has said in the last 48 hours.

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/01/team_trump_has_no_bottom_roger_stone_is_now_attack ing_khzir_khan_as_a_muslim_brotherhood_agent/

[John]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/

Straight transcript of Trump's ABC interview. Every paragraph has something new and special. Worth reading the whole thing, just to get an idea of how scatty he is when he's talking off the cuff.

If a candidate is just continually saying stupid shit that is obviously false or needs to be rolled back, it reaches a stage where you have to think that it's not "misspeaking" or "poor phrasing", but rather a representative look at their thought processes. At some point you have to wonder whether he's honestly all there.

He's just genuinely stupid, I think. His inherited money meant he was reasonably well advised when it came to business, though even there he started selling a line of steaks exclusively in an electronics shop and a shopping channel, but put him in front of a camera and he's exposed as a div.

John Oliver had a good metaphor for all his horrifying comments. It's a bed of nails. Any one of his comments would kill another candidate, as one nail will go straight through your foot, but because he's constantly at it no single comment stands out enough to really hurt him.

[Shindig]

Trump Steaks was a brand of steaks owned by Donald Trump that launched in 2007 and were sold at The Sharper Image[1] and QVC.[2][3] Trump was featured on the June 2007 issue of the Sharper Image magazine to promote his then-new brand of steaks, which were billed as the "world's greatest". [4] Prices of the four packages of Trump Steaks varied from $199 to $999.[5] The Sharper Image closed the following year after filing for bankruptcy.[6] The Trump Steaks trademark was canceled in December 2014 according to a trademark search through the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[7]


Steaks from Bush Brothers Provision Co. were on display at Trump's election-night speech on March 8, 2016 during which Trump claimed them to be "Trump Steaks". Trump-branded wine and water were also displayed, as an example of Trump's success in business.[8] Observers there noted the Trump-branded steaks were produced by a butcher in West Palm Beach, Florida.[2] In an interview with Anderson Cooper the following day, Trump explained that he does not process the steaks but instead purchases them from local suppliers before subsequently relabeling them.[8]

I don't want this man in charge of economic policies anywhere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw

[Bartholomert]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coz0YBOXgAAkyC4.jpg:large

This yo team mert. This yo team.

I agree with the statement. 2/3 of the federal election vote counting machines contributed to the Clinton Foundation and many of these states have fucking bonkers laws which don't require a state ID to vote (because racism). Reuters literally changed their methodology with their polls after it showed Trump winning, there is wide spread suppression on the Internet, the mainstream media is 24/7 anti-Trump propaganda.

Trump is a flawed candidate but he's honest, Hillary is a monster who is undermining the very foundations of our country.

[Bartholomert]

Does he say stupid things: yes, but at least there is a chance that his advisors will keep him in check and his policy proposals are actually pretty moderate, reasonable and urgently necessary. With Hillary the United States as we know it will be finished.

[Bartholomert]

I don't want this man in charge of economic policies anywhere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw

There are plenty of rich kids who squander their fortunes. He is a world class at negotiating, making deals, and delegating, this is undisputed.

[John]

Does he say stupid things: yes, but at least there is a chance that his advisors will keep him in check and his policy proposals are actually pretty moderate, reasonable and urgently necessary. With Hillary the United States as we know it will be finished.

He doesn't just say the odd stupid thing. I challenge you to find one minute of footage during which Donald Trump speaks and doesn't say something either monumentally stupid or blisteringly offensive. Most of what he says is stupid.


There are plenty of rich kids who squander their fortunes. He is a world class at negotiating, making deals, and delegating, this is undisputed.

How is it undisputed that he's a world class negotiator and deal maker?

If you buy into that image then you're falling for a trick.

[Bartholomert]

How is it undisputed that he's a world class negotiator and deal maker?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery/donald-trump

Most of his children went to UPenn, did serious majors and graduated with honors with the one exception being Eric who went to Georgetown. Say what you like but getting in and graduating from those schools is fucking hard and they don't just let anybody in (the Vice Presidents kids went to schools like DePaul, Northeastern and Purdue). His genetic IQ is definetly high and at the end of the day he won the Primaries with this same approach despite the self-righteous scoffing of the intellectual class. I will suspend judgement until after the election.

If you fall for the image of him being an idiot you are a sheep who is a slave to the manipulation of the elites who are scared to death of a genuine outsider and are doing everything in their power to discredit him.

[phonics]

I agree with the statement. 2/3 of the federal election vote counting machines contributed to the Clinton Foundation and many of these states have fucking bonkers laws which don't require a state ID to vote (because racism). Reuters literally changed their methodology with their polls after it showed Trump winning, there is wide spread suppression on the Internet, the mainstream media is 24/7 anti-Trump propaganda.

Trump is a flawed candidate but he's honest, Hillary is a monster who is undermining the very foundations of our country.

A machine donated money to the Clinton Foundation?

[Bartholomert]

A machine donated money to the Clinton Foundation?

The companies who manufacture and operate them obviously. Clinton had no qualms about rigging the primaries, she doesn't care about democracy or principles, simply power.

[John]

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery/donald-trump

Most of his children went to UPenn, did serious majors and graduated with honors with the one exception being Eric who went to Georgetown. Say what you like but getting in and graduating from those schools is fucking hard and they don't just let anybody in (the Vice Presidents kids went to schools like DePaul, Northeastern and Purdue). His genetic IQ is definetly high and at the end of the day he won the Primaries with this same approach despite the self-righteous scoffing of the intellectual class. I will suspend judgement until after the election.

If you fall for the image of him being an idiot you are a sheep who is a slave to the manipulation of the elites who are scared to death of a genuine outsider and are doing everything in their power to discredit him.

I remember reading that he'd be worth more if he'd just stuck his inheritance into a blind trust and rode the returns. Also, a place on the rich list isn't proof that you're a world class anything. Half that list is people who inherited companies or bank accounts.

I couldn't give less of a shit where his children went to school. You went to a good school and here we are. He says stupid things constantly. He invented a publicist and then pretended to be that publicist on the phone, without disguising his voice in any way, so that he could boast about all the women he was getting. Those are not the actions of an intelligent man.

I'm not falling for any image. I'm listening to what the man himself has to say and making a judgement based on that. Forget where his children went to school, find me that minute of footage where he doesn't say something utterly ridiculous.

[phonics]

The companies who manufacture and operate them obviously. Clinton had no qualms about rigging the primaries, she doesn't care about democracy or principles, simply power.

Who's that then? Sorry but I feel the need to fact check any statement you make as every time you've provided any proof of something, it's shown the exact opposite.

edit: Tried to find a source. It was a series of posts from /r/The_Donald and blogs with banners like this one

http://imgur.com/LiTo0VR.png

[phonics]

By the way that picture of him eating KFC with a knife and fork is fucking disgusting. The man looks like one of those rotting shits on the pavement that seems to grow hair.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co2DLgTWgAAPZxv.jpg

Fucking. Gross.

[Bartholomert]

You are cherry picking incidents and repeating misinformation, just like the media wants, to detract from overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That absurd article you're referring to is if Trump hadn't spend a dime in the last 30 years, after he had already made $100 millions, and invested the entirety of his fortune in index bonds (which increased in value %1,400). Sure he could have performed better, just like if my parents had invested all their money in Apple 20 years ago our family would be richer.

How about the millions of dollars Hillary made selling influence with the US government in return for exorbitant 'speaking fees' for Bill? Do you care about that? Please direct even 1/10th of the scrutiny you are giving to Trump to Hillary, there are far more worrisome skeletons in the closet.

[John]

I'm not scrutinising Trump. I'm laughing at him, and we've been over this before.

I'm not sure you realise just how stupid, desperate, and pathetic you look every time you shout 'BUT HILLARY' when someone lols at Trump. Found that one minute of footage yet?

[Bartholomert]

I'm not scrutinising Trump. I'm laughing at him, and we've been over this before.

I'm not sure you realise just how stupid, desperate, and pathetic you look every time you shout 'BUT HILLARY' when someone lols at Trump. Found that one minute of footage yet?

Literally any speech vs interviews with Clinton supporters, feel free to google.

Voting is about choosing the lesser of two evils, Hillary is relevant.

[niko_cee]

I try not to pay too much attention to this, but the outline idea of tariffing the shit out of GM cars (for example) if they choose to make them outside the US and reimport them back in (NAFTA-style) sounds a decent one to me. People always say protectionism is bad, but it depends whose perspective you are looking at it from. From my middle class urbanite perspective getting things as cheaply as possible (ie through use of quasi-slave labour) is great. Or getting 'premium' foreign shit without extra cost could fall into this category as well. Probably not so great if you were one of the people who used to make the things before production went elsewhere. The US automobile market, from a completely uninformed perspective, looks like something that could be self-sustaining through domestic production. They don't export their cars (even if their companies own foreign brands or make cars for elsewhere - you don't see many Ford Fiestas in America) - they re for a domestic market. Make them there and stop the rust belt states falling into irreparable depression. Everything about the US is designed to be self-sufficient in an end of days scenario (it's why they don't bother with their own oil reserves that much). Surely protectionism is only bad if you want to be an export economy and/or you don't have the clout to tell most other countries what to do?

[John]

Literally any speech vs interviews with Clinton supporters, feel free to google.

Voting is about choosing the lesser of two evils, Hillary is relevant.

What do Hillary supporters have to do with anything? I'm asking you to provide one minute of footage that shows him speaking without saying anything stupid or ridiculous to back up your assertion that he's not an idiot.

I'll not be voting, so I'll continue to laugh at Trump being a buffoon.

[Magic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36958126

Lol? Has that ever been said by an outgoing president before?

[mikem]

@niko
Essentially, people are too fixated on trade deals and the auto industry. Trade flows follow capital flows. As long as the US is a net importer of capital we will be a net importer of goods. That is a strict national income accounting principle instead of an economic theory. When you have a net inflow of capital you will always reach a point where you have purchased all the domestic goods and have excess capital which will be spent on imports. A simple look at the last four pages of the Economist will prove this; every country with a trade surplus will be exporting capital. Trade deals have nothing to do with it.

Trade deals are typically bad because they are as much about protectionism as free trade. Why should we prioritized an auto worker in Michigan (and fuck the one in North Carolina) and not the waitress in California who has to now pay more for her car? If you try to completely square the circle by improving everyone's wage with protectionism you will ultimately just increase the price level with no real change in underlying wealth. Or you just end up prioritizing certain workers over others most likely for voting reasons. The truth is that every national policy decision creates winners and losers.

Increase corporate taxes or save a bunch of money by removing all the distortionary crap like paying to subsidize McDonald's and Coke overseas ads. Nevada offered Tesla a community college program that trained workers to work in their new facility instead of tax breaks. That's what we should be doing. If welfare is problematic because of disincentives corporate welfare is poison because of the multiplier effect it has on disincentives.

[Pepe]

Does anyone remember when Rand 'Rand' Paul donned Trump regarding TPP in a debate?

[niko_cee]

But then what of the waitresses of Michigan who have no jobs because no one can afford to go to their establishments?

Also, does making the yankee shitmobiles in Mexico make them any cheaper for anyone other than the company themselves? I doubt savings are passed on. Do we just have to accept that there are going to be large scale human casualties as the nature of economies change and, if that is the judgment, is it any wonder that the turkeys might stop voting for Christmas and turn to some populist maniac instead?


All right, fine. If you want an experienced politician, vote for me. But if you want to believe a bunch of crazy promises about garbagemen washing your cars and emptying your kitty litter, then by all means, vote for this sleazy lunatic.

We all know how that ended.

[Bernanke]

Donald is imploding these last few days, especially today. It's a sight to behold.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co29K65WYAA_fwY.jpg

and

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-purple-heart-226565


Trump recounted the exchange, remarking that the man, who he identified as retired Lt. Col. Louis Dorfman said, "That's my real Purple Heart. I have such confidence in you."
"And I said, 'Man, that’s like big stuff. I always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump said. "This was much easier.”

and

Trump tells a mom with a crying baby that he loves babies.

Then, moments later, he changes his mind on how he feels about crying babies..
https://twitter.com/nbcnightlynews/status/760507533379284992

[Bartholomert]

Brb obsessing about someone misspeaking but not caring that his opponent hasn't given a press conference in nearly a year and engages in open corruption.

lol at the media in 2016

[Bartholomert]

Why don't we hear about the shady connection between Khan and Hillary:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

[mikem]

It doesn't have to end up as Michigan. Pittsburgh moved from its dependence on steel. You are right in that they are shitboxes. An economy built on shitboxes is shit. Let's find somebody who wants to build something else.

Tax the companies making the shitboxes or iPhones or financial services or whatever does get made. Use that to provide a better safety net and training to move to other things. I'm not arguing for the status quo. But we have been propping up the Rust Belt with protectionary policies for decades and the result is always the same. Despite best intentions it has always ended the same with the companies capturing the politicians for fear of votes / jobs. Coal in West Virginia and Tennessee for Republicans and auto for Democrats.

Jobs are being added here in the Southwest and West because we are not trying to force a specific industry. In a five mile radius from where I live we have a new Intel chip fabricator, new Garmin facility, a financial services call center, Go Daddy Tech support, two new hotels, and something I've no clue what it is. 1,200 new jobs in a year, filled in large part by Midwest transplants.

[John]

Why don't we hear about the shady connection between Khan and Hillary:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

How is any of that relevant to Trump being a cunt about the guy's wife? Unless either his son didn't die fighting for the military or that wasn't actually his wife, none of it deflects anything the Breitbart folk seem to think it does.

It's a bit shady that he was trotted out as some unknown, unconnected Muslim dad if he was actually mega well connected, but then I suppose a moment's thought would tell you there was some connection there.

[Bartholomert]

It doesn't have to end up as Michigan. Pittsburgh moved from its dependence on steel. You are right in that they are shitboxes. An economy built on shitboxes is shit. Let's find somebody who wants to build something else.

Tax the companies making the shitboxes or iPhones or financial services or whatever does get made. Use that to provide a better safety net and training to move to other things. I'm not arguing for the status quo. But we have been propping up the Rust Belt with protectionary policies for decades and the result is always the same. Despite best intentions it has always ended the same with the companies capturing the politicians for fear of votes / jobs. Coal in West Virginia and Tennessee for Republicans and auto for Democrats.

Jobs are being added here in the Southwest and West because we are not trying to force a specific industry. In a five mile radius from where I live we have a new Intel chip fabricator, new Garmin facility, a financial services call center, Go Daddy Tech support, two new hotels, and something I've no clue what it is. 1,200 new jobs in a year, filled in large part by Midwest transplants.

Protectionist policies + get rid of regulation and taxes = jobs and goods at competitive prices?

[Bartholomert]

How is any of that relevant to Trump being a cunt about the guy's wife? Unless either his son didn't die fighting for the military or that wasn't actually his wife, none of it deflects anything the Breitbart folk seem to think it does.

It's a bit shady that he was trotted out as some unknown, unconnected Muslim dad if he was actually mega well connected, but then I suppose a moment's thought would tell you there was some connection there.

We gunna pretend like Desi communities aren't incredibly sexist? I had feminists 'PoC' on my newsfeed agreeing with Trump.

How about everyone collectively ignoring when Hillary Clinton called gold star Benghazi mom a liar and the media chastised her for being a political opportunist / a horrible person for 'exploiting / politicizing' her sons death?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/benghazi-mother-pat-smith-on-khizr-khan-i-was-treated-like-dirt-by-hillary-clinton/

PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP.

[GS]

Protectionist economic policies are shit.

[mikem]

Fuck me, GS makes my point with less words.

[niko_cee]

Maybe not if you want to win (buy) votes though.

[Bartholomert]

Protectionist economic policies are shit.

Tbh I agree, the issue is overregulation and taxation not tariffs

[John]

We gunna pretend like Desi communities aren't incredibly sexist? I had feminists 'PoC' on my newsfeed agreeing with Trump.

How about everyone when Hillary Clinton called gold star Benghazi mom a liar and the media chastised her for being a political opportunist / a horrible person for 'exploiting / politicizing' her sons death?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/benghazi-mother-pat-smith-on-khizr-khan-i-was-treated-like-dirt-by-hillary-clinton/

PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP.

Yes, Hillary is a cunt too, we've established that. Fucking hell, you're like a child demanding he get the same toy as his friend.

[Boydy]

Fuck me, GS makes my point with less words.

It's not often that happens.

[GS]

It's not, but this isn't a difficult issue. They're just shit and everybody sensible knows it.

[Shindig]

This is like fans of those really shit clubs. Clubs so shit that everybody agrees with how shit they are apart from a vocal minority of brain-damaged fucks because this shit team is all they have.

I'm actually looking at Trump's wikipedia entry on his 2000 campaign. He won two primaries after he'd exited the race (!) and had Oprah Winfrey as his proposed VP. Fuck.

[Bartholomert]

Conservative meme of the day:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/13880144_1724381151146767_369207524114125536_n.jpg ?oh=0386285b6434cd6f4605255c175b3845&oe=581298F9&__gda__=1477663344_877f1917668732dd359118fb870e246 6

[Bernanke]

Fuel for the fire.


Katy Tur ‏@KatyTurNBC 25s25 seconds ago

Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refuses-to-endorse-paul-ryan-in-gop-primary-im-just-not-quite-there-yet/2016/08/02/1449f028-58e9-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

Here's what he said about the two:


“I’ve never been there with John McCain because I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets,” Trump continued. “He has not done a good job for the vets and I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets. So I’ve always had a difficult time with John for that reason, because our vets are not being treated properly. They’re not being treated fairly.”


“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”

That last bolded part is exactly what Ryan said leading up to him endorsing Trump. This is the pettiest shit I've ever seen. He has to be a Clinton plant.

[GS]

I don't see how anyone sensible can continue to excuse his actions.

It's a perfectly fair position to say that you're supporting him because, say, you would prefer his Supreme Court nominations. Or because you just hate Hillary Clinton that much. But there's surely no way one can excuse his stupid policies, crass behaviour or self-evident extreme hubris.

[Bartholomert]

Why isn't Trump allowed to treat other people how he's treated?

More fun details overlooked by the mainstream media, turns out our buddy Khizr Khan wrote extensively in favor of Sharia law, you know the one where women are 2nd class citizens, men can have 4 wives, homosexuals and adulterers should be executed, the punishment for robbery is amputation, etc:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/daily-caller-khan-wrote-extensively-favor-sharia/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social


“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”

This is the Democrats hero...could you imagine if a prominent speaker at the RNC had written an academic article condoning slavery because of the supremacy of the Bible over man-man law? The media is completely orchestrated, this is worse than the Soviet Union, because at least there people knew they weren't free.

[GS]

Because he's putting himself forward to be President of the United States and you can't have someone who feels the need to react every time someone baits him. It's fine if you're some TV celebrity with a questionable hair-do - it's quite another when you're the leader of the free world. It suggests he doesn't have the temperament.

On your second point, it's largely irrelevant in the context of what he said. You're just trying to excuse things which you know you should be condemning.

[Bartholomert]

It's not so much excusing as much as exposing the hypocrisy of the media. It's just so exasperating / frustrating...people are being kept deliberately blind to the Truth...Trump is a poor candidate but these people are existential threats to democracy as we know it and literally destroying the country while they personally benefit...

Anyways, I just want my SCOTUS nominees man.

[GS]

The media are shit, but the unfortunate truth here is that they're just reporting what Trump says. He's exposing himself, rather than it being any sort of media conspiracy. I grant you that they're getting stuck in with a certain glee, but that's hardly surprising given the long list of shit he's coming out with. He's complaining about the heat from the fire whilst he throws armfuls more kindling on every day.

That said, it's a perfectly valid position to want him to win for SCOTUS nominations. I can certainly understand it. But you know you're trying to condone shit that you wouldn't with anybody else. I assume you're trying to positively reinforce the idea, to yourself, that it would be alright to vote for him, even though he's an awful candidate because the direction of SCOTUS is more important in the long-run than what he does in office before he'd inevitably lose in four years.

[Shindig]

That quote on John McCain's a fun one. Aside from having Oprah as his VP, his 2000 cabinet picks included the very sensible Colin Powell as Secretary of State and John McCain as Secretary of Defense.

[ItalAussie]

Why isn't Trump allowed to treat other people how he's treated?

More fun details overlooked by the mainstream media, turns out our buddy Khizr Khan wrote extensively in favor of Sharia law, you know the one where women are 2nd class citizens, men can have 4 wives, homosexuals and adulterers should be executed, the punishment for robbery is amputation, etc:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/daily-caller-khan-wrote-extensively-favor-sharia/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social



This is the Democrats hero...could you imagine if a prominent speaker at the RNC had written an academic article condoning slavery because of the supremacy of the Bible over man-man law? The media is completely orchestrated, this is worse than the Soviet Union, because at least there people knew they weren't free.
That is a slanderous lie invented out of whole cloth by the right. Who apparently don't understand what a "research article" is. Quelle surprise.


ThinkProgress says the article is “less of an article and more of a fever dream of conspiracies strung together,” but it barely qualifies as that. The entire cockamamie conspiracy theory is based on the fact that Khan, who is a specialist in international and trade law, published an article more than three decades ago in a major law journal explaining the structure of Islamic law, including its sources and historical development. And one of the people whose work he cites in that article, Said Ramadan of the Islamic Center of Geneva and also a well-known legal scholar, is allegedly a “major icon of the Muslim Brotherhood.” That’s it. From that, they actually imply that Capt. Humayun Khan was a “double agent for Al-Qaeda.”He wrote an article explaining Islamic law in his capacity as an expert in international trade law. That's it.

Seriously. You'll believe anything.

[Bartholomert]

That is a slanderous lie invented out of whole cloth by the right. Who apparently don't understand what a "research article" is. Quelle surprise.

He wrote an article explaining Islamic law in his capacity as an expert in international trade law. That's it.

Seriously. You'll believe anything.

Are you literally retarded? Read the quotes from the article, THERE ARE DIRECT QUOTES, no it's not a conspiracy, here are two particularly shocking ones:

"All juridical works...must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.” And, "the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation."

What does that fucking sound like? He directly states that Sharia Law should supersede Man made law. You're a pathetic shill.

[Pepe]

But The Truth!

[ItalAussie]

Are you literally retarded? Read the quotes from the article, THERE ARE DIRECT QUOTES, no it's not a conspiracy, here are two particularly shocking ones:

"All juridical works...must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.” And, "the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation."

What does that fucking sound like? He directly states that Sharia Law should supersede Man made law. You're a pathetic shill.

Those are true statements about how Islamic law works from the perspective of within. They're not endorsements. I would say the same if I were describing Islamic law. Those are precepts of the system, and to understand how it works, you need to understand those foundations.

You do understand that research papers in international law journals typically aren't accepted if they're "iSlamic LaW is gr8 yo", right?

It is interesting to see the scattergun approach taken by Trump's band when some mud finally starts to stick, mind.

[Bartholomert]

Those are true statements about how Islamic law works from the perspective of within. They're not endorsements. I would say the same if I were describing Islamic law.

You do understand that research papers in international law journals typically aren't accepted if they're "iSlamic LaW is gr8 yo", right?

It is interesting to see the scattergun approach taken by Trump's band when some mud finally starts to stick, mind.

You do realize that I'm on a law journal? You write in an argumentative tone in 'research papers' and take a definitive position that you then defend. It's also published by the Law School of the University of Houston (LOL) hardly the most prestigious or legitimate source for international law articles; they would 100% publish a hip trendy pro Sharia-law article to show the world how open minded, tolerant and brave they are.

But please tell me more abut how law school works though.

[ItalAussie]

You do realize that I'm on a law journal? You write in an argumentative tone in 'research papers' and take a definitive position that you then defend.

Please tell me more abut how law school works though.
Then you'll appreciate that this is a desperate attempt to discredit someone who has actually hit Trump's numbers and Republican support.

This paper was just a report on the basis and history of Islamic law in the context of international trade. I presume you have access to journal materials, so you can look at the article itself to see this context. It's not secret - I have institutional access to it, and I have to assume you do too. It's an incredibly dry article, largely about positioning Islamic law within historical context, and how that affects interactions at an international law level. :sorry:

Mind you, Trump is so obviously in the wrong here that even his own side are hanging him out to dry.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/trump-campaign-asks-capitol-hill-for-backing-in-khan-controversy/


Rob Wasinger, a onetime congressional candidate who has been working for the Trump camp on congressional outreach, sent an email to senior Senate aides saying, “We want to get several member statements out today on this, and would really appreciate your help.”

A similar appeal was made to Republicans in the House of Representatives, according to a senior aide.
It's not working though. Republican politicians know that this one is toxic. They're not touching it, because they don't want to hit their election chances. McCain and Ryan have directly criticised his statements.

[Bartholomert]

LOL...you just cited Rawstory to prove a point...and I'm the one grasping for straws?

[Bartholomert]

I don't have access to the article and commentary I'm seeing is in-line with my interpretation of the quotes provided in the Breitbart article.

Again...that's not how research articles work and regardless he's incontrovertibly incorporated in some overtly political statements about the supremacy of Shari'ah that are mainstream views among the Muslim community.

[Pepe]

Harold vs Toby > Mert vs Ital

[mugbull]

Mert definitely reached Harold status in this thread a long time ago. Why Ital (or anyone else) is giving his words any thought is sort of beyond me.

[mikem]

The Romney and Kasich strategists really are the best at this stuff. I don't think anyone hates Trump quite like they do.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/760328769471119360

[Bartholomert]

Mert definitely reached Harold status in this thread a long time ago. Why Ital (or anyone else) is giving his words any thought is sort of beyond me.

Still waiting on you to contribute something substantive pussy, but I know delusionally condescending comments are safe so I doubt that'll be changing any time soon

[ItalAussie]

LOL...you just cited Rawstory to prove a point...and I'm the one grasping for straws?

I do know that they're a partisan source (not as openly willing to fabricate as Brietbart, but still). That's why I only pulled the direct quote, and omitted any editorialising. Feel free to interpret the quote differently. But it's hard to see it as anything other than the Trump camp looking for anyone at all to support them on this. And given the chilly response from members of the Senate and Congress on the matter, it got the reception it deserved.

[mugbull]

How's the weight loss going?

[ItalAussie]

The best bit is that if Trump just waited out a news cycle, the whole thing would have been gone. Throw out a couple of platitudes, support the troops, etc., nothing to see here. It's only his thin skin that forced him to respond at all in the first place.

It'll still be superseded by other topics as the race goes on, but it's quite telling.

[niko_cee]

What even started this whole Constitution waving dead muslim soldier thing?

Mert's played it about as well as the Donald by the looks of things. You can tell by the article's title it's going to be nothing more than a dry historical/functional narrative. Is it the era of clickbait which has lead to the proliferation of such wildly misleading headlines? Business Insider is one of the worst for it. You do have to wonder if anyone reads much beyond the headline and the first line of editorial these days. I can just see the gleeful intern charging into Donald's war room with this little gem.

There is a case to be made for bias in media coverage, but it's daft to try and manufacture outrage against individuals (in a perceived attempt to fight fire with fire).

Can only imagine what Trump would do with Supreme Court nominations. He'd probably put his daughter forward.

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoypstlVIAAa7ED.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoyyYV_WAAAnWJy.jpg:large

[phonics]

In other interesting U.S. Political news, the Kansas legislature that had been putting all those top, top GOP plans to work like getting rid of entitlements and welfare services and replacing it by cutting taxes on high level earners and businesses have just been ousted by... GOP moderates.

It's well worth a look at the state of Kansas at the moment, very interesting results.

[Bartholomert]

In other interesting U.S. Political news, the Kansas legislature that had been putting all those top, top GOP plans to work like getting rid of entitlements and welfare services and replacing it by cutting taxes on high level earners and businesses have just been ousted by... GOP moderates.

It's well worth a look at the state of Kansas at the moment, very interesting results.

Good ideas, implementation had to be much more gradual. I'm close friends with the son of somebody who's a big deal in Kansas politics...Kansas just needs a few years for the reforms to bare fruit there are already unprecedented shifts in investment / business expansion...but yeah it's pretty grim right about now.

[Bernanke]

Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them.

Until he comes out and states that he hasn't actually said that, I'm going to believe it to be true.

Reddit said it better than I can: "All of the stupid, insensitive, neurotic, insane garbage he has spouted off with in the last couple of days is absolutely inconsequential in light of and compared to this. You have someone that wants to be president who legitimately doesn't understand why we cannot simply rain apocalyptic hellfire on people he doesn't like. This is unforgivable. It's insanity. Voting for trump is explicitly a vote against a stable global environment."

[phonics]

Eh, I've never taken anything to come out of Joe Scarbroughs mouth at face-value. Morning Joe was also one of the shows that gave him the air-time he needed to launch his campaign when no-one took him seriously and now The Donald slags them off as much as possible so I'd rather here it from this Foreign Policy Advisor (which will never, ever, ever, happen)

[ItalAussie]

Like I said in the other thread. As the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki become historical paragraphs rather than remembered events, someone's eventually going to drop another one. It only takes one bad decision.

The use of nuclear weapons should be treated with such gravity that those comments (if he said them) alone should totally disqualify him from any right-thinking individual's voting list. And I would say that about any potential political leader, irrespective of their other political stances. They could be a progressive hero, but if they were to demonstrate a cavalier attitude towards nuclear weaponry, I couldn't in good conscience support them.

EDIT: One thing that does ring true is the idea that Trump would ask the same question three times in a single one hour briefing. :D

[Lewis]

It's a good question. 'Consideration of the use of any weapon is always implicit in the very possession of that weapon', said the Truman White House.

[GS]

When would you advocate their use, Ital?

[mikem]

It is America. The utterly egregious act of eating fried chicken with a knife and fork will do him in. Honestly, there shouldn't be debates. A Voight - Kampf test is all that is needed.

If anything, he is downplaying McCain in regards to veteran benefits.

[GS]

He's not going to win anyway, but I suspect this week represents 'peak wanker'. There's no further depths for him to lower himself to, you'd expect.

[John]

It is America. The utterly egregious act of eating fried chicken with a knife and fork will do him in

Or pretending to eat it and getting it wrong.

[Bartholomert]

Mark my words: he will win.

Most Americans no longer trust the mainstream media. This week has been a coordinated attack in response to the horror of Trump briefly dominating the polls. People are smarter than that.

[Magic]

Lol at thinking people are smart enough to not blindly take in the mainstream news but not smart enough to vote for a horrible cunt like Trump.

[John]

Mark my words: he will win.

Most Americans no longer trust the mainstream media. This week has been a coordinated attack in response to the horror of Trump briefly dominating the polls. People are smarter than that.

Have they just stopped trusting the media since yesterday when PEOPLE NEEDED TO WAKE UP, or is this just another example of you saying whatever suits the point you're making at the time, regardless of how many prior statements it contradicts?

Trump was exceptionally kind to have a go at the mother of a dead soldier on national television at the precise moment the media wanted to attack him.

[Shindig]

I've just googled Trump nuclear unpredictability and got these:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/28/donald-trump-wont-rule-out-using-nuclear-weapons-a/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-23/trump-lays-out-vision-for-gaining-respect-from-muslim-world
http://time.com/4437089/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-nukes/

So, it's kind of a mixed bag. He sounds like he at least wants to threaten ISIS with one which, I'm sure you'll agree, will cause an everlasting negative legacy between the US and the Arab world.

[GS]

https://twitter.com/noonanjo

There's a very good thread on there on the nuclear deterrent.

[GS]

760937011964366848

He's such good value.

[Lewis]

He's being a bit dramatic, but the military would just ignore 'The Donald' if he rang them up wanting to flatten somewhere stupid for something stupid. What would he do, call them out on Twitter?

[GS]

He'd be the commander in chief (fucking hell).

Imagine the constitutional crisis if the military refused to follow orders because they thought he was fucking bonkers. :drool: