Good article as to why Bernie supporters and Conservatives are actually quite similar in their grievances:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/28/...#disqus_thread
Good article as to why Bernie supporters and Conservatives are actually quite similar in their grievances:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/28/...#disqus_thread
Apparently it's time to ditch the Geneva Convention.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=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.
When's the Geneva convention stopped America in the last decade?
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/...ified-secrets/
@Bencjacobs (Political reporter for The Guardian)
Trump is now complaining "we pay rent for our base to Saudi Arabia"Please let there actually be a base there.@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.
I would assume it was a reference to Eskan Village, which the Saudi Arabian government owns, but lol if it isn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...vention-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/defin...=Gish%20Gallop
This is a joke pollster run by Democrats, they are so desperate for any positive news that they are promoting Pravada like 'facts/studies'Originally Posted by GS
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.
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.
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.
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.
They're not used to losing or having to contend with reality. November is going to be deeply satisfying.
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?
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?
"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:
Toggle Spoiler
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.Are you capable of seeing the lol hypocrisy and dishonesty of the media on the judge question?
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/ju...ce-in-judging/
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.
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.
Yeah you have no credibility and are blinded by prejudice.
Five for five?
Maybe this will provide insight:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=172077353
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.
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.
Yes. I'll be happy to list them after you and Ital tell me the right wing policies you support.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Remember, I don't really have much riding on the US. I'm well out of it.
Every time I watch an interview with Trump I just imagine Mayor Roy Chubby Brown.
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/20...iter-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.
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.
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.
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).
Did anyone see Trump's response to the Muslim father of a soldier? So good.
I liked the "he doesn't have the right to go on stage and say I haven't read the constitution." bit.
That was the thing that got me. Acting relatively solemn and then ... "Of course they shut their women up, don't they? Those animals."Did anyone see Trump's response to the Muslim father of a soldier? So good.
Next week President Trump ends a memorial to tornado victims by announcing he's going to find the real killers.
It's actually unreal he's a candidate. Fucking hell.
Fair enough.
I think open carry is a bad idea and creates more problems than solves, especially in an active shooter situation.
Open carry and active shooter are such shite American terms.
The man is clearly deranged. Literally crazy grandpa. It's Sarah Palin levels of bad.
'I have one of the great temperaments'. Can't Andrew Neil do some freelance work with him?
It's like a child.
People are so ready to like Trump...he needs to just stop doing incredibly retarded shit
Cut your losses, mate. You're not part of it.
For those still clinging onto the antiquated notion that the mainstream media operates under any pretense of objectivity:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...inton-winning/
Are you purposely posting like a second year law student?
Reply With Quote
