Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 25, 2016, 07:20:01 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 493
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Newspaper Endorsement Thread on: Today at 03:30:13 pm
The WSJ doesn't do presidential endorsements (or at least not in recent years). Of the top 100 papers in the US there are 11 that endorsed the Republican in the last 3 elections. 

New York Post
The Dallas Morning News
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix)
The San Diego Union-Tribune
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
Investor’s Business Daily (Los Angeles)
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The Columbus (OH) Dispatch
Omaha World-Herald

Of that list only 2 have endorsed so far this year and both endorsed Clinton (Dallas Morning News and Cincinnati Enquirer). Trump will probably get some endorsements from this list  (NYPost, Las Vegas Review Journal, Investors Business Daily, Omaha World-Herald and maybe a couple more)

A hometown tabloid rag like the Post I could see, but the others? IBJ would never want the economic ramifications of Trump in the Oval Office. I'm not that familiar with the others. What about their Editorial Board is so crazy they'd choose Trump over Johnson or no one?
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AR-Hendrix College: Arkansas pulls a Benedict Arnold on Clinton on: September 24, 2016, 05:52:45 pm
Bill couldn't even win there today.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump might of committed perjury...... on: September 23, 2016, 07:56:58 pm
But e-mails! Behngazi!! JUSTTHESAMEJUSTTHESAMEJUSTTHESAME!!!!
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Celebrity endorsement megathread on: September 23, 2016, 07:55:53 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_F._Bartlett


Hollywood has always been the bed-hopping, wife-swapping, drug/alcohol abusing capital of America.  Hollywood actors and actresses once had to put forth some sort of false front, but it's been wide-open for some time now.  It's not enough, however, for these folks to live their lifestyles as they want and not lose their mega-incomes; they want all of America to affirm the correctness of THEIR lifestyle choices.

And they're free to want this all they want.  But their wealth and fame has not provided them with wisdom.  They are, for the most part, fools. 

OMG. Does the irony of pointing fingers at Hollywood over this and simultaneously supporting Trump completely escape you?!?
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump Advisor: "Every critic, every detractor, will have to BOW DOWN to..." on: September 23, 2016, 07:52:12 pm
I'm pretty sure Trump only wants to be President because, well, he wants to be President. So, having achieved this improbable feat, I'm sure he would find it quite easy to slip into the role of figurehead for a Republican Congress, with a few concessions here and there on style, and possibly on his signature issues of trade and immigration. This is essentially what was proposed in his attempted rapprochement with Kasich in order to get the latter to join the ticket. If he does go off the wall, his dearth of committed support amongst the Republican Congressional Caucus will be enough to check any unwise decisions.

What does it say when your primary argument for supporting a candidate for president is "he really won't try to do, or will be stopped from doing, everything he's promised to do"?

Don't delude yourself. If Trump wins, he's POTUS. Not Paul Ryan.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump Advisor: "Every critic, every detractor, will have to BOW DOWN to..." on: September 23, 2016, 07:49:59 pm
So atlas is now calling Omarosa a "trump advisor....." ......alright.......

She's Trump's director of African-American outreach.  That's a position within his campaign; whether it is technically as an "advisor" or not is pretty close to quibbling.

Actually, there's no quibbling about it. She is by definition.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: States where Obama did better among non college whites than college whites on: September 23, 2016, 07:36:20 pm
Industrialization/Unionization? Hardly explains the strip from Kansas through the Dakotas though.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The tie that saved Rome. Do Western nations need a State Religion? on: September 18, 2016, 07:08:58 pm
e pluribus unem, mutha fu%kahs
That sounds like a political super hero cry.

DIBS!! Cheesy
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are colleges shutting down free speech? on: September 18, 2016, 11:58:48 am
They aren't. They're promoting it, but some people are just not comfortable with hearing alternative points of view.

This. Windmills and strawmen belie the OP's "argument".
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The tie that saved Rome. Do Western nations need a State Religion? on: September 18, 2016, 11:53:06 am
e pluribus unem, mutha fu%kahs
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA-Morning Call/Muhlenberg College: Clinton +9 on: September 18, 2016, 11:14:21 am
Hillary continues to dominate in the Southeast part of the state 56-26. Philly suburbs will carry the state for Clinton.

a ready explanation is that voters in that region tilting between Obama and Romney aren't likely to go Trump.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama cripples AIPAC on: September 17, 2016, 08:48:47 pm
It's taken decades, but it's good to see we finally have a leader who is willing to openly consider whether our ridiculously one-sided deal with Israel in which we ignore them spying on us and turn a blind eye to their bad behavior while supplying them with billions of dollars carte blanche is actually in our national interests. The United States gets absolutely nothing from its "alliance" with Israel and it's about time the government finally woke up to its strategic folly in committing to this relationship.

I agree that the current situation in US-Israel relations in untenable, but the goal of US policy in this regard certainly shouldn't be to further US interests there. The goal should be to guarantee Israel's security as well as Palestinians' right to having their own State.

Bravo!
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama cripples AIPAC on: September 17, 2016, 06:08:02 pm
Not a surprise. He was always plotting his revenge ever since his attempt to break Israel months into taking office was foiled by his own party. Agreeing to this was likely Israel's desperate last attempt to prevent a far worse revenge at the UN, but I doubt it'll work. Israel is no doubt planning last-ditch diplomatic outreach to the UK and Russia if needed for those final weeks of Obama's tenure, but if they don't work, prepare for an extremely tense January for the entire ME.

This will likely be torn up on January 21st with the agreement of both sides, however.

"break Israel"? Roll Eyes
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Congress to investigate foreign meddling in elections....by us. on: September 17, 2016, 06:05:22 pm
this is wa out of bounds. bill privately using campaign advisers to help Bebe's opponents is one, thing, but taxpayer dollars?

the article, albeit from a dodgy source like the Times, makes it pretty clear this was skirting the edge of the law to influence the Israeli election.

as much as I too dislike Bebe and Likud, this is, like five, right out.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will reversing on the birther issue hurt Trump? on: September 17, 2016, 05:47:19 pm
It will help him. there isn't one birther sympathyzer in five hundred that wouldn't have turned out to elect Trump/stop Hillary but now will stay at home instead. But it help waivering Republican-leaners (soft Romney 2012 voters) delude themselves that he has a necessary threshhold level of sanity to be POTUS
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will reversing on the birther issue hurt Trump? on: September 17, 2016, 05:41:02 pm
No ,turns more focus on the original birther  Hillary R Clinton.

liar.

congrats, you've added yourself to the ignored list of deplorables.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump to call for six weeks paid maternity leave on: September 17, 2016, 05:38:26 pm
Hillary calls for more, for the record. And she's had this policy on the books for months.

but everyone assumes that. it's "news" when Trump says does something towards women (even in the form of lipservice) that isn't in the range of cringeworthy to revolting.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: National Fraternal Order of Police endorse Trump on: September 17, 2016, 05:29:03 pm
you know, i had to say wtf when i read this article, but between hillary not even seeking the endorsement, plus if the sh**t here even vaguely reflects what the FOP hears from Democrats, I can't blame them.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her on: September 17, 2016, 05:23:26 pm
This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

^^

Yup. It's incredibly obvious what he meant by the statement: If she's so anti-gun then why is it okay for her to have armed guards while the average person in the street isn't allowed to bring a weapon to defend themselves. The argument isn't terribly convincing, but this statement isn't what its detractors make it out to be.

when has Clinton ever said that?

also, how deepin the sand do you have to sitck you head in context of LITTERALLY everything Trump says to miosconstrue this as a second amendment article.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her on: September 17, 2016, 05:14:47 pm
What an effin liar Trump is. He continually says Hillary wants to take away your guns. That's a complete lie.

Many of the people who say/think such things will never equate "gun control" with anything less than the complete repeal of 2nd amendment rights. It's really that simple for them. It doesn't matter if she (or any other Democrat for that matter) sat there for 2 hours face-to-face and explained to them her ideas and exactly what she means. They would walk out of the room saying to each other "she is lying. she wants our guns." They would think the same no matter who it was.





The leftist do want a full repeal of the 2nd amendment.   What Trump said was right, If she wants to disarm the citizens why should she have the luxury of armed guards with those scary assault rifles?    Oh of course she wants a "assault weapons ban", but its clearly obvious the plan here. See the Communist republic of California and its assault weapons bans.  Its damn near impossible for law-abide folk to carry firearms.


Why should we trust a crooked liar anyway with the subject of guns?       

As usual, your post has no basis whatsoever in reality. It is easy as $hit to get most types of firearms anywhere in Cali.

Your frothing paranoia does note what the vast majority of gun owners, even non-dolts unlike present company. 1) contrary to any evidence, gun owners believe Clinton, and indeed most Democrats, deeply want total gun confiscation. 2) even the most common sense, tepid legal restrictions on gun control, even those supported by overwhelming numbers of gunowners, are flatly considered the first step towards total gun confiscation.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: BREAKING: JOHNSON AND STEIN NOT INVTIED TO DEBATES on: September 16, 2016, 08:48:37 pm
SHOCKING
H
O
C
K
I
N
G

22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The absentee/early vote thread on: September 16, 2016, 08:46:54 pm
Isn't the City of Youngstown itself pretty black?

Yep the black and white population there is pretty equal at roughly 45%.

Yeah, but not the county as a whole by a long shot.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: At the Trump event in DC today.......... on: September 16, 2016, 08:45:47 pm
..........I saw at least four African Americans on the stage behind him.

Who says Trump has no support in the African American community?

You're being sarcastic, right?

Right??

Oh please, LR, tell us your brain hasn't checked out. Cry
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico article on Trump finally has the balls to shoot straight on: September 16, 2016, 08:43:58 pm
Thank You for telling us the presses job to help Hillary win.

It is the press's job to speak truth to power, or to those seeking power.  Its job is to expose fact and counter falsehood, not to be "nonpartisan."  They have given Trump a free ride for 15 months now in pursuit of a false middle.

Meanwhile CNN and MSNBC would never do any such thing to Clinton. Oh wait. They already did. At least Fox presents opposing points of view in essentially every non-Hannity segment.

Wut?
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump hates health, likes salmonella on: September 16, 2016, 08:37:29 pm
FDA food police? how dumb is this guy?

The FDA literally are the food police.  But Democrats can keep calling farmers who worry about it stupid and wonder why they are losing rural America.

those poor farmers, they have to make food people can actually eat without getting sick. if the shrinking-by-the-day rural america thinks that standard is too strict than I really don't care about their votes.

If you prefer our food to be grown by an ever smaller number of producers relying on tightly controlled factory farming, that's fine. But when the hollowing out of rural America is accompanied by declines in life expectancy, I question whether that is helpful to the goal of people not getting sick.

Life expectancy isn't falling because we aren't getting norovirus in our bacon.

try reading what I said again.

Your argument appears to be more food safety --> less farmers --> more people in cities --> less life expectancy, which isn't exactly wrong, but cutting regulations isn't the way to solve it. It would be better to clean up urban areas instead of trying to do what Trump wants, which wouldn't increase health at all.

It isn't actually about more people in cities.  It's about the people who remain in rural areas not having productive livelihoods or thriving communities, and people everywhere relying on a certain type of agriculture for their food.  I'm not against some sort of food safety regulation, I'm against the way the FDA has tended to approach it, especially since the FSMA passed by Congress.
http://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/19012/the-food-safety-and-modernization-act-has-consequences-for-small-farmers

The biggest threat to family farms isn't regulation per se, it's that flouting regulation is to a substantial degree permitted more for large agribusiness with powerful friends in government and corps of lobbyists that family farmers lack.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 493


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines