'Tis the season... (Election season, that is)

[brian4d]

Brian-
Fair enough; let us not debate or discuss specifics, it is the internet afterall. That said I would note the concepts on immigration are just as likely to do harm to the economy as they are to accomplish whatever else people view them as being oriented against. That's actually the major thread that I find fault with Trump's positions; his view on the economy is compelling but non-substantive. I.e. it panders to folks that want to believe that the great 1950's middle class explosion to manufacturing jobs can be re-ignited if we'd just stop getting screwed by trade imbalance and the like.

Except that really isn't the main reason those jobs are obsolete; technology changing (and us not keeping up) has just as much bearing on it.

Ironic that we champion making American Great, again by espousing protectionist trade policies that are directly counter to that free market capitalism that we say is a core facet of the US.

Nevermind that the tax policies he's proposing, or the reduction in free trade, the implementation in tariffs, etc-all of that economically doesn't actually promote growth when you look at the data.

Beyond that there is a tremendous amount of platitudes and promises that will go nowhere, like replacing bureaucrats with experts-who are these experts (and what have they been doing to make them experts, and why-if they are experts-would they come to the Fed Gov't to work instead of working in the open market where their expertise will make them money?

All of it comes back to being sold a bullshit narrative....

...just like HRC is doing.

Exactly like HRC is doing. There is no substantive difference there, only different bias depending on what tugs at the heart strings.

So we can try to make American Great, again-except there is no evidence America is not great right now and plenty of evidence that it is quite great at this moment of history.

As far as paying the money goes; to tie it back to the law and order candidate Trump, if we didn't give the money that was theirs back we fly in the face of norms that we would be apoplectic about were the situation reversed. Put another way if we want to act like a hegemon and an empire to ensure that more and mroe nations actively find ways to counter us that is a great way to do it. On the other hand using it as leverage to get back AMCITs was pragmatic, particularly when we didn't really have this theoretic bargaining power that people keep talking about. I guess we could return Iranian relations back to what they were pre nuclear deal, i.e. status quo since 1979, and eventually that would accomplish....
...well nothing, as it didn't do a damn thing for the last 40 years substantively but perhaps if we just tried a little harder and meant it more looking ahead it would.

We could talk about Donald's $$$, except we can't b/c he won't release his taxes.
We could also talk about the oldest potential president's health but we can't do that either.

They are of exactly the same ilk. To think otherwise is to embrace delusion.

Ray I'm at the pool now and will dissect most of this after the weekend. I can tell you America was not made great by inside deals, pay for play, outright lying and shady foundation deals. We cannot say trump is the same simply because there is no political track record. As for the economy real clear politics has the true unemployment set at 10%. We can and must do better. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. A vote for Shillary is a vote for George Soros.

 

[1920SF]

Brian-
I look forward to the discussion!
I would still say that America remains great, it doesn't need to become it again. With 25% of the world's economy, the greatest military the world has ever known, or even things like the olympic returns I fail to see how we need to return to something that we already are.

The unemployment figures are undoubtedly wrong-have been for some time (i.e that is agnostic of party) but the point was and is that it shouldn't be the federal government fixing that-much of it is individual choice of folks who want jobs that don't exist for salaries that are not feasible and that just isn't something the federal government can, or should fix.

As you said, America wasn't made great by a lot of things-one of those things is by creating more government intrusion into the free market yet both sides are pandering to that (and neither side will be able to do it).

A vote for Johnson is a protest, one that will ultimately see HRC in the oval.

Right now the odds aren't good for Trump (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) but his shift after the past month is actually a good thing-for both the GOP but also the Dems, b/c had things continued unabated the most dangerous thing for the Dems in Nov would be nobody would vote b/c it was tracking like a blowout.

The question I keep posing on D90 that remains unanswered is if Trump loses, what does that spell for the GOP? Will this finally be the election that sees actual self-reflection and change or just more blaming of the other side instead of accepting responsibility. If the party would just let go of the damn religion and some of the unnecessary social issues and focus on fiscal responsibility, more pragmatic tax structure, and responsible reduction of government it would be far more palatable to a far broader constituency-but I just don't see that self reflection and acceptance of responsibility, do you?
r-
Ray

 

[mgreenspan]

The unemployment figures are undoubtedly wrong-have been for some time (i.e that is agnostic of party) but the point was and is that it shouldn't be the federal government fixing that-much of it is individual choice of folks who want jobs that don't exist for salaries that are not feasible and that just isn't something the federal government can, or should fix.

Haha. Yet you support the Dems.

P.s. if you actually read I've said that if he wins or loses it'll probably split off the far right. I'm pretty sure Trump wants to create a different party. Will it be the GOP that does it themselves, not really. They'll probably try to re-pander to the far right and thus not be effective at getting the middle of the road left folks. So it'll be a fail.

 

[1920SF]

Haha. Yet you support the Dems.

P.s. if you actually read I've said that if he wins or loses it'll probably split off the far right. I'm pretty sure Trump wants to create a different party. Will it be the GOP that does it themselves, not really. They'll probably try to re-pander to the far right and thus not be effective at getting the middle of the road left folks. So it'll be a fail.

You keep forgetting I don't support anyone; am not registered one way or another, don't vote one way or another, etc-I do however play the role of asshole on D90 to slow down the old white dude club of washed up neocons and otherwise conservatives without thought that dominate that place. Otherwise it would just be an echo chamber of people that all think the same dumb shit.

Any thoughts on Trump's potential reversal on immigration? How great is that...he's going to make big changes!

 

[brian4d]

Brian-
Fair enough; let us not debate or discuss specifics, it is the internet afterall. That said I would note the concepts on immigration are just as likely to do harm to the economy as they are to accomplish whatever else people view them as being oriented against. That's actually the major thread that I find fault with Trump's positions; his view on the economy is compelling but non-substantive. I.e. it panders to folks that want to believe that the great 1950's middle class explosion to manufacturing jobs can be re-ignited if we'd just stop getting screwed by trade imbalance and the like.

Except that really isn't the main reason those jobs are obsolete; technology changing (and us not keeping up) has just as much bearing on it.

Ironic that we champion making American Great, again by espousing protectionist trade policies that are directly counter to that free market capitalism that we say is a core facet of the US.

Nevermind that the tax policies he's proposing, or the reduction in free trade, the implementation in tariffs, etc-all of that economically doesn't actually promote growth when you look at the data.

Beyond that there is a tremendous amount of platitudes and promises that will go nowhere, like replacing bureaucrats with experts-who are these experts (and what have they been doing to make them experts, and why-if they are experts-would they come to the Fed Gov't to work instead of working in the open market where their expertise will make them money?

All of it comes back to being sold a bullshit narrative....

...just like HRC is doing.

Exactly like HRC is doing. There is no substantive difference there, only different bias depending on what tugs at the heart strings.

So we can try to make American Great, again-except there is no evidence America is not great right now and plenty of evidence that it is quite great at this moment of history.

As far as paying the money goes; to tie it back to the law and order candidate Trump, if we didn't give the money that was theirs back we fly in the face of norms that we would be apoplectic about were the situation reversed. Put another way if we want to act like a hegemon and an empire to ensure that more and mroe nations actively find ways to counter us that is a great way to do it. On the other hand using it as leverage to get back AMCITs was pragmatic, particularly when we didn't really have this theoretic bargaining power that people keep talking about. I guess we could return Iranian relations back to what they were pre nuclear deal, i.e. status quo since 1979, and eventually that would accomplish....
...well nothing, as it didn't do a damn thing for the last 40 years substantively but perhaps if we just tried a little harder and meant it more looking ahead it would.

We could talk about Donald's $$$, except we can't b/c he won't release his taxes.
We could also talk about the oldest potential president's health but we can't do that either.

They are of exactly the same ilk. To think otherwise is to embrace delusion.

Ray, we can't say for sure they are exactly the same ilk. What draws me is that he's not part of the political class elites. And the left are shaking in their boots, and I love it, makes me smile. His immigration may in fact hurt the economy but we need to right the wrongs of not enforcing our immigration policy. We have laws, and you can't simply pick and choose which ones to follow. Our own boarder patrol agents have endorsed Trump, what does that tell you? As Trump recently said, "Lets allow our children to be dreamers to." I don't give two shits about Trumps tax return but I do want to know why Hillary doesn't know how to send and receive classified emails. And her coughing attacks, and deer in headlights look when confronted by PITA protesters, strange...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=119AmkkXAR4

Lastly, we gave 400 million of a 1.7 billion payout. If we paid the whole thing your comment would make more sense, but we didn't. We paid the very small amount of 400 million that was conditioned by the hostage release. No matter how you cut it this is bad deal making and the optics usher in the potential for more Americans to get kidnapped traveling abroad.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/iran-payment-hostage-release-227170

Either way it seems that it's not in the bag for Hillary just yet.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...und-against-clinton-1471817853-htmlstory.html

 

[brian4d]

You keep forgetting I don't support anyone; am not registered one way or another, don't vote one way or another, etc-I do however play the role of asshole on D90 to slow down the old white dude club of washed up neocons and otherwise conservatives without thought that dominate that place. Otherwise it would just be an echo chamber of people that all think the same dumb shit.

Any thoughts on Trump's potential reversal on immigration? How great is that...he's going to make big changes!

Don't hide behind this. Are you a registered voter? Are you going to vote? If so, you have a definite opinion, even if it's a lesser of two evils.

 

[1920SF]

Ray, we can't say for sure they are exactly the same ilk. What draws me is that he's not part of the political class elites. And the left are shaking in their boots, and I love it, makes me smile. His immigration may in fact hurt the economy but we need to right the wrongs of not enforcing our immigration policy. We have laws, and you can't simply pick and choose which ones to follow. Our own boarder patrol agents have endorsed Trump, what does that tell you? As Trump recently said, "Lets allow our children to be dreamers to." I don't give two shits about Trumps tax return but I do want to know why Hillary doesn't know how to send and receive classified emails. And her coughing attacks, and deer in headlights look when confronted by PITA protesters, strange...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=119AmkkXAR4

Lastly, we gave 400 million of a 1.7 billion payout. If we paid the whole thing your comment would make more sense, but we didn't. We paid the very small amount of 400 million that was conditioned by the hostage release. No matter how you cut it this is bad deal making and the optics usher in the potential for more Americans to get kidnapped traveling abroad.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/iran-payment-hostage-release-227170

Either way it seems that it's not in the bag for Hillary just yet.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...und-against-clinton-1471817853-htmlstory.html

Take a look at the Atlantic article I posted awhile back, your commentary about political elites-that cuts both ways. The country was founded by political elites, the constitution's creation of a democratic republic was the manifestation of political elite and the current climate's deconstruction of it may be just as much intellectual arson burning something down for the sake of burning it without understanding the repercussions. However popular and fanciful such notions are, they aren't grounded in our actual history-aka what made this country great, to steal a phrase.

The classified email scandal reference actually illustrates a total lack of understanding of what happened in the case-but as Matt knows I'm fond of pointing toward; if they FBI can't find the way to put charges to it (put will still grandstand at a press conference convicting in the court of public opinion instead of the court of law) by all means think what you want-but if you don't understand classification after the fact and such there is a lack of real comprehension. At the end of the day, where were the charges? Comey is a Republican....

I find the outrage about leveraging hilarious; people do understand that's how the real world works right? The biggest failure of the current administration time and time again is to treat everything like its a political campaign, and while politics does drive policy the reality is that in this case someone should have just said "we used the money as leverage amidst the conduct of diplomacy as a nation"-people who have never been a part of that may take exception but its akin to bemoaning a football team from your living room eating snacks. You aren't on the field of play and likely truly cannot fathom what is happening. By all means have an opinion of course, just recognize that it is founded from ignorance.

How will it prompt other nations to hold Americans hostage? What logical linkage do we have of that? Nations were and are doing that before this, and if we don't owe them any money then asking for a payment isn't likely to go far. I still return back to the point that isn't addressed; pray tell what in the past 40 years of Iranian policy has actually been effective? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result has a definition you know.

I would be very careful looking at one poll as proof things are changing-hence why I pointed to someone with a proven track record of filtering all the polls, their bias, and rigorously looking at the likely results. One poll does not a change make, but if it keeps the Dems energized and turns out voters to make things more competitive it is a good thing b/c the biggest challenge to HRC winning the White House (which is still astounding to me, utterly astounding that the GOP can be so utterly impotent as to make that even a possibility. Stunning) is getting the vote out.

So no comment on Trump's principled flop on immigration? Its a core issue right-and yet now that shit has gotten real, he's making noise about not deporting and potentially mass legalizing. How do we reconcile that?

BTW you asked am I a registered voter? yes. Will I vote? no.
Functionally apolitical to me means not voting since I'm in the line of work that can launch coups or suppress them-I'd rather defend democracy than participate in it; but that doesn't mean I don't like a lively discussion about its implications.

r-
R

 

[brian4d]

Take a look at the Atlantic article I posted awhile back, your commentary about political elites-that cuts both ways. The country was founded by political elites, the constitution's creation of a democratic republic was the manifestation of political elite and the current climate's deconstruction of it may be just as much intellectual arson burning something down for the sake of burning it without understanding the repercussions. However popular and fanciful such notions are, they aren't grounded in our actual history-aka what made this country great, to steal a phrase.

The classified email scandal reference actually illustrates a total lack of understanding of what happened in the case-but as Matt knows I'm fond of pointing toward; if they FBI can't find the way to put charges to it (put will still grandstand at a press conference convicting in the court of public opinion instead of the court of law) by all means think what you want-but if you don't understand classification after the fact and such there is a lack of real comprehension. At the end of the day, where were the charges? Comey is a Republican....

I find the outrage about leveraging hilarious; people do understand that's how the real world works right? The biggest failure of the current administration time and time again is to treat everything like its a political campaign, and while politics does drive policy the reality is that in this case someone should have just said "we used the money as leverage amidst the conduct of diplomacy as a nation"-people who have never been a part of that may take exception but its akin to bemoaning a football team from your living room eating snacks. You aren't on the field of play and likely truly cannot fathom what is happening. By all means have an opinion of course, just recognize that it is founded from ignorance.

How will it prompt other nations to hold Americans hostage? What logical linkage do we have of that? Nations were and are doing that before this, and if we don't owe them any money then asking for a payment isn't likely to go far. I still return back to the point that isn't addressed; pray tell what in the past 40 years of Iranian policy has actually been effective? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result has a definition you know.

I would be very careful looking at one poll as proof things are changing-hence why I pointed to someone with a proven track record of filtering all the polls, their bias, and rigorously looking at the likely results. One poll does not a change make, but if it keeps the Dems energized and turns out voters to make things more competitive it is a good thing b/c the biggest challenge to HRC winning the White House (which is still astounding to me, utterly astounding that the GOP can be so utterly impotent as to make that even a possibility. Stunning) is getting the vote out.

So no comment on Trump's principled flop on immigration? Its a core issue right-and yet now that shit has gotten real, he's making noise about not deporting and potentially mass legalizing. How do we reconcile that?

BTW you asked am I a registered voter? yes. Will I vote? no.
Functionally apolitical to me means not voting since I'm in the line of work that can launch coups or suppress them-I'd rather defend democracy than participate in it; but that doesn't mean I don't like a lively discussion about its implications.

r-
R

I have a very clear understanding of what Comey told us and why she was not charged. No evidence of intent or gross negligence. However, evidence of very poor judgement. This does not change the fact she mishandled information and made extremely poor decisions when deciding to use a private email server. So yes, I am very informed on the subject and see bad judgement when it arises. Defending these actions we'll simply need to agree to disagree. Assuming I'm ignorant on the subject because I'm a Trump supporter may not pan out for you Ray.

As for other nations taking hostages. The primary concern is terrorists groups taking hostages, not countries. I never said we shouldn't leverage, we should leverage, just not with palates of Euros being flown in the middle of the night. We're America, I think we can do better deal making, wouldn't you agree? Again, agree to disagree.

I love how the left can tout polls for HRC but the second one comes in favor of Trump, "we better be careful how we look at that poll." Rasmussen has a close race as well, just an FYI.

If the campaign needs to rearrange the immigration policy to appease more voters so be it. I'm more concerned with shaping our country's border from this point going forward. I would be disappointed if Trump openly approved of mass amnesty.

And Ray, for God's sake you can get your point across without typing a book. No offense.

 

[1920SF]

I have a very clear understanding of what Comey told us and why she was not charged. No evidence of intent or gross negligence. However, evidence of very poor judgement. This does not change the fact she mishandled information and made extremely poor decisions when deciding to use a private email server. So yes, I am very informed on the subject and see bad judgement when it arises. Defending these actions we'll simply need to agree to disagree. Assuming I'm ignorant on the subject because I'm a Trump supporter may not pan out for you Ray.

As for other nations taking hostages. The primary concern is terrorists groups taking hostages, not countries. I never said we shouldn't leverage, we should leverage, just not with palates of Euros being flown in the middle of the night. We're America, I think we can do better deal making, wouldn't you agree? Again, agree to disagree.

I love how the left can tout polls for HRC but the second one comes in favor of Trump, "we better be careful how we look at that poll." Rasmussen has a close race as well, just an FYI.

If the campaign needs to rearrange the immigration policy to appease more voters so be it. I'm more concerned with shaping our country's border from this point going forward. I would be disappointed if Trump openly approved of mass amnesty.

And Ray, for God's sake you can get your point across without typing a book. No offense.

So you want a response, but want it limited? Gotcha.

Let's agree to disagree on the emails; the FBI did the country an injustice in my opinion-either charge or STFU, I don't recall them being a marketing firm. Anything else is pure conjecture as we both know more than we're letting on here.

Terrorist groups will, and do, take hostages. Using Iranian cash as leverage to get Americans back won't change that.

The left isn't touting polls so much as what I pointed toward was Nate Silver's team is looking at them en masse; that's far cry from cherry picking. See it however you want, the right's delusion on polling is why they got their ass handed to them last election and there is a good chance it will happen again this time.

Shaping the border...I honestly don't even know what that really means but ok. I accept that some people think its a substantive issue.

r-
Ray

 

[brian4d]

So you want a response, but want it limited? Gotcha.

Let's agree to disagree on the emails; the FBI did the country an injustice in my opinion-either charge or STFU, I don't recall them being a marketing firm. Anything else is pure conjecture as we both know more than we're letting on here.

Terrorist groups will, and do, take hostages. Using Iranian cash as leverage to get Americans back won't change that.

The left isn't touting polls so much as what I pointed toward was Nate Silver's team is looking at them en masse; that's far cry from cherry picking. See it however you want, the right's delusion on polling is why they got their ass handed to them last election and there is a good chance it will happen again this time.

Shaping the border...I honestly don't even know what that really means but ok. I accept that some people think its a substantive issue.

r-
Ray

Hardly and injustice letting the American people know HRC is technically inept. Also, it's my opinion the FBI did this for an underlying reason. Better dirt to come I would imagine. Hell, another 12K emails announced by the Justice Dept. just this morning. Wonder if Soros has any more good ones in there?

Yes, hostages will be taken in the future no doubt, we can just offer large piles of cash from now on. Again, optics.

The DHS 'estimated' we have 11.4 illegal immigrants living in the US in 2014. Each and every one crossed our boarder in some form or fashion. Shaping maybe was not the best word. Enforce and deport may be better. If it takes a wall and other monitors so be it. On top of this reforming our immigration process is also necessary. Our waiter the other night is from Chile. He has been a green card holder for 11 years and is still on the list. The man should be a citizen. Loves America and was a very hard worker. This is not right.

Thanks for the shorter reply! I'll leave you with this.

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have time."
-Blaise Pascal

 

[brian4d]

Good read about the new emails.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fbi-found-14000-new-hillary-clinton-emails/

 

[1920SF]

Good read about the new emails.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fbi-found-14000-new-hillary-clinton-emails/

That article makes it entirely unclear what we're hearing about; i.e. so these were emails the FBI had (but clearly didn't assist in the creation of a case even substantive enough to render charges, much less go to court for a conviction). So what we've got is...well, I guess we've got 14k emails. So that's something.

Or nothing.

All depends on where you sit I guess.

 

[1920SF]

Hardly and injustice letting the American people know HRC is technically inept. Also, it's my opinion the FBI did this for an underlying reason. Better dirt to come I would imagine. Hell, another 12K emails announced by the Justice Dept. just this morning. Wonder if Soros has any more good ones in there?

Yes, hostages will be taken in the future no doubt, we can just offer large piles of cash from now on. Again, optics.

The DHS 'estimated' we have 11.4 illegal immigrants living in the US in 2014. Each and every one crossed our boarder in some form or fashion. Shaping maybe was not the best word. Enforce and deport may be better. If it takes a wall and other monitors so be it. On top of this reforming our immigration process is also necessary. Our waiter the other night is from Chile. He has been a green card holder for 11 years and is still on the list. The man should be a citizen. Loves America and was a very hard worker. This is not right.

Thanks for the shorter reply! I'll leave you with this.

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have time."
-Blaise Pascal

I find the support for the FBI intriguing, usually the right is pro constitution and such, i.e. that whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' facet that makes it odd that the lead federal law enforcement entity can't find a way to even bring charges-but can find a way to grandstand at a press conference but it's ok b/c it's HRC. Dangerous precedent there, one which I would suggest nobody should be happy with....but if it serves current political purposes, so be it.

I think the distinction between non-state actor's taking hostages and a sovereign nation holding Americans under dubious circumstances may be lost here; either way it is wholly unclear that any precedent has been set however amusing it is to hear the GOP's foreign policy expertise bemoan it. Perhaps instead of paying a bribe next time it happens we could follow the path of Reagan?

The amount of undocumented (like that shift in words?) aliens in the country is directly tied to economics; i.e. if Americans got off their ass to do those jobs they wouldn't be here-but they don't-so the illegals are. That makes it doubly unclear why we need to focus on our border.

The one thing every major power can be sure of is when you isolate yourself, you stop being a great power...and a major conflict comes next. Build a wall, prepare for that reality.

"If you want new ideas, read an old book"

 

[brian4d]

"If you want new ideas, read an old book"

Ray,

I think we've come full circle. Problem is the new ideas aren't working either. I think a lot of Americans are on to this. You can only run from the numbers so long. While Donald has some older ideas he is also bringing new ones to the table. Is Globalism the be all end all? Are our trade deals dated? Are Americans finally seeing that Washington is bought and money talks? I would argue many do see this, if nothing else by the size of Trumps Rallies.

 

[brian4d]

That article makes it entirely unclear what we're hearing about; i.e. so these were emails the FBI had (but clearly didn't assist in the creation of a case even substantive enough to render charges, much less go to court for a conviction). So what we've got is...well, I guess we've got 14k emails. So that's something.

Or nothing.

All depends on where you sit I guess.

HRC will need to see how she 'feels'.

http://vesselnews.io/latest-clinton...t-confirm-meeting-bahrain-prince-knows-feels/

 

[1920SF]

HRC will need to see how she 'feels'.

http://vesselnews.io/latest-clinton...t-confirm-meeting-bahrain-prince-knows-feels/

Health concerns...the HRC equivalent of the birther movement:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-birtherism-of-2016/496847/?utm_source=atlfb

Of course the Donald is old as shit, and loves fast food...so perhaps its actually him that we should be concerned with right?

 

[1920SF]

Ray,

I think we've come full circle. Problem is the new ideas aren't working either. I think a lot of Americans are on to this. You can only run from the numbers so long. While Donald has some older ideas he is also bringing new ones to the table. Is Globalism the be all end all? Are our trade deals dated? Are Americans finally seeing that Washington is bought and money talks? I would argue many do see this, if nothing else by the size of Trumps Rallies.

The size of the rally being indicative of what? Half the people you encounter everyday, they're below average. Math tells us this.

What's to say they aren't all compelled by the narrative he is spinning-afterall the very same definition of low info voters applied to the Dem side with so much contempt-the demographics point clearly to that being true for Trump's core too.

I would argue he isn't bringing much substantive to the table-when you go to his website and read his positions they are long on rhetoric and exceptionally short on details & substance.

Do they speak to a subset of America? Yes they do-the question is whether that subset is the direction of the future of the country, or the last gasps of a now increasingly bygone era.

 

[brian4d]

Health concerns...the HRC equivalent of the birther movement:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-birtherism-of-2016/496847/?utm_source=atlfb

Of course the Donald is old as shit, and loves fast food...so perhaps its actually him that we should be concerned with right?

This is not a hit piece. She has had some major medical issues over the years, particularly her brain. Did you listen to the Dr. Drew piece? You are all of a sudden not sounding so bi-partisan.

 

[brian4d]

The size of the rally being indicative of what? Half the people you encounter everyday, they're below average. Math tells us this.

What's to say they aren't all compelled by the narrative he is spinning-afterall the very same definition of low info voters applied to the Dem side with so much contempt-the demographics point clearly to that being true for Trump's core too.

I would argue he isn't bringing much substantive to the table-when you go to his website and read his positions they are long on rhetoric and exceptionally short on details & substance.

Do they speak to a subset of America? Yes they do-the question is whether that subset is the direction of the future of the country, or the last gasps of a now increasingly bygone era.

There you have it, we shall see. :victory:

 

[1920SF]

This is not a hit piece. She has had some major medical issues over the years, particularly her brain. Did you listen to the Dr. Drew piece? You are all of a sudden not sounding so bi-partisan.

Are you looking to Dr Drew for serious medical advice?
Actually I did listen to his piece, mostly out of morbid curiosity as to why/how he got involved. Did you read Dr Bardack's two page letter on HRC? You know, from her actual Dr since the early 00's-and not a television personality Dr.

As far as bi-partisan goes, let's just say what is good for the goose isn't being done by the gander; i.e. where is the like amount of disclosure of all of this from the GOP? Are you comfortable with its absence while attacking the left? That's what offends me the most-it's an inherent double standard, much like the pass Trump gets for all the shit that he makes up or flat out lies about but HRC is the dishonest one.

They are both politicians, even if one doesn't have a record-thus they are both dishonest. To argue it but so much is to rank virtue among whores-it needs to be moved past to get to more substantive elements.