Spock;1817531 wrote:Trump is killing it tonight at the roast dinner

The line about the media was funny. But this is really a perfect example of why Trump will fail and why his supporters like CCrunner really don't see it coming.

CC thinks Trump breaking all of the norms of a charity dinner and accusing Hillary of not pretending to hate catholics at this event, etc. is awesome. The majority of people think that behavior is absurd...even if they don't like Hillary.

[video=youtube;FdBF6h7oH5I][/video]

BoatShoes;1817623 wrote:I wonder if the GOP would be in such disarray if they and the conservative media didn't regularly act as if democrats aren't just fellow citizens with whom they disagree but usurpers who hate america?

You could argue easily this goes both ways. I can't tell if its Trump but it seems the country is entirely divided. We are long past of the point of people discussing issues, disagreeing if necessary, and trying to understand different belief. It's all about D vs. R; R's are racist, sexist and D's are liars and evil.

It's really quite sad.

BoatShoes;1817629 wrote:The line about the media was funny. But this is really a perfect example of why Trump will fail and why his supporters like CCrunner really don't see it coming.

CC thinks Trump breaking all of the norms of a charity dinner and accusing Hillary of not pretending to hate catholics at this event, etc. is awesome. The majority of people think that behavior is absurd...even if they don't like Hillary.

Give me a fucking break. He took pot shots at her, she took pot shots at him. You're just whining because she's a woman and he was "mean" to her. She took cheap shots at others who were there also.

BS is mad about "mean" things said at a charity event where they're supposed to say "mean" things about each other?

#liblogic

sleeper;1817631 wrote:You could argue easily this goes both ways. I can't tell if its Trump but it seems the country is entirely divided. We are long past of the point of people discussing issues, disagreeing if necessary, and trying to understand different belief. It's all about D vs. R; R's are racist, sexist and D's are liars and evil.

It's really quite sad.

It does go both ways. I think it's one of those things tied in with the general quality of the candidates. When you have unpopular candidates, the loudest voices will be the most extreme and divisive ones on both sides, while the more reasonable people are more like "No, this is a joke, right? Tell me these aren't really our two choices..." People like QQ will be loud, whiny bitches no matter what, but it's easier to tune them out when you can look at both candidates and at least feel like the system has somehow failed if that's the best we're getting.

But instead, on one side, you have the nomination of one candidate forced down our throats...no matter what. And on the other side, you have people so upset with the establishment they decided to nominate the least competent person for shits and giggles. A situation only a whack-job can love.

BoatShoes;1817620 wrote:Incorrect and the Republican FBI director explained above and beyond why her actions did not arise to the specific criminal intent required beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm splitting hairs here, but since precedent has been set for that already, why not?

11:40 a.m. FBI Director Comey, previously a registered Republican "for most of my adult life," told a House Oversight Committee member that he is no longer a registered Republican voter.

BoatShoes;1817625 wrote:To be convicted you need a criminal act and a criminal state of mind and most crimes list specific criminal states oof mind that must be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. She had the criminal act but investigators could not produce evidence of the criminal state of mind thatvwould meet that burden.

That is what the FBI tells us anyways.

Actually, what the head of the FBI specifically stated was:

11:45 a.m. Comey told the House Oversight Committee that the decision not to recommend an indictment was unanimous among the investigative team.
The FBI chief said the agency had no "direct evidence" that Clinton's server was compromised by hostile foreign powers.

BoatShoes;1817625 wrote:To be convicted you need a criminal act and a criminal state of mind and most crimes list specific criminal states oof mind that must be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. She had the criminal act but investigators could not produce evidence of the criminal state of mind thatvwould meet that burden.

That is what the FBI tells us anyways.

For a contrary example, there is a case going on today in Maryland where a guy had 22 computers worth if clasified material and there was evidence of contact with foreign govs.

Take it for what it is worth.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

This guy took a picture of a classified submarine engine room. He faces 30 years. Nobody thinks he was trying to share it or do anything with it. That's a big double standard.

Not to mention the obstruction of justice charge where both of them tried to delete/destroy evidence after they found out they were being investigated. Clinton did it after she was subpoenaed to provide the information.

sleeper;1817631 wrote:You could argue easily this goes both ways. I can't tell if its Trump but it seems the country is entirely divided. We are long past of the point of people discussing issues, disagreeing if necessary, and trying to understand different belief. It's all about D vs. R; R's are racist, sexist and D's are liars and evil.

It's really quite sad.

You are just realizing this now?

Here's another who sent classified info on an unsecured email account to warn marines about someone they were working with and was discharged for doing so. The man he warned them about subsequently shot 3 and killed 1 marine. (It's not clear to me if he was emailing the 4 who were shot or just friends in general)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/07/marines-defense-for-disseminating-classified-information-will-cite-hillary-clintons-case/

sleeper;1817631 wrote:It's all about D vs. R; R's are racist, sexist and D's are liars and evil.

It's really quite sad.

The worst part IMHO is that for this election they are both right.

SportsAndLady;1817638 wrote:BS is mad about "mean" things said at a charity event where they're supposed to say "mean" things about each other?

#liblogic

+1, even the catholic joke that brought trump boos brought the lulz for me, because it's true.

FatHobbit;1817647 wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

This guy took a picture of a classified submarine engine room. He faces 30 years. Nobody thinks he was trying to share it or do anything with it. That's a big double standard.

Not to mention the obstruction of justice charge where both of them tried to delete/destroy evidence after they found out they were being investigated. Clinton did it after she was subpoenaed to provide the information.

You're NOT supposed to say things like that, for God's sake! Stop being so critical! IT'S HER TURN!!!!
>.>
<.<

BoatShoes;1817620 wrote:Incorrect and the Republican FBI director explained above and beyond why her actions did not arise to the specific criminal intent required beyond a reasonable doubt.

Still dumb and John Kasich would've beat her. Enjoy TrumpTV.

Intent is not part of the statute she violated. But you know that and yet continue to disseminate liberal propaganda.

like_that;1817649 wrote:You are just realizing this now?

No. It's been the trend.

My Facebook is full of a lot of "If you are a Trump supporter please defriend me because you must be a racist sexist, etc."

like_that;1817653 wrote:+1, even the catholic joke that brought trump boos brought the lulz for me, because it's true.

I lol'd hard at his line about her bumping into trump and saying "pardon me"

sleeper;1817661 wrote:No. It's been the trend.

My Facebook is full of a lot of "If you are a Trump supporter please defriend me because you must be a racist sexist, etc."

Pretty standard liberal move. If you lack anything of substance or need to divert attention call someone a racist/sexist. It'll grab a headline and that's all that you need these days. Plus the one you called a racist/sexist...spend the rest of their lives denying it or ignore the ridiculousness and deal with the wrath of "see we told you they are, they won't even deny it". Zwick tried this move on me a few weeks ago.

bases_loaded;1817666 wrote:Pretty standard liberal move. If you lack anything of substance or need to divert attention call someone a racist/sexist. It'll grab a headline and that's all that you need these days. Plus the one you called a racist/sexist...spend the rest of their lives denying it or ignore the ridiculousness and deal with the wrath of "see we told you they are, they won't even deny it". Zwick tried this move on me a few weeks ago.

I don't think by and large Trump supports are racist/sexist. I think the vast majority of people are supporting Trump for one of the following reasons:

1) He's a Republican
2) He's a DC outsider
3) He's not HRC

This is one of the reasons he can make stupid/offensive statements and his poll numbers don't plunge into the abyss.

However, I will say, Trump may be the worst Presidential candidate ever for the major parties. Gore is probably the second worst and HRC is probably the third. This is with ignoring the questionable comments about different groups that may be perceived sexist/racist and strictly focused on his complete lack of understand on how the world works.

sleeper;1817673 wrote: 1) He's a Republican
2) He's a DC outsider
3) He's not HRC

#1 is he's a celebrity, at least that probably propelled him to the nomination, and then your 3 points kick-in.

I mean, if Kanye were to run in 2024, he probably not only gets the nomination but wins the election. Let's face it....80% of the electorate are absolute sheep, and many of the rest can't or won't understand the issues. As the saying goes, we get who we deserve...and that's Hillary and Trump.

Kanye wouldn't win one state.

Trump won the nomination of the GOP for whatever reason you all need to tell yourselves to feel good; Hillary stole the nomination from a socialist. Think about that...we are closer to people electing a socialist than a capitalist.

bases_loaded;1817694 wrote:Kanye wouldn't win one state.

Trump won the nomination of the GOP for whatever reason you all need to tell yourselves to feel good; Hillary stole the nomination from a socialist. Think about that...we are closer to people electing a socialist than a capitalist.

Anyone who supports eminent domain is not a capitalist. Corporatist, perhaps. Not capitalist.

bases_loaded;1817694 wrote: Think about that...we are closer to people electing a socialist than a capitalist.

And a socialist is merely a communist without a gun.

O-Trap;1817695 wrote:Anyone who supports eminent domain is not a capitalist. Corporatist, perhaps. Not capitalist.

Ah yes was that a poor old woman or was it a minority or was it an old minority woman?

You know all the things more important than things like selling uranium to Russia in exchange for private donations, deleting emails, rigging elections, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bases_loaded;1817713 wrote:Ah yes was that a poor old woman or was it a minority or was it an old minority woman?

You know all the things more important than things like selling uranium to Russia in exchange for private donations, deleting emails, rigging elections, etc.

My post said nothing about better or worse. I was only addressing whether or not he was a capitalist. He is not. He is a financial opportunist that doesn't support private property rights unless they're convenient.

Frankly, it seems like most of what he supports tends to change based on whether it's convenient.

I was also speaking less about the fact that he took advantage of eminent domain and more to the fact that he is on record as having supported it as a practice and agreed with the Kelo decision.

That's simply not capitalism.

bases_loaded;1817694 wrote:Kanye wouldn't win one state.

LOL....and people thought there was no way Trump could win the nomination. Kanye carries CA, guaranteed, unless he divorces Kim. ANY Democrat is virtually guaranteed to carry CA, NY, IL and other heavily blue states. That's why even Trump can't lose a handful of heavily red states.