2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BleedBlueGold]

You can't be serious. For all Bernie Sanders bitches about how "the system is rigged," his only shot at winning would be that rigged system flipping in his favor. Clinton has received 13 million votes. Bernie has received 10 million votes. It doesn't make a damn difference how many states Bernie has won because he's received fewer votes, which is all that matters in a proportional delegate allocation system. Even without a single super delegate, he's getting SLAUGHTERED. It's not close, and his supporters are either delusional or massively hypocritical to think the California result could change anything.

Reading comprehension and math much?

Dem candidate needs 2382 delegates to win. Hillary most likely isn't going to get that many without support from the super delegates. She currently only has a 260 delegate lead on him with 781 still up for grabs. The super delegates role is to cast their vote for the strongest candidate. Bernie is trying to make that case that it's him, not Hillary. Supers have not voted yet. Any number you see including them is false advertising at the moment. That's not a hard concept to grasp, man.

The "rigged" system is a totally different issue, unrelated to anything I talked about in my post or what was in that article.

 

[wizards8507]

Reading comprehension and math much?

Dem candidate needs 2382 delegates to win. Hillary most likely isn't going to get that many without support from the super delegates. She currently only has a 260 delegate lead on him with 781 still up for grabs. The super delegates role is to cast their vote for the strongest candidate. Bernie is trying to make that case that it's him, not Hillary. Supers have not voted yet. Any number you see including them is false advertising at the moment. That's not a hard concept to grasp, man.

The "rigged" system is a totally different issue, unrelated to anything I talked about in my post or what was in that article.

There's no issue with my reading comprehension or math skills. My point is that, ignoring every single super delegate, Clinton is still trouncing Bernie in regular, plain old pledged delegates. You say "only" a 260 delegate lead, but that's not a small amount. HRC has 54% of the pledged delegates and Bernie has 46%. An eight percentage-point lead isn't small. Why should the supers flip to the guy with 46% support over the woman with 54% support? It's completely asinine. Bernie's best-case scenario is a slim win in California, which will basically be a statistical tie and do absolutely nothing to the delegate math.

The Bernie people are throwing a fit about how the "establishment" is screwing the "people's choice," but the results at the damn BALLOT BOX are showing that HRC is the people's choice.

 

[woolybug25]

What a well thought out response.

Btw when it's obvious you were wrong you can just stop responding, replies like "cool story bro" make you come off poorly. Just a heads up....

That's what I respond when someone has resorted to "ok then" gifs and is arguing a point that has nothing to do with my original comments. Delivering that message in an unintelligent manner to boot.

In short, I don't want to argue with you anymore because it's not worth it for me. Continue if you like, but I've moved on. Good luck in your endeavor. Maybe if you post in all caps with cuss words someone else will respond.

 

[ACamp1900]

What a well thought out response.

Btw when it's obvious you were wrong you can just stop responding, replies like "cool story bro" make you come off poorly. Just a heads up....

cool story bro.

 

[RDU Irish]

This is a really good article and just further emphasizes how poorly the mainstream media has handled this election cycle. The journalistic negligence is astounding.

Summarizing some key points of the article:

1) Pledged delegate counts: Clinton - 1769, Sanders - 1501. CA alone has 475 up for grabs and recent polling shows Clinton +2 in the state with records showing Sanders has out-performed polling and Clinton has under-performed polling in most states. A Sanders win (even by narrow margins) doesn't effect the delegate lead much, but does change the perception of HRC being a weaker candidate than most realize. He's on the brink of winning half the primaries/caucuses. If Clinton continues to lose primaries (even if she wins enough delegates to capture the nomination), it still suggests that she's a weak candidate. *Not mentioned in the article but still very relevant is Christ Matthew's claim that networks have all agreed and are ready to announce Clinton as the winner once the numbers come in from the NJ primary (she's expected to win). However, this is wildly irresponsible and negligent because her reaching the magic number is entirely based on Super Delegates and they haven't even voted. It's misleading and they're doing it on purpose.

2) Her lead on Trump has evaporated. Meanwhile, Sanders maintains 10 point leads in most polls.

3) Her unfavorable ratings are as high as Trump's. Voters don't trust her to a tune of 4:1.

4) The growing concern of Clinton's legal issues. Most pundits seem to think an indictment is not coming. But that won't change Trump's attack plan and it won't change the perception that she's a weak, untrustworthy candidate.

These four items make a strong case for Bernie being a stronger candidate. Going back to my post yesterday, the Super Delegates have one main job - to back the strongest candidate in order to thrust that person into the general election and give the Democrats the best chance to win the White House. Keeping an outsider from winning is a distant second. Dems want to win the WH first and foremost. All the evidence at the moment supports Bernie.

There are 781 pledged delegates still up for grabs. If Sanders and Clinton split them 50/50 in the remaining primaries, neither candidate will have enough to claim the nomination outright and will need the votes of the Super Delegates to push them into the 2382 range. This is why Bernie is staying in the race. For over a month now, Clinton's trajectory has been in decline and Bernie's has been rising. The Democrats need to decide if they want to roll the dice with Hillary of if they want to go with the outsider who by all evidence shown, is the stronger candidate to defeat the Republican candidate in Trump.

Lastly, the article touches on a Kerry or Biden type entering in the race. While I think it's unlikely, the possibility is still there. The chaos this would cause in the Democratic party and it's electorate would be insane.

This is a giant story. Has anyone really seen/heard the mainstream media go in depth and explain all of this? CNN, MSNBC, etc? I haven't.

For the record, I think the Establishment made up their mind with Clinton a long time ago and are going to roll the dice with her as the Democratic nominee. We'll see how it plays out for them, but in my gut, even though I believe Bernie to be the stronger candidate to defeat Trump, I feel the DNC and the Establishment absolutely does not want him as POTUS. God forbid someone kick over their apple cart.

I tell you what - super delegates voting for Bernie would make a strong case that the Dem party is in touch with the pissed off electorate - thus helping the down ballot talking points a lot. On a basic human level - I can't imagine pulling a lever for Hillary and if I had a "super" vote you can be damned sure I would flush that thing down the toilet before plopping her name on it. It REALLY should not be that hard to convince super delegates to vote for someone else. For crying out loud they should be jumping at ANY chance they have for someone other than her.

Their commitment to her is pretty damning and we don't really have precedent for voter response to super delegates going against the grain. I would flip the bird to those down ballot folks who effectively overrode my vote in the nomination process. Given the tenor of this entire fiasco it would be surprise me if that isn't true for a large segment of the electorate.

 

[RDU Irish]

There's no issue with my reading comprehension or math skills. My point is that, ignoring every single super delegate, Clinton is still trouncing Bernie in regular, plain old pledged delegates. You say "only" a 260 delegate lead, but that's not a small amount. HRC has 54% of the pledged delegates and Bernie has 46%. An eight percentage-point lead isn't small. Why should the supers flip to the guy with 46% support over the woman with 54% support? It's completely asinine. Bernie's best-case scenario is a slim win in California, which will basically be a statistical tie and do absolutely nothing to the delegate math.

The Bernie people are throwing a fit about how the "establishment" is screwing the "people's choice," but the results at the damn BALLOT BOX are showing that HRC is the people's choice.

Because WHERE that support comes from is more important than the volume of votes. Winning California or New York primary is irrelevant for either party - who has a better chance in actual swing states. And the consideration for down ballot is very real as well. Even if you think Hillary can beat Trump, you are better off with someone that can win 60/40 versus 52/48 given the tidal wave of down ballot wins the 60/40 will bring with it.

I don't know the answer to any of that but the case being made is plenty valid.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

There's no issue with my reading comprehension or math skills. My point is that, ignoring every single super delegate, Clinton is still trouncing Bernie in regular, plain old pledged delegates. You say "only" a 260 delegate lead, but that's not a small amount. HRC has 54% of the pledged delegates and Bernie has 46%. An eight percentage-point lead isn't small. Why should the supers flip to the guy with 46% support over the woman with 54% support? It's completely asinine. Bernie's best-case scenario is a slim win in California, which will basically be a statistical tie and do absolutely nothing to the delegate math.

The Bernie people are throwing a fit about how the "establishment" is screwing the "people's choice," but the results at the damn BALLOT BOX are showing that HRC is the people's choice.

The bolded is why I question your reading comprehension. Bernie is playing defense right now in order to keep Hillary from getting the magic number w/o the help of Super Delegates. Like I said, it they basically tie statistically in each state, she won't have enough delegates and will need the Supers to vote for her at the convention in order to win. The role of the Supers is to vote for the strongest candidate to win the general election. Right now, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not Hillary. That's the case Bernie is trying to make. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's the reality at the moment.

 

[wizards8507]

The bolded is why I question your reading comprehension. Bernie is playing defense right now in order to keep Hillary from getting the magic number w/o the help of Super Delegates. Like I said, it they basically tie statistically in each state, she won't have enough delegates and will need the Supers to vote for her at the convention in order to win. The role of the Supers is to vote for the strongest candidate to win the general election. Right now, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not Hillary. That's the case Bernie is trying to make. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's the reality at the moment.

No it's not! It's the case YOU'RE trying to make, and it's perfectly reasonable. But that's absolutely NOT the case that Bernie is trying to make. Bernie has been arguing the entire campaign that the very notion of super delegates is fundamentally unfair. Of course, he was saying this when he thought he was going to win the popular vote and that Hillary would only win with the super delegates. Now that Bernie has lost the popular vote, he's changed his tune and now he wants to win via super delegates, exactly the thing that he claimed was so unjust and unfair if Clinton were to win by the same means.

Because WHERE that support comes from is more important than the volume of votes. Winning California or New York primary is irrelevant for either party - who has a better chance in actual swing states. And the consideration for down ballot is very real as well. Even if you think Hillary can beat Trump, you are better off with someone that can win 60/40 versus 52/48 given the tidal wave of down ballot wins the 60/40 will bring with it.

I don't know the answer to any of that but the case being made is plenty valid.

I'm not questioning the political strategery, I'm just pointing out that Bernie is a giant fucking hypocrite. He's this big "man of the people" and all about "democracy" and "one man, one vote" and that bullshit. Now he wants to steal the nomination via super-delegates; an election he lost fair-and-square. The voters picked someone else.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

No it's not! It's the case YOU'RE trying to make, and it's perfectly reasonable. But that's absolutely NOT the case that Bernie is trying to make. Bernie has been arguing the entire campaign that the very notion of super delegates is fundamentally unfair. Of course, he was saying this when he thought he was going to win the popular vote and that Hillary would only win with the super delegates. Now that Bernie has lost the popular vote, he's changed his tune and now he wants to win via super delegates, exactly the thing that he claimed was so unjust and unfair if Clinton were to win by the same means.


I'm not questioning the political strategery, I'm just pointing out that Bernie is a giant fucking hypocrite. He's this big "man of the people" and all about "democracy" and "one man, one vote" and that bullshit. Now he wants to steal the nomination via super-delegates; an election he lost fair-and-square. The voters picked someone else.

No he's not. He's been arguing that HRC having the support of over 400 of them prior to even one caucus or primary is unfair. And that the media showing results including SD counts is unfair. Because it's not reality. They have not voted.

 

[GoIrish41]

You start off with a lawsuit against Donald Trump (who at that time and right now holds no seat in office). I knew the rest would be rich in unbiased material that doesn't make Hillary out to be an untouchable queen. lol.

I apreciate you're paragraph on why people like her as a last Democrat choice, but sure the Hell not a first choice but....

You started out only comparing Hillary to Trump and the Republican Party. I'm talking about why and the hell she's the primary candidate for the Democratic Party. Then the bolded rears its ugly head. Hate to break it to you, she is a fucking criminal. The evidence has been shown. She had a personal email and used it often. This is not a debate anymore. This was while she held a seat in office, serving the people. How did you glaze over that consciously?

I agree about the Republican Party completely screwing themselves, but again I know very little people whose first Republican choice was Trump. That's why I can't believe Hilary and Trump are going to be the choices and why I asked for some insight on how the fuck Democrats chose Hillary over Bernie and all other choices?

It's obvious you're a complete Democrat homer with the last bolded. I can see the side of picking Hilary over Trump, but to say it would still be a tossup between her and a different Republican? So you’re saying you find Hillary likeable? You sir are coming off just as bad as the Trump supporters. I don't know if you meant to, but you started off saying you were not excited about Hillary and 100% got super excited about her then proceeded to bash Trump for a whole paragraph.

I started out with the Trump legal issues because the post posed the question ... "How does someone under investigation and with proof after proof of wrong doing get the candidacy?" I'm not comparing his legal problems to hers, but I'm not ignoring his issues and focusing on hers alone. I could ask the same question about him that you asked about her.

My paragraphs that follow the first one about legal issues was my attempt to answer the question, "Can a Democrat please explain Hilary to me?" from my perspective. Perhaps you can tell me the crime of which she was convicted. If we are going to ignore the findings of all the hearings (some were Republican-led like those on Benghazi) and just cast off the legal process, they I would respond with: "Hate to break it to you, but he is a fucking criminal." But of course, that is not how our system works. She will be a "criminal" if and when she is convicted of a crime. Until then, she is accused of being a criminal and nothing more. Same with Trump, who appears to have engaged in predatory business practices to lure and knowingly rip off citizens, a charge that you seem to have glazed over that consciously. But, I'll refrain from calling him a criminal until he is convicted of a crime.

I think I was pretty clear that my first choice was Bernie. Moreover, I have consistently and forcefully held that position since he entered the race. I'm not super excited about Hillary by any stretch of the imagination. I am happy that Bernie has pushed her toward positions that I support and that is why I will vote for her in the general election. If there was another choice of a candidate held those positions, that is probably who I'd vote for, but again, we are constrained by our processes for electing presidents. We have primaries, the candidates are selected and we choose between them. The fact that Donald Trump is the alternative to Hillary pretty much cements my choice.

I didn't say it would be a tossup between her and (insert GOP candidate). I said, I would weigh my choices if it came down to that. That said, I would not abandon my point of view and vote for someone who wanted to maintain or expand the political power that corporations have over citizens of this country. And I would want to see room to expand health coverage to all, and lower the costs of education. Is there a republican who are there on those issues that I find most important? Doesn't matter, I guess. I don't really have to do that research on other candidates because Trump is the alternative the GOP has given me against Hillary. To me, that is an easy choice.

Just as you don't understand why I would vote for Hillary over Trump, I don't understand how you could vote for Trump over her after the terrible, bigoted things he has said about people. I don't get how you could throw your support behind someone who has discussed throwing Muslims out of the country, or how Japan and S.Korea should explore the possibility of acquiring nukes. I don't know how you could throw your support behind someone who has bankrupted four companies and is running on being a business genius to take the helm of the world's largest and most important economy. I don't understand how a guy who does not have a single coherent policy position on anything could be the Republican candidate, but now that he is, I really don't get how all of the people who have argued with me for years on the premise that they are the party of principles can get behind someone so completely without principle as Donald Trump.

For the record, I don't find Hillary likeable. I find her shrill and perpetually flirting with the edge of the rules, just like I found her husband (whom I never voted for because there was someone who I found rational enough outside of my own political preferences). And like her husband, I find a person who is highly intelligent with a deep understanding of how the world works, how the economy works. I'd rather have Bernie, but if my choices are her or Trump, I'm going to choose her every time.

 

[wizards8507]

No he's not. He's been arguing that HRC having the support of over 400 of them prior to even one caucus or primary is unfair. And that the media showing results including SD counts is unfair. Because it's not reality. They have not voted.

Bernie Sanders Superdelegate Hypocrisy - Sanders Used to Be Fine with Them

Sanders takes different position on superdelegates than he did in 2008 | TheHill

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Bernie Sanders Superdelegate Hypocrisy - Sanders Used to Be Fine with Them

Sanders takes different position on superdelegates than he did in 2008 | TheHill

Did you even read those articles?

The point they're trying to make about "super delegates being bad" is that they don't vote until the convention, yet numbers are being shown by the media including super del. support as if it's a vote already cast.

In 2008, neither Obama or Clinton had enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. Both would've needed supers to vote for them. Clinton dropped out and Obama got the nomination.

This year, the same thing could potentially happen, but you wouldn't know that if you talked to Chris Matthews and that's what Bernie is pissed about.

Supers vote at the convention, not any earlier. Representing their vocal support for a candidate as an actual vote is completely wrong. That's what Bernie is bitching about.

Neither of those articles point out anything different. If you don't lock up the nomination with pledged delegates, supers are there to vote for the strongest candidate at the convention. End of story.

 

[Rizzophil]

Why is the mainstream media attacking Trumps giving when Clinton and Obama give away nothing to the military?

 

[Wild Bill]

Why is the mainstream media attacking Trumps giving when Clinton and Obama give away nothing to the military?

"R"

 

[Legacy]

Cost of National Security
- Rolling totals and costs to individual Americans for Wars.

(See other categories for Additional Totals.)

Trump has promised to engage ISIS, rebuild our nuclear arsenal and missile defense systems, focus more spending on defense against terrorists and bio-weapons attacks, and has said that spending 3% of GDP on the military is too low.
He will also deport all illegal aliens and build a wall along the border. He will reduce the federal deficit from $19 trillion despite these spending positions and envisioning that America will have a "massive recession".

Additionally, Trump will preserve Social Security and Medicare, renegotiate Trade pacts or else raise tariffs making goods from overseas more expensive and, most of all, lower taxes for all decreasing federal revenue.

Donald Trump on Homeland Security (On the Issues)

 

[drayer54]

It's going to be a long election cycle on here if we are going to play the "Trump is a liar" no "Hillary is a liar" game on here....

Maybe we should start a doomsday prediction thread debating what terrible things are going to happen to our country after one of these two con artists win.

 

[ACamp1900]

It's going to be a long election cycle.

FIFY

 

[NDinL.A.]

Why is the mainstream media attacking Trumps giving when Clinton and Obama give away nothing to the military?

Maybe because that isn't true?

 

[EddytoNow]

It's going to be a long election cycle on here if we are going to play the "Trump is a liar" no "Hillary is a liar" game on here....

Maybe we should start a doomsday prediction thread debating what terrible things are going to happen to our country after one of these two con artists win.

It's not so much that Trump is a liar. The scary thought is that he means what he says and will do what he says.

 

[kmoose]

It's not so much that Trump is a liar. The scary thought is that he means what he says and will do what he says.

If you are afraid that he will do as he says, then I have to ask, "Why don't you want America to be great again?"

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It took me a not-insignificant amount of time to realize he meant "autumn," not "our society's collective undoing." <a href="https://t.co/wFisLb1OzT">pic.twitter.com/wFisLb1OzT</a></p>— Carmen Maria Machado (@carmenmmachado) <a href="https://twitter.com/carmenmmachado/status/738466499203993600">June 2, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

It's going to be a long election cycle on here if we are going to play the "Trump is a liar" no "Hillary is a liar" game on here....

Maybe we should start a doomsday prediction thread debating what terrible things are going to happen to our country after one of these two con artists win.

America did survive 1968, where riots erupted burning in a hundred cities across the country when King was assassinated, where one candidate, Robert Kennedy, who was on the verge of the nomination, was assassinated, where the Dem convention was in lockdown mode due to riots, where the Republican party chose a candidate who did not win the popular vote, when 70% of Americans thought the Vietnam was a mistake but America elected a President who kept us there for another seven years, and where America's divide between law-and-order and real Americans and everyone else first started.

Robert Kennedy delivered the news of King's assassination from a flatbed truck in Indianapolis to a shocked crowd. He had begun the day at Notre Dame and Ball State.

“I have bad news for you. For all of our fellow citizens and people who love peace all over the world and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and killed tonight."

“In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black—considering the evidence there evidently is that there were white people who were responsible—you can be filled with bitterness, with hatred, and a desire for revenge.

“We can move in that direction as a country, in great polarization—black people amongst black, white people amongst white, filled with hatred toward one another…

“For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and distrust at the injustice, against all white people, I can only say that I feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my own family killed, but he was killed by a white man…

“What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness, but love and wisdom and compassion toward one another and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black.

“So I shall ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, that’s true, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love—a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.”

Kennedy finished the day with a prepared address in Cleveland, saying:

“Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force. Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others…

“We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of all. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others…

“But we can perhaps remember—even if only for a time—that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek—as we do—nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can. Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something…and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.”

 

[EddytoNow]

If you are afraid that he will do as he says, then I have to ask, "Why don't you want America to be great again?"

You have very selective hearing if that is the only Trump statement you can recall. America is already great. It's the way Trump defines greatness that scares not only me but many others. Have you been filtering out all of the ridiculous stuff he's said? The war crimes he's proposed. The bombing of countries to steal their oil reserves. The indiscriminate bombing of innocent Muslims along with the guilty. The proliferation of nuclear weapons. His willing association with white extremist groups. His personal attacks on women, especially those who disagree with him. His alienation of the country that borders our nation on the south. And there is so much more.

 

[kmoose]

You have very selective hearing if that is the only Trump statement you can recall. America is already great. It's the way Trump defines greatness that scares not only me but many others. Have you been filtering out all of the ridiculous stuff he's said? The war crimes he's proposed. The bombing of countries to steal their oil reserves. The indiscriminate bombing of innocent Muslims along with the guilty. The proliferation of nuclear weapons. His willing association with white extremist groups. His personal attacks on women, especially those who disagree with him. His alienation of the country that borders our nation on the south. And there is so much more.

How, exactly, does Trump define greatness? Because I haven't heard him give a specific definition, but I've heard plenty of people assign their own definition to it, and criticize him for what THEY believe.

There's plenty to not like about Trump. But some of you "Never Trump"ers are grasping at the very thinnest of straws....

 

[GoIrish41]

How, exactly, does Trump define greatness? Because I haven't heard him give a specific definition, but I've heard plenty of people assign their own definition to it, and criticize him for what THEY believe.

There's plenty to not like about Trump. But some of you "Never Trump"ers are grasping at the very thinnest of straws....

That's a pretty important point. How does he define it, and when is this elusive time we are going back to with him at the helm? People will naturally fill in the blanks if he won't define what the hell he is talking about. You can't be president if you do not have any cohesive thoughts to share with voters. But as long as he has enough apologists he will continue to be relevant. When he has to fill in the blanks himself people will finally realize just how full of shit he is. Let's hope for all our sakes that they don't wait until after November to figure it out. He is incapable of coherent policy prescriptions for all of the problems he has made his way on pointing out. So he leans on bluster and ignorance instead. The call should not be for an end to speculation. It should be for details instead of pandering.

 

[D-BOE34]

That's a pretty important point. How does he define it, and when is this elusive time we are going back to with him at the helm? People will naturally fill in the blanks if he won't define what the hell he is talking about. You can't be president if you do not have any cohesive thoughts to share with voters. But as long as he has enough apologists he will continue to be relevant. When he has to fill in the blanks himself people will finally realize just how full of shit he is. Let's hope for all our sakes that they don't wait until after November to figure it out. He is incapable of coherent policy prescriptions for all of the problems he has made his way on pointing out. So he leans on bluster and ignorance instead. The call should not be for an end to speculation. It should be for details instead of pandering.

I read your entire post as a barn swing from left to right. I don't have a single post in this thread but I felt necessary to comment on how dipshit yours read to me. That is all...

 

[ACamp1900]

I read your entire post as a barn swing from left to right. I don't have a single post in this thread but I felt necessary to comment on how dipshit yours read to me. That is all...

Welcome to the thread,... And,... Welcome to the thread.

 

[gkIrish]

Supposedly a Trump supporter got egged in the face by protesters tonight. Police declared unlawful assembly

 

[GATTACA!]

Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email

Nbd im sure

 

[NDinL.A.]

Supposedly a Trump supporter got egged in the face by protesters tonight. Police declared unlawful assembly

For context, that chick broke through the police barricade and began taunting the protestors, throwing double middle fingers in either their faces or the air, and then got egged for it. But it was another night where the protestors got out of hand and made themselves look horrible yet again. Like I have said, I COMPLETELY understand the anger, but I'll never understand their actions. I hope all the out of hand protestors get thrown in jail.

Speaking of stupidity, Trump told the WSJ that the Indiana-born judge of Mexican heritage in his Trump U case should recuse himself because he is "inheritantly biased" against Trump because he is Mexican and Trump is "building a wall". Un-fucking-real. This wannabe dictator absolutely floors me every single day with the crazy shit he makes up. What he is saying is not only stupid (and bigoted) it would force judges all the nation to recuse themselves off of cases for the most unrelated-to-their-cases reasons anyone wants to think of. How this moron has so many supporters is beyond me.