QuakerOats;1815692 wrote:I will do the opposite. Rolling back obamaKare, rolling back obama's shackling regulations, and rolling back corporate taxes will bode well for growth. And if he/we can eliminate further threats and assaults from EPA, IRS, DOL, NLRB, OSHA, and MSHA, we will see incentive return for capex.
The differences between the two candidates could not be more stark in terms of economic growth.
It is sort of like how dems dominated congress and the states until 1994 while the gop dominated the presidency. For the foreseeable future GOP in the drivers seat in legislatures and governors mansions while the dems have a solid advantage going for the presidency.like_that;1815661 wrote:I don't think it was an anomaly. The democrats have a lot of flaws. They are just overshadowed during presidential elections due to the GOP being inept when it comes to presidential races.
The court is currently 4-4 and Scalia makes it 5-4 in favorite of the 'louies'. Robert is considered a conservative but he sides with the left more often than not, especially on key rulings.I actually don't buy this. At least not the "five justices" issue. I know the average age of retirement or death, but given the people living longer than in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if it was just Scalia's spot and probably Ginsberg's. Ginsberg is already a Louie, so it's not like picking a liberal justice is a huge change there.
Breyer and Ginsberg are already Democratic appointees. Replacing them with other Democratic appointees is hardly going to create a shift.sleeper;1815734 wrote:The court is currently 4-4 and Scalia makes it 5-4 in favorite of the 'louies'. Robert is considered a conservative but he sides with the left more often than not, especially on key rulings.
Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer are up for possible death/retirement over the next 8 years and with the young liberals currently on the court; it'll be blue forever.
Maybe she was paid off. Maybe she was afraid of what a man with few scruples and a lot of money could do to her if she caused him trouble. Maybe the gender climate is different today than it was in the early 1980s (the "one grope rule" was in the '90s even). Hell, maybe she didn't realize how many others had similar stories. Maybe it was a combination of two or more of those.bases_loaded;1815808 wrote:"I was sexually assaulted by a billionaire who I could easily blackmail or sue and live an easy life, but I'll wait 35 years to say anything until he's running for office then I'll tell my story for free to the New York Times."
~ Said no woman ever
Trump said to watch you precincts. I’m going to go, for sure,” said Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter from Fairfield, Ohio.
“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
Had no idea Quaker was from FairfieldTrump said to watch you precincts. I’m going to go, for sure,” said Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter from Fairfield, Ohio.
“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
gosh auddies the truth will set you free.QuakerOats;1815695 wrote:Why would I complain; she is the most qualified person ever for the presidency.
BoatShoes;1815833 wrote:I get why some people will never vote democrat or Hillary. The Trumpkins are special.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-trump-warnings-conspiracy-rig-election-are-stoking-anger-among-his-followers/LcCY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter
Had no idea Quaker was from Fairfield
Depends on the poll and the methodology. Some are better than others. Then, again, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that.QuakerOats;1815673 wrote:Are the current polls capturing voters who will vote this election but are not considered 'likely voters'?
I'm now embarrassed knowing you are from the State of Ohio.ptown_trojans_1;1815836 wrote:Dear God, that article makes me feel embarrassed to call myself from the state of Ohio.
The dude with the coke sniffles wants a drug test? Lol.Automatik;1815846 wrote:This shit show of an election just keeps on giving. TREMENDOUS!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-drug-test/index.html
You are missing the point entirely. The court will be 5-4 blue come January 2017 with Roberts a RINO judge making it really 6-3. 6-3 at best case scenario with worst case being 7-2 is a daunting number.O-Trap;1815815 wrote:Breyer and Ginsberg are already Democratic appointees. Replacing them with other Democratic appointees is hardly going to create a shift.
Kennedy may get replaced, but it's not a slam dunk that he goes out during the next four, and if Clinton shits the bed or gets indicted, there's no guarantee she'll get reelected. Ginsberg is still kicking, and she's already almost as old as he'll be during the next election.
Scalia is the biggest issue for Republicans, and he's really the only guarantee for them to cry that the sky is falling for this election.
Maybe she was paid off. Maybe she was afraid of what a man with few scruples and a lot of money could do to her if she caused him trouble. Maybe the gender climate is different today than it was in the early 1980s (the "one grope rule" was in the '90s even). Hell, maybe she didn't realize how many others had similar stories. Maybe it was a combination of two or more of those.
Painting victims as liars or guilty parties is something Hillary Rodham the lawyer would have done. I hope we're better than that.
It's really too many, though, to assume some vast conspiracy (although I wouldn't put it past the Clinton machine).sleeper;1815856 wrote: As far as the women, just as we shouldn't call them liars, we also shouldn't just automatically believe it as truth either. Accusations in rape/sexual assault are often treated as guilty until proven innocent and false accusations have ruined plenty of lives. We need to find the balance here.
gut;1815881 wrote:It's really too many, though, to assume some vast conspiracy (although I wouldn't put it past the Clinton machine).
But Trump did it to himself. Assaulting women is NOT locker room talk....but let's remember Trump is 70, so he's a rich "playboy" in the late 60's/70s/80s when that sort of behavior among those types wasn't that uncommon. And just like Slick Willy, Trump probably never matured with the times in that regard.
unless gosh a ruddies you say "when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." " Grab them by the *****. You can do anything."sleeper;1815882 wrote:I don't think there is a vast conspiracy with these women but my comments were more overall on how to treat rape/sexual assault. The claims should be taken seriously but accusations should not equal an automatic assumption of guilt.
Except words like that don't equal conviction for sexual assault, especially in the context in which he said it.isadore;1815883 wrote:unless gosh a ruddies you say "when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." " Grab them by the *****. You can do anything."
gosh a ruddiessleeper;1815884 wrote:Except words like that don't equal conviction for sexual assault, especially in the context in which he said it.
Reality; it's not hard.
Yeah okay.isadore;1815888 wrote:gosh a ruddies
those words = presumption of guilt
Sniffles doesn't want a drug test unless they're not screening coke.Belly35;1816031 wrote:i think a drug test before the debates is a good idea ... You have to take a drug text for some Federal job why not before a debate for President.