|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 11:04:27 GMT -5
Hillary's response to the A-hole (via Instagram) was PERFECT yesterday:  |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 9, 2015 11:23:54 GMT -5
Trump is apparently too insane "straight-talking" even for the Republican party, so is allegedly thinking about running as an Independent (assuming the whole candidacy wasn't a publicity stunt and he doesn't bow out at the last minute). So, question - 3rd party candidates in the US would generally save themselves a lot of time money and effort by just setting fire to most of their (and their supporters') money - would a Trump run as an independent "straight-talking / anti-PC" candidate stand any more chance? Unlike Nader, for example, he's got enough money to do it - would he run? Would the Republican vote split, or would he just attract the crazies (assuming that's not one question rather than two)? Are there enough votes in the crazy wing of the Republicans + the non-Republican right-wing crazies to get him anywhere? I think these are the questions the GOP is asking itself frantically. I can't recall a wild card like Trump on either side: he is free of nay party or financial loyalties, is well known for his love for "re-negotiation" and has always lived his life following the dictum that there is no such thing as bad publicity, so he has no inhibitions, none. I do think that those who support him (hte "crazies") now would do so if he ran third party. Based on the numbers in the polls now, that's about 6 or 7 percent of the electorate, but that's plenty to throw the election to the Democrats. Trump doesn't care which party wins, so I don't think he would ever bow out of a third party run "in the best interests of the country," so the GOP has to be worried. A larger question is whether those crazies would simply vote for Trump as a protest against the "gummint," or if they would vote for the Republicans in the House and Senate races. If they vote only for Trump, the chances for a Democrats taking either or both houses of Congress would increase substantially. (That's despite the despicable gerrymandering the GOP has done since the 2010 election.) I would think that if one of the GOP candidates would show the gumption needed to separate himself even a little from the right wing in an attempt to woo moderates from both sides, the GOP would coalesce around him and do everything it could to make him the nominee. If he and the party could survive that, they might have a chance against Hillary, who does have a "likeability" problem, even among Democrats. I hope they don't do that, of course, as I think that this election is crucial not because of the economy or ISIS or health care, but because of the SCOTUS, which will likely be in need of as many as three justices during the next President's term. Our national response toward those other issues hinges on the Court. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 9, 2015 16:48:41 GMT -5
I am taking a break from "the news" (except for brief scans to make sure I'm not missing anything big) because all that's on right now is everybody talking about how awful Donald Trump is. And that ain't news! (I guess it's news that some of the worst people in the GOP are joining in the Trump dogpile, but I think it's mostly sour grapes that they didn't have the guts to say it out loud before he did.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Dec 9, 2015 18:43:38 GMT -5
Rubio graduated Cum Laude with his law degree from University of Miami. He's not stupid by any means. What he is, is bought and paid for by corporate interests. He doesn't have to have an original thought because every policy he espouses is carefully put together by a think tank for maximum benefit of his campaign contributors. Is it worse to put forth ridiculous arguments you know are silly or to actually believe those arguments? "Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results." — Margaret Atwood |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Dec 17, 2015 16:56:36 GMT -5
I saw this perusing funny pictures on the internet on my lunch hour ...  |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 18, 2015 1:18:59 GMT -5
Haven't been on this thread for a long time.
I'm kind of disheartened cause it seems like I hardly see anything on Bernie. He's not going to win, but I'd like to vote for him anywhere.
Years ago I remember saying to myself, "That guy should run."
and I've cheered for him in the debates
Out Loud
I'd rather not just coronate Hillary. I don't hate her, I'm just kind of put off by her, and it's not cause she's a woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Dec 18, 2015 11:06:38 GMT -5
Haven't been on this thread for a long time. I'm kind of disheartened cause it seems like I hardly see anything on Bernie. He's not going to win, but I'd like to vote for him anywhere. Years ago I remember saying to myself, "That guy should run." and I've cheered for him in the debates Out Loud I'd rather not just coronate Hillary. I don't hate her, I'm just kind of put off by her, and it's not cause she's a woman. Well, Bernie was on the news today. Sadly, it was for firing a staffer for procuring info on the Clinton campaign improperly. Wasn't that part of the plot of Veep last season? |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 18, 2015 19:31:17 GMT -5
Apparently he's suing the DNC for being overly pro-Clinton. That's giving him more media.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 18, 2015 20:04:02 GMT -5
but that's kind of a negative spiral, sadly...
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Jan 3, 2016 15:02:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 4, 2016 11:00:38 GMT -5
I don't think anyone needed the news to tell them that. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jan 4, 2016 13:20:03 GMT -5
I don't think anyone needed the news to tell them that. Not even Rubio and Carson? |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jan 4, 2016 18:16:50 GMT -5
Supreme Court Justice Scalia: "There's no place" for claims that the Constitution protects atheists I think that Scalia is upset that he's not yet had the chance to lie about the Constitution as blatantly as Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott decision. But he comes pretty close here.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 5, 2016 9:07:29 GMT -5
Supreme Court Justice Scalia: "There's no place" for claims that the Constitution protects atheists. I think that Scalia is upset that he's not yet had the chance to lie about the Constitution as blatantly as Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott decision. But he comes pretty close here. I lose more and more respect for him it seems in accordance to the older he gets. He seemed much more reasonable in the 90's |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jan 5, 2016 9:30:17 GMT -5
Supreme Court Justice Scalia: "There's no place" for claims that the Constitution protects atheists. I think that Scalia is upset that he's not yet had the chance to lie about the Constitution as blatantly as Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott decision. But he comes pretty close here. I lose more and more respect for it seems in accordance to the older he gets. He seemed much more reasonable in the 90's His reputation as a great Constitutional scholar has always been over-rated, in my opinion. He's always been a judicial activist more interested in making the Constitution fit his views than to actually read the Constitution. |
|
