I'm voting for trump.

[spence]

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

She has already said she is against guns and obviously will choose SCJ who would follow that, what is so difficult to understand? So maybe you are finally coming around

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

She has already said she is against guns and obviously will choose SCJ who would follow that, what is so difficult to understand? So maybe you are finally coming around

Clinton isn't against "guns," she's against "some guns" and a lot of very smart military people agree with her.

If that alone is a reason to support Trump we're farked.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton isn't against "guns," she's against "some guns" and a lot of very smart military people agree with her.

Some very smart people disagree with her too....I guess they don't count.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Some very smart people disagree with her too....I guess they don't count.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The point is her position isn't extreme, but people want to make it out like it is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The point is her position isn't extreme, but people want to make it out like it is.

Her position (being against SOME guns) has been tried. It didn't work. Right? Didn't we have an assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire?

How about we do things that will actually help, like encouraging the kind of parenting that Nebe alluded to, instead of mocking it? The deplorable bitter clingers, seem to include a lot of people who epitomize the values that allow normal Americans to live happy, successful lives.

But let's pretend that the issue is that Trump won't disavow David Duke, to which he should respond, "as soon as my opponent disavows Al Sharpton".

If he shows up at all in the debates, she will be in trouble. There is SO MUH to beat her with.

Obama's economy...trillions added to the debt, with more people in poverty and on assistance, and pathetic GDP growth. That, folks, is what "failure" looks like. I think median wages are still down, too? For sure, the blacks that liberals pretend to care about, aren't a lot better off.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Her position (being against SOME guns) has been tried. It didn't work. Right? Didn't we have an assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire?

Emphasis added.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

Most Presidents in the past have been described by some or all of your list of memes for, I presume, Trump. They can absolutely be applied to Hillary. Some outstanding Justices have been nominated by those Presidents in spite of how they were characterized by those that didn't like them. It's not mind boggling at all.

In the case of Hillary vs. Trump, she will choose Progressive minded nominees. It is no longer in dispute among honest observers that Progressives believe the Constitution is outdated and an impediment to Progressive ideals of good government. And the historical record shows that the Progressive ideal is an Administrative State run by experts who know what is best and must not be inhibited by outmoded constitutional text. Progressives humor the Constitution only by insisting it must change, and that change is not by amendment, but by Judicial decisions and precedents which are concocted not by adherence to constitutional text, rather they are made by personal opinions of Judges who favor their notions of social justice and the ability of the State to impose those notions in spite of popular will, even when expressed by the vote.

The Progressive movement and its control in politics and influence in the Court have basically removed the vast residuum of rights which were left to The People in the Constitution, as well as eroded much of the Bill of Rights and will erode more when opportunity to do so by Progressive Court decisions arises. And it has created a vastly more powerful centralized political machinery that is not only dangerously beyond what was imagined at the founding and the Constitution it created, but has much more power and scope over the citizenry than the monarchy which was revolted against had over the colonists.

Trump, on the other hand, is not going to nominate Justices because of any personal philosophical motivation. He has already posted a list of potential nominees who are not, at present, Progressive. What they may turn out to be--who knows. But I doubt that he made those choices on his own. He has said that he will pick good advisors. No doubt that applies not only to how he operates as President, but to his Supreme Court nominees as well. The picks will be left to good advisors who, presumably, will be more favorable to the Constitution as written, not to some supposedly "living breathing" thing which depends on the whim of legislators and Judges.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

power tool

[scottw]

"Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses"(hookers).”

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

"Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses"(hookers).”

If you'd lift a finger you'd know why this is a really ignorant and stupid thing to post. Or you're just spreading misinformation for fun.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you'd lift a finger you'd know why this is a really ignorant and stupid thing to post. Or you're just spreading misinformation for fun.

name calling power tool....

not surprising when Hillary needs a private jet to travel 20 miles probably yapping about global warming and unequal income distribution the whole way


Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

name calling power tool....

not surprising when Hillary needs a private jet to travel 20 miles probably yapping about global warming and unequal income distribution the whole way


Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.

Are you working under the assumption that two wrongs make a right?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you working under the assumption that two wrongs make a right?

that describes your average Clinton clinger

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

He came out with a list of people who he would pick from....Has Hillary come out with a list or should I assume it is one of many who cover her arse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

What's mind-boggling, is that you only see one candidate who has issues with the truth.

[scottw]

he's bitterly clinging to her

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What's mind-boggling, is that you only see one candidate who has issues with the truth.

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

you've never listened to a Clinton speech??

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

T

There's no way to compare the two.

Trump is more likable.....and has better hair...and dresses better...and has a better looking spouse and daughter(sorry Paul)...and I don't think his spouse is a sexual predator....etc...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up

He does what you do. And what Hillary does. And what Obama does. Except Trump is more original.

He creates new "memes." You other guys just keep repeating the same old ones over and over--"racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, sexist, misogynists, haters, hate-magnets," and on and on. Hillary just did it with her basket of memes which were supposed to describe her newer meme, the "deplorables". Yeah, she kind of did create a new one.

If you want to call them outright lies, Trump doesn't own memetic aspersions exclusively. The fact that you're suckered into believing your political paramour's memes says more about you than what you try to say about Trump.

pretty much every time he opens his mouth.

"pretty much every time he opens his mouth" is a sort of meme. Shame on you resorting to such tactics.

He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

And Hillary doesn't??? Maannn . . . your are deep in the tank. Come up for some fresh air. Notice, I used some memes.

There's no way to compare the two.

That entire sentence is a an old and successful meme. As far as it being true, that's a far different matter. Between the two, there are comparisons and differences. So, WTF are you talking about?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That entire sentence is a an old and successful meme. As far as it being true, that's a far different matter. Between the two, there are comparisons and differences. So, WTF are you talking about?

He does what I do? That's insulting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

He does what I do? That's insulting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Comparing you to Trump might be insulting to Trump. Nonetheless, there is a comparison when it comes to hurling insults.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Comparing you to Trump might be insulting to Trump. Nonetheless, there is a comparison when it comes to hurling insults.

That's intellectually dishonest and you know better. I guess in the alt right world this is all justified. Conservatism is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Comparing you to Trump might be insulting to Trump. Nonetheless, there is a comparison when it comes to hurling insults.

I don't think Trumps wife tells him what to say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

Trump is more juvenile.

Her deplorables comment was at least as offensive, and inappropriate, as anything he has said. The impact on the polling since she said it, would seem to indicate I am right.

Spence, you are literally the only person I know, besides her, who doesn't think she lied about the sniper thing. Your radar is off.

[JohnR]

Nebe - you really voting for Trump? Really? Truly? Were you drinking?

Originally Posted by Nebe

You can boil this problem down to the fact that there are parents out there that expect teachers to be responsible for how their children preform at school. That work ethic is taught at home by 2 solid parents who love each other and their children. If you don't have a solid family you can't have solid kids. I'm all for a happy tranny population in Provincetown but not as parents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree. Having seen many single parent kids (and having been one for a while), 2 healthy parent environment is worlds ahead of a broken family or worse. Though I don't know where to go on the tranny comment (I know some same sex couples that a great parents - the tranny thing might be a bridge too far - would need to see what the numbers and studies say - not the hugatherapy types)

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton isn't against "guns," she's against "some guns" and a lot of very smart military people agree with her.

If that alone is a reason to support Trump we're farked.

And many do not.

Originally Posted by spence

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

Hillary outright lies, makes stuff up, and has the media covering for her. Though she does not suffer to as high a degree of mental touretts that Trump does.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=JohnR;1108573]Nebe - you really voting for Trump? Really? Truly? Were you drinking?

Many of us are voting for Trump, not because of who he personally is, but because he is on the ticket for the party that has any realistic chance of reversing the Progressive takeover of the American political process and reshaping it into their own authoritarian image.

Trump got the nomination. For good or ill, that's the big elephant fact in the room. If he wins, he won't be around forever. Probably only one term, if he lasts that long. And we still haven't been transformed to the point that the President is a total dictator. We're inching toward that, at least toward the point where he is the visible figurehead of an all-powerful central government.

So he will be held in check not only by Progressives, but by those in his party who oppose that kind of transformation. Because so many in his party oppose him, his use of the bully pulpit will only go as far as his majority in Congress will allow him--if he has a majority. That would, as well, at least temporarily, hold in check our trajectory into authoritarianism. So the only real concern, as far as the future direction of the country goes, would be whom he nominates for the Court. And, like anything else he will do, he will be advised. And, I am guessing, his advisers won't be Progressive.

[JohnR]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1108577]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Nebe - you really voting for Trump? Really? Truly? Were you drinking?

Many of us are voting for Trump, not because of who he personally is, but because he is on the ticket for the party that has any realistic chance of reversing the Progressive takeover of the American political process and reshaping it into their own authoritarian image.

Trump got the nomination. For good or ill, that's the big elephant fact in the room. If he wins, he won't be around forever. Probably only one term, if he lasts that long. And we still haven't been transformed to the point that the President is a total dictator. We're inching toward that, at least toward the point where he is the visible figurehead of an all-powerful central government.

So he will be held in check not only by Progressives, but by those in his party who oppose that kind of transformation. Because so many in his party oppose him, his use of the bully pulpit will only go as far as his majority in Congress will allow him--if he has a majority. That would, as well, at least temporarily, hold in check our trajectory into authoritarianism. So the only real concern, as far as the future direction of the country goes, would be whom he nominates for the Court. And, like anything else he will do, he will be advised. And, I am guessing, his advisers won't be Progressive.

For starters - I understand why people vote for Trump - good and bad. I am shocked that Nebe is there so I suspect a high degree of mischief in the post

I can't vote for Trump. I just can't. We have the candidate that has done wrong in ForPol and we have the candidate that will do wrong in ForPol. I don't see a high degree of difference between the two (though shockingly HC is not as bad as DT). Hillary will digest things to a fault before making a bad decision, The Donald will ready and fire no aiming.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sizing-u...ief-1474064606

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=JohnR;1108579]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hillary will digest things to a fault before making a bad decision, The Donald will ready and fire no aiming.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sizing-u...ief-1474064606

Hillary has been digesting things all her political life, and she still comes up with bad decisions. I don't think it's so much the digesting as it is about eating bad politics in the first place which leads to her decisions. That won't change no matter how much she digests the poisoned meat.

As for Trump, according to pundits including Spence, his every move is calculated. It would have taken a lot of calculating in his business ventures. Some good, some bad. And he won't be making decisions on his own whim. He surrounds himself with "good" advisers. And his party will, no doubt, be advising the hell out of him. It's their Arse, not just his. The image I get of him is that he likes to take the credit for other people's good work.

Anyway, if we have already arrived at the point where the President can, without the approval of Congress, do whatever he wants, then it is too late. If we are at that point, then the system, along with the country, is in for a huge collapse.