2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Oh, you mean her political opponents, who benefit from casting aspersions, and don't actually need to substantiate them with proof? Seems like that's well into the grey territory alright. Many investigations - no criminality.

I believe people like Jason Chaffetz, Tred Gowdy and Jim Jordan have fairness and integrity in mind regardless of political allegiances.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I believe people like Jason Chaffetz, Tred Gowdy and Jim Jordan have fairness and integrity in mind regardless of political allegiances.

That's great for you, but integrity doesn't really come to my mind, when I think of Chaffetz, and how he couldn't face his daughter etc.

johnnyskeleton

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Billy86 has a wonderfully adroit piece of satire deleted, yet your post above, and your varying efforts to defend it remain unchallenged.

Mod note:

Please dont comment on moderation on thread.

Jawgap

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not justifying anything. Believe me I don't need to sit here and be a "defender" of Trump with the tables stacked 5 to 1, I can hop onto different boards and avoid it entirely. Trump's "thing" in not being a typical politician was that the media didn't know what to do because he turned the tide so many times in interviews or press conferences. Now he has to learn to be more diplomatic in those scenarios.

I have openly admitted time and time again he's made mistakes with his prologue, something which the media ended up exaggerating tenfold to gain retribution and or/ because of special interests whilst often dismissing or ignoring blatant corruption on the other side. Whenever I try or tried argue in the opposite direction via wikileaks or things like project veritas they tend to get dismissed or ignored completely.

Another deflection. The question I asked was.....

does that mean he's just a politician and he's not different in nature to other politicians?

He was made a big play about being different, but his apologists are quick enough to justify his backsliding by comparing him to 'conventional' politicians......if that's the comparator does that not mean the differences he traded on are, in effect, not that great, if they exist at all?

oscarBravo

I see Giuliani is now favourite for State, according to Fox.

"Russia thinks it’s a military competitor, it really isn’t," Giuliani said. "It’s our unwillingness under Obama to even threaten the use of our military that makes Russia so powerful."

The article also mentions John Bolton as a candidate for the job.

Bolton has years of federal government experience, but he has also raised eyebrows with some of his hawkish stances, including a 2015 op-ed in The New York Times in which he advocated bombing Iran to halt the country's development of nuclear weapons.

Remember folks: Clinton is the warmonger.

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see Giuliani is now favourite for State, according to Fox.



The article also mentions John Bolton as a candidate for the job.



Remember folks: Clinton is the warmonger.

Bolton is one of those people I have a grudging respect for. You know exactly what you're getting with him. You're getting a purr hawk, there''s no doubting that. He would be a horrific secretary of state. His stint ad ambassador to the UN was a disaster. But hey, he has integrity.


So once the swamp is drained all that's left are republican politicians who are consumate insiders?

Chips Lovell

Trump is certainly keeping everyone guessing.

First he appears to moderate his position on the Wall and Obamacare, leading you to wonder if it really all was just campaign bluster. Then he appoints your man Bannon as senior counsellor

Brian?

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Trump is certainly keeping everyone guessing.

First he appears to moderate his position on the Wall and Obamacare, leading you to wonder if it really all was just campaign bluster. Then he appoints your man Bannon as senior counsellor

I was just reading about Bannon in an article in the times, it doesn't bode well.

Mr.H

I love the way people lambaste Trump for trying to make peace with Russia while calling him a warmonger..................

Mr.Micro

Mr.H wrote: »

I love the way people lambaste Trump for trying to make peace with Russia while calling him a warmonger..................

I am sure there a few other smaller countries that might be considered. Make friends with the other bully.

Mr.H

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I am sure there a few other smaller countries that might be considered. Make friends with the other bully.

Or it could also be seen as make friends with the bully in order to improve diplomatic relations and get them to stop this new cold war that is currently happening.

Stopping this hatred between two big nations can only be a good thing

alastair

Mr.H wrote: »

I love the way people lambaste Trump for trying to make peace with Russia while calling him a warmonger..................

The US is currently at peace with Russia. Has been for quite some time.

Mr.Micro

Mr.H wrote: »

Or it could also be seen as make friends with the bully in order to improve diplomatic relations and get them to stop this new cold war that is currently happening.

Stopping this hatred between two big nations can only be a good thing

Yes, you could be right. There is also the possibility of being allowed to pursue an agenda without your new friend objecting.

Mr.H

I am in no way a Trump fan. I wouldnt even say I am of the "anyone but Hillary" camp.

It is easier to sum up my views as "Not ANYONE, would be better than Trump"

They where both horrible candidates and I could not envision either of them doing a better job than the other. I do believe Trump was a patsy used to get Clinton elected and the fact she didnt says more about her than him........

alastair wrote: »

The US is currently at peace with Russia. Has been for quite some time.

Wow just wow.

If you really believe that then you are very naive

While they are certainly not at open war, they are certainly not at peace.

Are they on the same side in the middle east conflicts?? How about Korea? China?

Russia and America have not been on the same page ever. Sure they have had many peace talks but do you really believe they are not both arming the opposite sides of current conflicts?

Mr.H

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes, you could be right. There is also the possibility of being allowed to pursue an agenda without your new friend objecting.

Of course. That is the worry with all peace talks. I just think its a positive

alastair

Mr.H wrote: »

Wow just wow.

If you really believe that then you are very naive

While they are certainly not at open war, they are certainly not at peace.

Are they on the same side in the middle east conflicts?? How about Korea? China?

Russia and America have not been on the same page ever. Sure they have had many peace talks but do you really believe they are not both arming the opposite sides of current conflicts?

So, the new definition of 'not being at peace' is any manner of difference? Every nation is seemingly in desperate need of peaces talks with every other nation.

I don't think I'm the naive one here at all.

oscarBravo

Mr.H wrote: »

I love the way people lambaste Trump for trying to make peace with Russia while calling him a warmonger..................

Did you miss the Giuliani quote just four posts above yours?

Mr.H

alastair wrote: »

So, the new definition of 'not being at peace' is any manner of difference? Every nation is seemingly in desperate need of peaces talks with every other nation.

I don't think I'm the naive one here at all.

Big difference between a manner of difference and arming a nation to kill the nation your enemy is arming.................

Its Korea all over again

alastair

Mr.H wrote: »

Big difference between a manner of difference and arming a nation to kill the nation your enemy is arming.................

Its Korea all over again

No it's not. There's a civil war in Syria and the US and Russia are both supporting and opposing some of the combatant groups in that civil war. There's the one nation involved in the war, and none of the opposed groups are a proxy for either the US or Russia.

Mr.H

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you miss the Giuliani quote just four posts above yours?

Quotes are funny.

Often the quotes are taken out of context but mostly they are used to just prove one point.

The common thing about all quotes are that most people who look at the quotes dont actually watch the interview they come from and end up drawing conclusions from a theory they manifested due to pre determined assumptions.

In the interview he was quoted saying that he also talked about how Trump borrowed a quote from (was it?) Regan (I watched this interview last night so I'm trying to recall it to be honest. The quote he borrowed is "peace through strength"

Hitler wiped out half of Europe while Camberline sat back thinking "if we give the bully what he wants he will go away" and was eventually dragged into the war with Europe already desolated.

the Peace through strength approach is where you have the biggest army and most powerful backing and then you tell the bully "your with us or against us"

Now I am not an advocate for America being the world police but it is a strong approach and not one I would consider war mongering.

Recently we have seen in Crimea where Russia could do what they wanted. I mean where was the mighty USA then? I thought they where the self proclaimed world police? or maybe its only when oil is on the line?

Point is that building peace with Russia is imperative no matter who the president is

Mr.H

alastair wrote: »

No it's not. There's a civil war in Syria and the US and Russia are both supporting and opposing some of the combatant groups in that civil war. There's the one nation involved in the war, and none of the opposed groups are a proxy for either the US or Russia.

You dont think they are being used as proxies?

See the burden of proof falls on both of us here. Where It is common knowledge that both Countries have backed opposing sides, there is no proof to suggest that they are not doing it to get one over on each other.

Just like time and time again that conflicts have been used by both sides to get one over on each other.

oscarBravo

Mr.H wrote: »

the Peace through strength approach is where you have the biggest army and most powerful backing and then you tell the bully "your with us or against us"

What do you do when the bully says "we're against you"?

alastair

Mr.H wrote: »

Hitler wiped out half of Europe while Camberline sat back thinking "if we give the bully what he wants he will go away" and was eventually dragged into the war with Europe already desolated.

the Peace through strength approach is where you have the biggest army and most powerful backing and then you tell the bully "your with us or against us"

You do realise Trump is the Chamberlain in this analogy? He's the candidate that has stated that he's open to recognising the annexation of Crimea and lifting sanctions based on that annexation. Not much strength in that message.

alastair

Mr.H wrote: »

You dont think they are being used as proxies?

Not by the US and Russia. Nobody who understands the situation does.

Mr.H wrote: »

See the burden of proof falls on both of us here. Where It is common knowledge that both Countries have backed opposing sides, there is no proof to suggest that they are not doing it to get one over on each other.

Other than common sense, and the logic of how the conflict escalated.

Mr.H wrote: »

Just like time and time again that conflicts have been used by both sides to get one over on each other.

Amongst many more conflicts that had little or nothing to do with the cold war.

Mr.H

oscarBravo wrote: »

What do you do when the bully says "we're against you"?

Well you have then proved you are not just sitting back letting the bully do what they want in the first place

Mr.H

alastair wrote: »

Nobody who understands the situation does.

So explain it to me then?

You have two major sides backing opposing groups. They are playing chess except the chess pieces are neither Russian or American lives. They have full deniability while having all the pleasure of backing "their" choice for succession.

Is that completely unheard of between both countries?

alastair wrote: »

Amongst many more conflicts that had little or nothing to do with the cold war.

China
Korea
Berlin
Afghan
Yugoslavia
Iraq
Syria

Only some from a massive list of conflicts where both countries used opposing groups to fund and arm while hoping that their backed militia would gain control.

Its is an indirect war where the victor insures their say in that region.

Its not an obvious war.
It IS a continuation of the Cold War.

Do you not think if a Russian or American soldier was killed by the opposite that it would escalate quickly?

I suppose you feel the Cold war ended the day the "Iron Curtain" came down yea?

Thomas_...

Mr.H wrote: »

I am in no way a Trump fan. I wouldnt even say I am of the "anyone but Hillary" camp.

It is easier to sum up my views as "Not ANYONE, would be better than Trump"

They where both horrible candidates and I could not envision either of them doing a better job than the other. I do believe Trump was a patsy used to get Clinton elected and the fact she didnt says more about her than him........

This says more about his followers and supporters than anything:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967

Michelle Obama 'ape in heels' post causes outrage

Racism in the USA is breathing a fresh air and the insulters are just having their usual half-hearted excuses like "I am no racist ... bla, bla, bla". Of course they are racists and they meant it the way they have posted it. No doubt about that and Mr Trump is acting as if he has got nothing to do with it. Well, not directly but his awful conduct of his campaign made it possible to free this racism once again. This is all disgusting.

alastair

Mr.H wrote: »

So explain it to me then?

You have two major sides backing opposing groups. They are playing chess except the chess pieces are neither Russian or American lives. They have full deniability while having all the pleasure of backing "their" choice for succession.

Is that completely unheard of between both countries?

It's a pretty uninformed read of the situation tbh. Firstly they both oppose and support different groups involved at the same time. Secondly the US is far less involved in supporting anti-Assad groups than the Saudis and Emirate states are, and Iran is far more involved in supporting Assad than Russia is. About the only group that the US is clearly the primary supporter of are the Syrian Kurds, and yet they're being undermined by the Turks, the local allie of the US. The cold war (or cold war Mk II) really plays no role in the war at all. The Russians just care about hanging on to their toehold for regional purposes.

Mr.H wrote: »

China
Korea
Berlin
Afghan
Yugoslavia
Iraq
Syria

Only some from a massive list of conflicts where both countries used opposing groups to fund and arm while hoping that their backed militia would gain control.

Its is an indirect war where the victor insures their say in that region.

Its not an obvious war.
It IS a continuation of the Cold War.

Do you not think if a Russian or American soldier was killed by the opposite that it would escalate quickly?

I suppose you feel the Cold war ended the day the "Iron Curtain" came down yea?

Russian soldiers have already killed in Syria, and the Turks shot down one of their jets, killing the pilot. I didn't see any quick escalation. Whatever Syrian arrangement that comes out of this war will not be beholden to either the US or Russia. It's not about them.

Mr.H

Thomas_... wrote: »

This says more about his followers and supporters than anything:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967


Racism in the USA is breathing a fresh air and the insulters are just having their usual half-hearted excuses like "I am no racist ... bla, bla, bla". Of course they are racists and they meant it the way they have posted it. No doubt about that and Mr Trump is acting as if he has got nothing to do with it. Well, not directly but his awful conduct of his campaign made it possible to free this racism once again. This is all disgusting.

Listen there is no excuse for racists. But They do not represent everyone.

Yes Trumps actions have been awful both so have Clintons. Neither candidate stayed on point and very little was said about true policies. If these are teh two best people in America then wow

Mr.H

on a side note

Let me ask you all this. What do you think of this for a speech:

"And to all the men, and especially the young men, who put their faith in this campaign and in me: I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion."

"And to all of the little boys who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

Now that is Clintons speech with me changing the word women for men and girls for boys.

This is not something I am aiming at Clinton but the wider world right now. If my edited speech was read out it is deemed sexist but Clintons version is seen as good..........

Christy42

Mr.H wrote: »

on a side note

Let me ask you all this. What do you think of this for a speech:

"And to all the men, and especially the young men, who put their faith in this campaign and in me: I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion."

"And to all of the little boys who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

Now that is Clintons speech with me changing the word women for men and girls for boys.

This is not something I am aiming at Clinton but the wider world right now. If my edited speech was read out it is deemed sexist but Clintons version is seen as good..........

Women have been traditionally held back from certain careers, especially politics.

Having said that the speech doesn't seem sexist no matter the genders. It is one sided sure but you can talk to a certain audience. I would be confused as to why men require a speech like this (potentially from a disadvantaged area but then the wording is off). Women can feel like certain careers are blocked off for them as they have traditionally been and sexism still exists.

Edit: I mean men tend not to need a new champion as we have them in abundance in every field I can think of. Most CEOs, supwrheroes, presidents are male. There is an abundance of men in politics, as business men, sports stars and scientists. I don't see why being a champion of men would be a big selling point. There are hordes in every field.

Mr.H

alastair wrote: »

It's a pretty uninformed read of the situation tbh. Firstly they both oppose and support different groups involved at the same time. Secondly the US is far less involved in supporting anti-Assad groups than the Saudis and Emirate states are, and Iran is far more involved in supporting Assad than Russia is. About the only group that the US is clearly the primary supporter of are the Syrian Kurds, and yet they're being undermined by the Turks, the local allie of the US. The cold war (or cold war Mk II) really plays no role in the war at all. The Russians just care about hanging on to their toehold for regional purposes.

Ok but do you not think that there is any bi-proxy involved theer what so ever?

Saudi and Emirate states are very close to USA right now and likewise Iran and Russia.

I know that if you dont believe its true it sounds tinfoil hatty and I assure you this isnt something I preach about 24/7 while preparing for the end.

But I do believe that the cold war never ended and see nothing that proves it did.

Hell you just look at the slight anti Russian propaganda that appears quiet often on western media. Maybe it is just residual effects of non-closure of the past but I think that is is quiet obvious that Russia are "the enemy"

alastair wrote: »

Russian soldiers have already killed in Syria, and the Turks shot down one of their jets, killing the pilot. I didn't see any quick escalation. Whatever Syrian arrangement that comes out of this war will not be beholden to either the US or Russia. It's not about them.

Not what I was talking about. Maybe I wasnt clear. Sorry

I said if an American was killed by a Russian soldier or vice versa

Mr.H

Christy42 wrote: »

Women have been traditionally held back from certain careers, especially politics.

Having said that the speech doesn't seem sexist no matter the genders. It is one sided sure but you can talk to a certain audience. I would be confused as to why men require a speech like this (potentially from a disadvantaged area but then the wording is off). Women can feel like certain careers are blocked off for them as they have traditionally been and sexism still exists.

I just believe that instead of aiming at little boys or little girls we say both...............

I mean if I have a son and a daughter should I just keep telling my daughter every day that she can accomplish anything while not saying anything like that to my son because men generally are not held back?

I know that this conversation is too close to being off subject so I am trying not to get too lost in it but I was just wondering if it would have been deemed sexist if the "male" version was used?

I think it would have been

Christy42

Mr.H wrote: »

I just believe that instead of aiming at little boys or little girls we say both...............

I mean if I have a son and a daughter should I just keep telling my daughter every day that she can accomplish anything while not saying anything like that to my son because men generally are not held back?

I know that this conversation is too close to being off subject so I am trying not to get too lost in it but I was just wondering if it would have been deemed sexist if the "male" version was used?

I think it would have been

Your own son is different. Your son isn't a general population. You also don't have to mention both in every speech you have. You can talk up one of them while the otber is not around. You don't tell your daughter she is playing great but her brother who is at home is also a good striker. Also see my edit which clears up some parts of my answer I felt I wrote badly.

I don't think it would be sexist. I just don't think men would care to have someone call themselves their champion when they have so many.

Mr.H

Christy42 wrote: »

Your own son is different. Your son isn't a general population. You also don't have to mention both in every speech you have. You can talk up one of them while the otber is not around. You don't tell your daughter she is playing great but her brother who is at home is also a good striker. Also see my edit which clears up some parts of my answer I felt I wrote badly.

I don't think it would be sexist. I just don't think men would care to have someone call themselves their champion when they have so many.

Thats a fair point. I think the line that irritated me a little was more:

"And to all of the little girls" who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

I just felt

"And to all of the little girls and boys who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

That would have actually made me think "f###ing hell that is a admirable"

Again though just to be clear I dont condone Clinton for it I just felt that she pushed too much for the "women" card when she could have went more for the "equality" route. Like why does she have to be anyones champion? She is suppose to be a president for everyone not just a certain demographic?

I feel that in this modern day it seems to be either you are all for women in power or you are a misogynist.

Instead we should be thinking we need the right PERSON in power.

Turns out we got neither but ..................:D

TheOven

Ben Carson has just realised he has no government experience so thankfully won't be involved with education or be part of the administration.

He is a very odd person.

Amerika

It’s been a week now since the election. Why won’t Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama denounce the violent, anti-Trump protests going on in urban areas across the nation? It’s not Trump’s supporters who are destroying police cars, torching businesses, or beating up Trump supporters, but rather people that voted for Hillary and Obama. There can only be one reason... they want the violence to continue. Can’t wait until the names Obama and Clinton are purged from our lexicon.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

It’s been a week now since the election. Why won’t Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama denounce the violent, anti-Trump protests going on in urban areas across the nation? It’s not Trump’s supporters who are destroying police cars, torching businesses, or beating up Trump supporters, but rather people that voted for Hillary and Obama. There can only be one reason... they want the violence to continue. Can’t wait until the names Obama and Clinton are purged from our lexicon.

More made up controversy?

“It’s time really for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to say to these protesters, ‘This man is our president,’ ”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/republicans-call-clinton-obama-reel-professional-a/

Which, he had:

“The people have spoken. Donald Trump will be the next president,” Obama said. “And it will be up to him to set up a team that he thinks will server him well and will reflect his political, and those who didn’t vote for him have to recognize that that’s how democracy works. That’s how the system operates.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-people-have-spoken-obama-addresses-his-past-criticisms-of-trump-bannon-hire/

and before that...

"We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead," Clinton said.

“Now, it is no secret that the president-elect and I have some pretty significant differences,” Obama said. “But remember, eight years ago President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush's team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running.”

Like Clinton, he called for cooperation, even from those who adamantly opposed Trump.

“We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country,” he said.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

More made up controversy?

“It’s time really for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to say to these protesters, ‘This man is our president,’ ”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/republicans-call-clinton-obama-reel-professional-a/

Which, he had:

“The people have spoken. Donald Trump will be the next president,” Obama said. “And it will be up to him to set up a team that he thinks will server him well and will reflect his political, and those who didn’t vote for him have to recognize that that’s how democracy works. That’s how the system operates.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-people-have-spoken-obama-addresses-his-past-criticisms-of-trump-bannon-hire/

and before that...

"We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead," Clinton said.

“Now, it is no secret that the president-elect and I have some pretty significant differences,” Obama said. “But remember, eight years ago President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush's team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running.”

Like Clinton, he called for cooperation, even from those who adamantly opposed Trump.

“We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country,” he said.

Maybe they should now try this... "Knock off the violence and destruction, you idiots, or you'll get your asses thrown in jail."

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

It’s been a week now since the election. Why won’t Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama denounce the violent, anti-Trump protests going on in urban areas across the nation? It’s not Trump’s supporters who are destroying police cars, torching businesses, or beating up Trump supporters, but rather people that voted for Hillary and Obama. There can only be one reason... they want the violence to continue. Can’t wait until the names Obama and Clinton are purged from our lexicon.

Pretty sure Obama didn't run this time. The rest of your post was countered better by the post above me.

Also who are they to call out the largely peaceful protests when the president elect asked for a March on Washington when he didn't like the result of a presidential election. I mean from their words they clearly said Donald is the president and seem not to agree with the protests but it would undercut the president elect if they tried to shout down a form of protest Trump so obviously agrees with.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe they should now try this... "Knock off the violence and destruction, you idiots, or you'll get your asses thrown in jail."

Do people need to be told not to break the law? There's an irony: anti-Obama conservative wants the 'Messiah' to shout, 'thou shall not loot!'

Suryavarman

Just came across this article from Newsweek which demolishes the conspiracy theory that the DNC rigged the primary and the adorably naive idea that Sanders could have bet Trump.

Manic Moran

Someone was asking if the protestors had voted. It seems a good portion had not, at least judging from what NBC could dig up on Oregon protestors.

http://www.12news.com/news/nation-now/more-than-half-of-arrested-portland-anti-trump-protesters-didnt-vote-in-oregon/352105081

aloyisious

there's been two removals from the transition team, Mike Rogers, Nat Security Matters and Matt Freedman, defence and foreign policy advisor (who runs a Washington consulting firm that advises foreign governments and companies seeking to do business with the United States government).

According to the New York Times/MSN.com, there's a requirement for the Trump transition team boss to sign legal documents to allow the transition work between the outgoing and incoming Admin teams proceed and that following the promotion of Mike Pence over Chris Christie to head the Trump team, the documents are being altered and have (by Tuesday) yet to be signed. Until that's done, no transition collaboration work can happen between the two teams.

Jimmy Garlic

Overheal wrote: »

Do people need to be told not to break the law?

When they thought that Clinton had it in the bag plenty were quick tell Donald Trump supporters to just accept defeat, not riot and tear up the streets. That was an MSM mantra for a while, apparently they thought that Trump supporters needed to be told not to break the law.

Overheal

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

When they thought that Clinton had it in the bag plenty were quick tell Donald Trump supporters to just accept defeat, not riot and tear up the streets. That was an MSM mantra for a while, apparently they thought that Trump supporters needed to be told not to break the law.

I think the concern there wasn't property damage, but civil war/open revolt.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe they should now try this... "Knock off the violence and destruction, you idiots, or you'll get your asses thrown in jail."

Also reminded of the fact the POTUS has no jurisdiction to arrest protestors. With what apparatus: the national guard go in if governors want them to, and they aren't breaking any laws that can't be handled at the local level. The president making such idle threats would be just that.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

Also reminded of the fact the POTUS has no jurisdiction to arrest protestors. With what apparatus: the national guard go in if governors want them to, and they aren't breaking any laws that can't be handled at the local level. The president making such idle threats would be just that.

You just don't get it. Obama is wrong. All of the time, about everything.

circadian

Suryavarman wrote: »

Just came across this article from Newsweek which demolishes the conspiracy theory that the DNC rigged the primary and the adorably naive idea that Sanders could have bet Trump.

so I asked, “Who did you vote for?”
He replied, “Well, Stein, but—” I interrupted him and said, “You’re lucky it’s illegal for me to punch you in the face.” Then, after telling him to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked away.

I had to stop reading there. It's completely unreasonable to blame those that voted third party. A Democrat threatening to hit a person for exercising their right to vote for who they see fit.

Honestly, it's pretty obvious that Sanders would have performed better than Clinton. He had the ability to draw third party voters, independents and even moderate Republicans (I work with many republicans and Sanders would have been their primary choice over Trump)

The DNC and media associated with it ridiculed Trump and made him a joke. There was no attempt by Clinton to debate, regardless of how outrageous his statements were. Her platform was purely "I'm better" or "I have more experience"

Whether people like it or not, Trump engaged the working class because of his stance on things like the TPP and taxation. His racist, sexist and xenophobic ramblings only served those that would have voted for him anyway.

A Sanders v Trump election would have been a clash of populist candidates and Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump.

Billy86

Brian? wrote: »

You just don't get it. Obama is wrong. All of the time, about everything.

Including Obamacare, until a Republican is in office when all of a sudden it's not so bad.