2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BleedBlueGold]

A bit old, not a citizen, and people don't really like Catholic politicians who take their faith seriously.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I know you know that I was just using that as a hypothetical example.

But hopefully your last point isn't a dig at me, because I don't believe I've ever said I don't like Catholic politicians who take their faith seriously. My beef has always been when religion infiltrates our legislature and affects everyone, whether they're of that religious belief or not.

 

[wizards8507]

The Republican Party has almost got me on several occasions. I typically agree with their economic platform, completely disagree with their environmental platform and am pretty split with them on social issues. Mainly, it's the crazy bible thumping stuff that has always tipped my personal pendulum to the democrats. But how did they get this warped? I mean, it's pretty pathetic that Donald freaking Trump is the Republican nominee. It would be comical if it weren't so sad.

Ironically with my "bible thumping" comment, I would actually be pretty open to a Catholic led Republican. Most of my social opinions fall with them and I feel like they could put a normal human being I place for the nominee. One that was fiscally responsible, community focused, worked towards environmental stability and worked towards smaller government led by states rights. But that party frankly doesn't exist nor will it.

Ryan-Rubio 2020?
Rubio-Ryan 2020?

I get a semi just thinking about that ticket.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I know you know that I was just using that as a hypothetical example.

But hopefully your last point isn't a dig at me, because I don't believe I've ever said I don't like Catholic politicians who take their faith seriously. My beef has always been when religion infiltrates our legislature and affects everyone, whether they're of that religious belief or not.

I just meant for viability as a candidate. It was not a shot at you. And I think you'd be surprised at how much teaching and beliefs are founded in natural and moral law and not explicitly from Scripture. But perhaps you already knew that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[tussin]

Ryan-Rubio 2020?
Rubio-Ryan 2020?

I get a semi just thinking about that ticket.

Rubio has come out of the recent Trump fiasco looking like a complete idiot. If he had any balls whatsoever, he would have gone the route of Kasich / Bush and refused to endorse Trump.

 

[connor_in]

I disagree. While what he said may have been meant as a joke (an extremely poor one given the mass shootings and gun violence in this country), it clearly IMO was meant to mean "someone could stop Hillary's nominees with a "2nd Amendment solution." It only takes one moron to take him seriously.

Soooo...you're not taking him seriously, right?

Just Playing. While we tend to disagree politically, I do not think your a moron. After all, you are a Notre Dame fan so you can be all bad, si?

 

[dshans]

Ryan-Rubio 2020?
Rubio-Ryan 2020?

I get a semi just thinking about that ticket.

Lord love a duck!

 

[RDU Irish]

Hillary is going to faint at the first debate and then forget where she is and still win the election in a landslide. 40% of the electorate is voting for her even if she is in a coma.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Hillary is going to faint at the first debate and then forget where she is and still win the election in a landslide. 40% of the electorate is voting for her even if she is in a coma.

Which just tells me how bad Trump and the GOP really are. HRC should've been the easiest candidate in history to beat. Forget her past...even the most recent "scandals" would have normally taken her down (emails, the foundation, wikileaks). The DNC is a mess. HRC is a mess. But they're going to win in a landslide because the opposition is ten times worse. American politics for the face-palm win.

 

[GoIrish41]

Soooo...you're not taking him seriously, right?

Just Playing. While we tend to disagree politically, I do not think your a moron. After all, you are a Notre Dame fan so you can be all bad, si?

I don't own a gun so I'm not one of the identified "2nd Amendment people." But seriously, he can be joking and say somethin irresponsible at the same time. And you cannot account for what people are going to hear when you speak irresponsibly. After a dozen instances of him talking off the cuff and having to spend the next week clarifying what he meant, or saying "I was only kidding" you would think that people would conclude that he is saying what he means. How many times will people give him the benefit of the doubt? Last week he was running an ad about Hillary not annunciating a contraction ... https://thinkprogress.org/trump-cam...taxes-on-middle-class-766c199cdcdc#.bkha3f4km. If he is going to falsely accuse her of raising taxes on the middle class because she slurred "aren't" to sound like "are to anyone who is willing to hear it that way, surely what he said -- joking or not" is fair game. I'm not afraid of Trump's lies, I'm afraid of his truths.

 

[RDU Irish]

I don't own a gun so I'm not one of the identified "2nd Amendment people." But seriously, he can be joking and say somethin irresponsible at the same time. And you cannot account for what people are going to hear when you speak irresponsibly. After a dozen instances of him talking off the cuff and having to spend the next week clarifying what he meant, or saying "I was only kidding" you would think that people would conclude that he is saying what he means. How many times will people give him the benefit of the doubt? Last week he was running an ad about Hillary not annunciating a contraction ... https://thinkprogress.org/trump-cam...taxes-on-middle-class-766c199cdcdc#.bkha3f4km. If he is going to falsely accuse her of raising taxes on the middle class because she slurred "aren't" to sound like "are to anyone who is willing to hear it that way, surely what he said -- joking or not" is fair game. I'm not afraid of Trump's lies, I'm afraid of his truths.

I don't own a gun and I identify myself as a second amendment person.

The man is speaking unscripted for a hours per day - with folks like you chomping at the bit to jump on anything he says you can twist into the most indefensible argument. He is no cunning linguist with a silver tongue and carefully crafted messages like we are used to seeing but at least he doesn't need an entourage to help him up the stairs. Fact is, you would see the same message in any Republican candidate.

Saw another staffer killed in a mugging - accused of being the leaker of the DNC emails. A mugging in which his watch and wallet were not taken and multiple gunshots to the back.

 

[phgreek]

I don't own a gun so I'm not one of the identified "2nd Amendment people." But seriously, he can be joking and say somethin irresponsible at the same time. And you cannot account for what people are going to hear when you speak irresponsibly. After a dozen instances of him talking off the cuff and having to spend the next week clarifying what he meant, or saying "I was only kidding" you would think that people would conclude that he is saying what he means. How many times will people give him the benefit of the doubt? Last week he was running an ad about Hillary not annunciating a contraction ... https://thinkprogress.org/trump-cam...taxes-on-middle-class-766c199cdcdc#.bkha3f4km. If he is going to falsely accuse her of raising taxes on the middle class because she slurred "aren't" to sound like "are to anyone who is willing to hear it that way, surely what he said -- joking or not" is fair game. I'm not afraid of Trump's lies, I'm afraid of his truths.

...indeed he is pretty transparent, not all that concerned (obviously) with maintaining some semblance of the expectations for the image of the office.

And man...him weighing in on things historically outside the president's sphere sure has caused race relations to tank, cops to get shot, and all manner of mayhem and unrest...oh wait, that wasn't Trump.

 

[RDU Irish]

...indeed he is pretty transparent, not all that concerned (obviously) with maintaining some semblance of the expectations for the image of the office.

And man...him weighing in on things historically outside the president's sphere sure has caused race relations to tank, cops to get shot, and all manner of mayhem and unrest...oh wait, that wasn't Trump.

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!!

Cambridge police were out of line.... if I had a son he would look like Michael Brown.... what a great role model.

 

[EddytoNow]

I disagree. While what he said may have been meant as a joke (an extremely poor one given the mass shootings and gun violence in this country), it clearly IMO was meant to mean "someone could stop Hillary's nominees with a "2nd Amendment solution." It only takes one moron to take him seriously.

The fact that Trump chose "a second amendment solution" as the way to stop Hillary's judicial appointments, says all you need to know. He is attempting to fire up the anger in his followers. If he actually meant to organize politically to block her appointments, he could have said "a conservative solution", "a Republican solution", "an American solution", "the people's solution", "the Senatorial solution", etc. The fact that he chose the second amendment as his recommended solution is a direct reference to using guns as the solution. He will lose the election, but he won't go quietly. And some of his followers are just crazy enough to take him literally when he calls for a "second amendment solution".

 

[phgreek]

Oh. So that's what he meant. Thanks.

Just as plausible as taking what he said and saying he is encouraging people to shoot her. I can't get in the man's head, and neither can you

There are 100 provocative things you could say in this context, and not mean to be...

...had he said the 2nd amendment folks should use the tools of their movement to assure their freedoms...you'd assume guns...but heretofore, the tools of their movement have been lobbyists and the courts...shrug.

I think what he said certainly requires media to follow up...or even Trump clearly saying hey, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it how some might take it...he is a dick, so no apology from him, but being a dick does not = "Shoot Hillary".

 

[NorthDakota]

The fact that Trump chose "a second amendment solution" as the way to stop Hillary's judicial appointments, says all you need to know. He is attempting to fire up the anger in his followers. If he actually meant to organize politically to block her appointments, he could have said "a conservative solution", "a Republican solution", "an American solution", "the people's solution", "the Senatorial solution", etc. The fact that he chose the second amendment as his recommended solution is a direct reference to using guns as the solution. He will lose the election, but he won't go quietly. And some of his followers are just crazy enough to take him literally when he calls for a "second amendment solution".

I'll repeat, i believe a "second amendment solution" is built on not giving your guns up in the event hildabeast somehow gets her way.
I don't believe you can make a very strong argument that he is/was advocating for the shooting of public officials because of their stance on an issue.

 

[pkt77242]

...indeed he is pretty transparent, not all that concerned (obviously) with maintaining some semblance of the expectations for the image of the office.

And man...him weighing in on things historically outside the president's sphere sure has caused race relations to tank, cops to get shot, and all manner of mayhem and unrest...oh wait, that wasn't Trump.

1. While I don't think that some of his statements have helped race relations (and some hurt it), I think that a significant chunk of the race relations are due to his election but not him. Racist people were unhappy that he was elected and some black people are upset that when he was elected, some people believed that it was the end of racism, which they don't believe is true (sorry typing on a phone).

As to the part about cops? You do realize that under Obama less police officers are dying (from shootings, knifing, etc) than under any other 8 year President in recent history, right? While this year has seen a spike (though it isn't over so it could go either way), he will still have less than GWB most likely. Care to explain?

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't own a gun and I identify myself as a second amendment person.

The man is speaking unscripted for a hours per day - with folks like you chomping at the bit to jump on anything he says you can twist into the most indefensible argument. He is no cunning linguist with a silver tongue and carefully crafted messages like we are used to seeing but at least he doesn't need an entourage to help him up the stairs. Fact is, you would see the same message in any Republican candidate.

Saw another staffer killed in a mugging - accused of being the leaker of the DNC emails. A mugging in which his watch and wallet were not taken and multiple gunshots to the back.

"Folks like me" are just waiting to jump on anything about Trump, and this is the sentence you end your post with? LOL!

The "twisting" of what Trump says generally comes the day after he says something stupid -- and it's not "folks like me" doing it ... its his campaign defending his off the cuff remarks against everyone else (including his own party).

 

[RDU Irish]

The fact that Trump chose "a second amendment solution" as the way to stop Hillary's judicial appointments, says all you need to know. He is attempting to fire up the anger in his followers. If he actually meant to organize politically to block her appointments, he could have said "a conservative solution", "a Republican solution", "an American solution", "the people's solution", "the Senatorial solution", etc. The fact that he chose the second amendment as his recommended solution is a direct reference to using guns as the solution. He will lose the election, but he won't go quietly. And some of his followers are just crazy enough to take him literally when he calls for a "second amendment solution".

https://www.rt.com/usa/355361-murdered-dnc-staffer-assange/

Hillary and the Dems know all about 2nd Amendment solutions ... Wait - no they don't - they only want criminals to have guns.

Multiple gunshots to the back and wallet and watch left behind by the "mugger".

 

[connor_in]

Just as plausible as taking what he said and saying he is encouraging people to shoot her. I can't get in the man's head, and neither can you

There are 100 provocative things you could say in this context, and not mean to be...

...had he said the 2nd amendment folks should use the tools of their movement to assure their freedoms...you'd assume guns...but heretofore, the tools of their movement have been lobbyists and the courts...shrug.

I think what he said certainly requires media to follow up...or even Trump clearly saying hey, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it how some might take it...he is a dick, so no apology from him, but being a dick does not = "***** *******".

Dude...congratulations on making the Secret Service watch list for typing those last two words

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Uh, I'm not sure that's what happened. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CNN?src=hash">#CNN</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cockblock?src=hash">#cockblock</a> <a href="https://t.co/dFhL49H9ly">pic.twitter.com/dFhL49H9ly</a></p>— Matt Polidoro (@Polidorable) <a href="https://twitter.com/Polidorable/status/763350101389668352">August 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishJayhawk]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Uh, I'm not sure that's what happened. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CNN?src=hash">#CNN</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cockblock?src=hash">#cockblock</a> <a href="https://t.co/dFhL49H9ly">pic.twitter.com/dFhL49H9ly</a></p>— Matt Polidoro (@Polidorable) <a href="https://twitter.com/Polidorable/status/763350101389668352">August 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Heh. That's just good and funny right there.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You have done that. lol

You act like you're some ambassador of free thought or something. Laughable. All I ever see from you is reworded republican platform narratives. You aren't on here broadening anyone's horizons. So by your own words, people should be neg bombing you on the reg. But they don't... Because most people have restraint.

Show me where I've taken direct quotes from Republicans and used them as my own here. I'll mail you $100 in cash.

 

[connor_in]

Show me where I've taken direct quotes from Republicans and used them as my own here. I'll mail you $100 in cash.

From Jerry McGuire - known Republican





I'll await my cash

 

[Irish#1]

Last week he was running an ad about Hillary not annunciating a contraction ...

Why not criticize the HRC ad where she takes blurbs from a bunch of his speeches to make it sound like he's saying "dah, dah....."?

The fact that Trump chose "a second amendment solution" as the way to stop Hillary's judicial appointments, says all you need to know. He is attempting to fire up the anger in his followers. If he actually meant to organize politically to block her appointments, he could have said "a conservative solution", "a Republican solution", "an American solution", "the people's solution", "the Senatorial solution", etc. The fact that he chose the second amendment as his recommended solution is a direct reference to using guns as the solution. He will lose the election, but he won't go quietly. And some of his followers are just crazy enough to take him literally when he calls for a "second amendment solution".

I'm guessing you believe they will all come out firing after he loses?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I neg repped you because it seems you're incapable of coming up with your own material. Trump is a clown but coming out and proclaiming he is "unfit" to be president is just regurgitating lines from the White House.

And since I'm not Trump's spokesperson I'll leave the defending of Trump to others on this board.

You neg repped me because you're a giant douchebag.

 

[EddytoNow]

I'll repeat, i believe a "second amendment solution" is built on not giving your guns up in the event hildabeast somehow gets her way.
I don't believe you can make a very strong argument that he is/was advocating for the shooting of public officials because of their stance on an issue.

I don't think my post said that he was advocating shooting anyone. I said he was using those specific words intentionally to fire up an angry base of support, and that some of those supporters might take his words literally. In other words, while he might not condone shooting someone, he is playing with fire by using rhetoric that is likely to make angry supporters even angrier. Angry people don't always act rationally. And like it or not, Trump will be responsible if one of those supporters chooses to act in a violent manner after being riled up by months of Trump's over-the-top rhetoric. If you don't want the barn to burn down, you should be putting out the fire, not fanning the flames.

 

[EddytoNow]

Why not criticize the HRC ad where she takes blurbs from a bunch of his speeches to make it sound like he's saying "dah, dah....."?



I'm guessing you believe they will all come out firing after he loses?

It only takes one.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think my post said that he was advocating shooting anyone. I said he was using those specific words intentionally to fire up an angry base of support, and that some of those supporters might take his words literally. In other words, while he might not condone shooting someone, he is playing with fire by using rhetoric that is likely to make angry supporters even angrier. Angry people don't always act rationally. And like it or not, Trump will be responsible if one of those supporters chooses to act in a violent manner after being riled up by months of Trump's over-the-top rhetoric. If you don't want the barn to burn down, you should be putting out the fire, not fanning the flames.

Holy shit, people have abandoned common sense. Did you actually watch the video, or just read the quotes? There was absolutely nothing designed to "fire up" anybody, nor did "anger" have anything to do with it. It was a poorly-placed and inappropriate attempt at humor. Yes, he's an idiot and unfit to be President, but nothing he said was dangerous.

It only takes one.

Bahahaha, Trump makes a stupid joke and he'll be to blame if a nutjob turns violent, but the rhetoric of Imams is completely blameless when people are slaughtered in the name of Islam, is that right?

 

[GoIrish41]

Why not criticize the HRC ad where she takes blurbs from a bunch of his speeches to make it sound like he's saying "dah, dah....."?

Haven't seen this one. Got a link? I have absolutely no issue with criticizing HRC. I don't think she is a strong candidate ... I just think she is fortunate to run against the worst candidate in the history of American politics.


If I was advising her, I'd tell her to use his words and his words only to attack him. No need to stretch the truth or insinuate anything. His stupidity is like a vein of gold that she can tap into anytime she likes. She would run out of advertising dollars before she ran out of stupid shit he said.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't think my post said that he was advocating shooting anyone. I said he was using those specific words intentionally to fire up an angry base of support, and that some of those supporters might take his words literally. In other words, while he might not condone shooting someone, he is playing with fire by using rhetoric that is likely to make angry supporters even angrier. Angry people don't always act rationally. And like it or not, Trump will be responsible if one of those supporters chooses to act in a violent manner after being riled up by months of Trump's over-the-top rhetoric. If you don't want the barn to burn down, you should be putting out the fire, not fanning the flames.

You serious?