Trump explained?

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
Cobar
Posts: 1513
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:23 pm

Re: Trump explained?

Post by Cobar »

That is the problem. Congress and the Senate is just part of the system. That is why the non-colectivists are so damned pissed off.

Trump is the only outlet, if only to vote against the D's candidate.
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Trump explained?

Post by Netpackrat »

evan price wrote:I've posted that in this election both sides have basically told the undecided voters to go to hell and just instead pandered 100% to their bases.
I'm in the camp that won't vote for Hillary and can't vote for Trump.... But I'm getting mad enough to wish to inflict trump on the rest of the country.
Image
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Trump explained?

Post by Netpackrat »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... dangerous/

As the liberal candidate, when you have lost Susan Sarandon... Just, wow. Not what I expected to read today.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Kommander
Posts: 3761
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:13 am

Re: Trump explained?

Post by Kommander »

I agree with that Paw Paw. It seems like a large number of Republicans in Congress are terrified that someone in the media will say something bad about them. What they can't seem to realize is that they are not going to be portrayed positively no matter what they do, so they should simply do what they feel is necessary like the Democrats do.

There are exceptions to this. Certain actions, such as going on about "actual rape" as one congressmen did in 2012 alienates those who might have otherwise supported you.
User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: Trump explained?

Post by Jericho941 »

Weetabix wrote:This seems to make a lot of good points: How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

I'd never explored the Cracked website. I always sort of assumed it was the same thing as the magazine of my misspent youth. It may be worth looking into.
I wouldn't bother. Cracked used to be good, up until about 2-3 years ago. Still, every once in awhile someone like David Wong pulls his head out of his ass long enough to write something like this. And if he hadn't had those experiences growing up, I absolutely doubt anything like this would've ever been published on Cracked.

Hell, usually when they write about guns they pull the same Michael Moore chicanery of spending their entire time crapping on the idea of gun ownership, then pull a last minute "actually I don't have the answers because all the available data is too politicized" nonsense to sound like they're giving it a fair shake. Even when they almost have a point, they say stuff like "Yes, it was used in the mass shootings in San Bernardino and Newtown, but reports that an AR-15 was used in the Orlando shootings turned out to be incorrect. The weapon used in that crime was a Sig Sauer MCX, which kind of looks like an AR-15 but uses a firing system that makes it more comparable to the much deadlier AK-47" and "Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the AR-15 is a good thing". To be fair, they're mostly on point by the conclusion: "When it comes to high-crime areas that absorb the majority of the gun violence in this country, instead of dealing with the guns, deal with the reasons the guns are there. " But they make sure to bury that under a bunch of validating nonsense for the grabbers.

Outside of gun politics, they've generally started pushing for the wrong side of things. Tilting at the gamergate windmill, etc.
Last edited by Jericho941 on Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Trump explained?

Post by skb12172 »

Cracked is ran by Hard Left, Social Justice Warrior types. Anything accurate they publish can be explained by the Broken Clock Principle.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Trump explained?

Post by Jered »

skb12172 wrote:Cracked is ran by Hard Left, Social Justice Warrior types. Anything accurate they publish can be explained by the Broken Clock Principle.
I broke my clock by dropping it on your hospital.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
User avatar
Windy Wilson
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Trump explained?

Post by Windy Wilson »

Either the Mainstream Media chose the candidate that could be arguably worse than Hillary to the voters who want plaster saints as interpreted by the media, or we are deep within Heinlein's "Crazy Years".

Roger Moore was very uncomfortable playing James Bond after "live and let die". He said the problem for his films was devising a villain who was convincingly threatening yet could be believably beaten by the aged James Bond he played.
The dems had the same problem. It was obviously Hillary Clinton's turn and no younger Party official had the name recognition or the squares filled in her Blue Chip Stamps resume. I think there aren't any better practitioners of applied practical psychology than sociopaths, and the Clintons are clearly that. BJ admits he spoke by phone to Trump last May and told him that he should take a larger role in politics if he felt the way he did (whatever THAT meant), and since then it has been off to the races. Bill and Hillary would know that The Donald would be full of bombast and braggadocio without the finesse and hidden maneuver necessary for politics, so who better to run against the harridan?
The use of the word "but" usually indicates that everything preceding it in a sentence is a lie.
E.g.:
"I believe in Freedom of Speech, but". . .
"I support the Second Amendment, but". . .
--Randy
User avatar
dfwmtx
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: Trump explained?

Post by dfwmtx »

Windy Wilson wrote: The dems had the same problem. It was obviously Hillary Clinton's turn and no younger Party official had the name recognition or the squares filled in her Blue Chip Stamps resume. I think there aren't any better practitioners of applied practical psychology than sociopaths, and the Clintons are clearly that. BJ admits he spoke by phone to Trump last May and told him that he should take a larger role in politics if he felt the way he did (whatever THAT meant), and since then it has been off to the races. Bill and Hillary would know that The Donald would be full of bombast and braggadocio without the finesse and hidden maneuver necessary for politics, so who better to run against the harridan?
One of my first thoughts when hearing Trump was running was, "You can't be serious. No way the Republicans would nominate this guy. His run has to be a Clinton con-job." Why worry about if you can beat a Republican candidate when you can create a candidate whom you think/know can be beat? If that's the case though, bitch created herself a Frankenstein monster.
I wish someone would wear a wire around Hillary. Saw a video today relaying an e-mail reportedly from Comcast workers who overheard a Hillary tirade. She allegedly said "If that bastard [Trump] wins, we'll be facing the gallows."
"Arms are honor; slaves have neither."

"I am Chaos, I am alive...and I tell you that you are free!" -Eris Discordia
User avatar
SoupOrMan
Posts: 5685
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:58 am

Re: Trump explained?

Post by SoupOrMan »

Do you all remember how Rush Limbaugh hyped his "Operation Chaos" BS-ery to force Obama to spend more money on the primary by getting enough voters to keep Hillary running in 2008?

Now imagine if it was run with the object of getting the best opposition possible for the Democrats come the general election as opposed to just slowing down a nominee?

Yeah.

Thanks, Rush!
Remember, folks, you can't spell "douche" without "Che."

“PET PARENTS?” You’re not a “pet parent.” You’re a pet owner. Unless you’ve committed an unnatural act that succeeded in spite of biology. - Glenn Reynolds
Post Reply