Second Presidential Debate, Sunday, Oct. 9, 2016, at 9 PM eastern [Archive] - Page 2

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 06:20 PM

Listen up Libs...

Just vote for Trump. Why? Because you folks are so certain that Trump will ruin the country and thus completely destroy the Republican party. So, as a long term strategy voting for Trump is the absolute best move you can take. Sure, he'll be president from 2017-2021 but then Democrats will be in control of both houses and the presidency forever after that!

Democrats literally think Trump will start nuclear wars with other countries because they made fun of his hair.

Fear mongering is one of the only reasons Democrats can even get elected anymore. Their base gobbles this fear mongering up like it's candy.

Parkbandit

10-11-2016, 06:21 PM

If PB and I can agree on things, there's hope for this country yet!

We're not that different.. you just board the crazy train a little too many times.

If "the electorate is fed up" is where it has to start, so be it. Hopefully, politicians will realize just how serious this is, and how we could end up with a wack job for president because they aren't doing their frickin' jobs. They need to stop looking for loose change in the asses of the wealthy and special interest groups for a moment and see that their job is bigger than lining their own pockets with life time benefits and lucrative back-end jobs. Failure to do so means eventually the American people will kick them to the curb.

If candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump can go as far as they have.. it's a clear sign that the electorate is fed the fuck up. Politicians aren't really worried though.. they create laws and procedures and policy that allow them to hold onto power as long as possible. We will never see real election reform, tax reform, term limits, etc... because these are tools of power and they will not want to give them up.

It'll have to be forced upon them.

time4fun

10-11-2016, 06:22 PM

Yeah, you know that might be a more convincing line if we weren't all in the middle of watching Trump have a vengeful breakdown, turning on his own party and encouraging his supporters not to vote for "disloyal" Republicans and calling Ryan and McCain horrible names because they dared to publicly say they won't support him. (Hell Ryan didn't even withdraw his endorsement)

He's fucking unhinged, and you want us to shrug and hand him nuclear codes.

Sorry, most of us are burdened by this thing called common sense and think you're a fucking idiot.

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 06:24 PM

He's fucking unhinged, and you want us to shrug and hand him nuclear codes.

Democrats literally think Trump will start nuclear wars with other countries because they made fun of his hair.

See? Democrats know their base are bunch of kool-aid drinking morons who will believe anything they put in front of them, even something as absurd as Trump literally destroying the Earth should he become president.

My favorite part is when Democrats accuse Republicans of being fear mongers. I mean sure, Republicans can be fear mongers too, but even they have to bow down to the fear mongering dominance of the Democrat party.

Parkbandit

10-11-2016, 06:30 PM

Archigeek

10-11-2016, 06:36 PM

We're not that different.. you just board the crazy train a little too many times.

If candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump can go as far as they have.. it's a clear sign that the electorate is fed the fuck up. Politicians aren't really worried though.. they create laws and procedures and policy that allow them to hold onto power as long as possible. We will never see real election reform, tax reform, term limits, etc... because these are tools of power and they will not want to give them up.

It'll have to be forced upon them.

My train is quite sane, thank you very much. I agree that change will be difficult, but I'm an eternal optimist. A perfect example of what you're saying about power is when the parties got together and took debates out of the hands of the League of Women Voters and created the debate commission. It was all about controlling power via the questions that would be asked and who would be on the stage. It had nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with power.

Neveragain

10-11-2016, 07:43 PM

Sorry, most of us are burdened by this thing called common sense and think you're a fucking idiot.

You have so much common sense that the point of my previous comment went completely over your head, I will simplify it for you.

Iowa has for as long as I can remember been a Democrat leaning state, they rank 38th for college educated, Iowa votes Democrat / 38th for the college educated. The uneducated are voting Democrat.

Probably the hottest topic in Iowa right now is the state of their schools. Prior to the Department of education, Iowa was literally the gold standard for the entire nation when it came to education (Without checking, I still believe they have the highest graduation rates in the nation) but those numbers have been on a down slide ever since the Department of education took the reigns, free fall is a better description. It's not even a question anymore for most Iowan's, Democrat policies have devastated their education system.

macgyver

10-11-2016, 08:39 PM

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 08:45 PM

You have so much common sense that the point of my previous comment went completely over your head, I will simplify it for you.

Iowa has for as long as I can remember been a Democrat leaning state, they rank 38th for college educated, Iowa votes Democrat / 38th for the college educated. The uneducated are voting Democrat.

Probably the hottest topic in Iowa right now is the state of their schools. Prior to the Department of education, Iowa was literally the gold standard for the entire nation when it came to education (Without checking, I still believe they have the highest graduation rates in the nation) but those numbers have been on a down slide ever since the Department of education took the reigns, free fall is a better description. It's not even a question anymore for most Iowan's, Democrat policies have devastated their education system.

Just as a point of information the education policies of the last two presidents were pretty similar. If you expect any improvement from Hillary or Trump you will be disappointed.

The Department of Education (and I'm a liberal who detests it) is 36 years old. No candidate for a mainstream party is going to give up that power once President.

time4fun

10-11-2016, 08:52 PM

Can Trump pull this off with just white male no college vote? What about the precints in the cities? Isn't that how Obama won last time? Where the heck is John King to make me feel like an idiot...

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/files/2012/11/john-king-magic-wall-election-night.jpg

No, he can't. Right now the guy is polling in the 30s in 4 way match ups. I mean- this is beyond over. At this point, Clinton would need to be caught on camera boiling babies in Pagan rites for her to lose. Trump is in full-on self-destruct mode, and it's almost unthinkable that we won't have more damaging leaks in the next few weeks. I know everyone is holding out for wikileaks releases against Clinton, but to be honest there just doesn't seem to be much there to leak that's any worse than what folks have already seen.

30 years ago, you could win on a primarily white, male, non-college vote. But not in 2016 and not really ever again, most likely.

What was going on in the 2012 election, when they would look at like 5 precincts in a state and call the whole state was a reflection of a few things-

Precincts tend to have VERY different populations- often based on things like racial demographics and level of education. States will tend to have precincts that are super Democratic and others that are super Republican. So in an election, if it turns out that a Democratic nominee under-performs in the precincts in a state where most of the Democratic votes come from, they can just call the state for the Republican because they know there aren't enough Democratic votes left in the rest of the state to make up for it, for example.

In a lot of cases it's the urban precincts vs the suburban vs the rural. White non-college educated men are more likely to be in rural areas, for example, than in urban ones.

beldannon5

10-11-2016, 08:59 PM

well we all know Hillary will have the dead vote. Only thing that will probably stop this evil is her getting put in jail, but even then the people that arrested her would probably end up dead.

Neveragain

10-11-2016, 09:01 PM

Just as a point of information the education policies of the last two presidents were pretty similar. If you expect any improvement from Hillary or Trump you will be disappointed.

I completely agree, that's why this is the first time in my adult life that I won't be voting. I honestly don't feel the need to vote, "our" goal of fracturing the Republican party has for the most part succeeded, if Trump beats Hillary.......that's just icing on the cake.

Looking further ahead, Rand Paul is going to look awfully good after this giant shit puppet show.

drauz

10-11-2016, 09:05 PM

He's fucking unhinged, and you want us to shrug and hand him nuclear codes.

There is a two man system, hes not just gonna open the football and start launching nukes.

This isn't how it works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1tGCDeOi2o

time4fun

10-11-2016, 09:09 PM

well we all know Hillary will have the dead vote. Only thing that will probably stop this evil is her getting put in jail, but even then the people that arrested her would probably end up dead.

Okay, so you're insane.

time4fun

10-11-2016, 09:09 PM

There is a two man system, hes not just gonna open the football and start launching nukes.

This isn't how it works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1tGCDeOi2o

Politico (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955) researched this issue actually:

What would it mean to have Trump’s fingers on the nuclear button? We don't really know, but we do know this: In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy. With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack.
If he were president, Donald Trump—who likes to say he doesn't spend a lot of time conferring with others ("My primary consultant is myself," he declared in March)—would be free to launch a civilization-ending nuclear war on his own any time he chose.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955#ixzz4MpS0v5C9
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

There are no checks on this. As long as the President can confirm their identity- they have the first, last, and only say in this. And they don't need anyone else.

beldannon5

10-11-2016, 09:12 PM

Maybe.

drauz

10-11-2016, 09:18 PM

Politico (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955) researched this issue actually:

There are no checks on this. As long as the President can confirm their identity- they have the first, last, and only say in this. And they don't need anyone else.

Not exactly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football.

Before the order can be processed by the military, the president must be positively identified using a special code issued on a plastic card, nicknamed the "biscuit".[4] The United States has a two-man rule in place, and while only the president can order the release of nuclear weapons, the order must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense (there is a hierarchy of succession in the event that the president is killed in an attack).[4] Once all the codes have been verified, the military would issue attack orders to the proper units. These orders are given and then re-verified for authenticity. It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate a nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it.

Neveragain

10-11-2016, 09:30 PM

There is a two man system, hes not just gonna open the football and start launching nukes.

This isn't how it works:

You mean there's not a little red button on the presidents bed stand?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 09:53 PM

What exactly has Trump ever said to make any fear mongering Democrat think he would actually start launching nukes for absolutely no good reason?

He said some mean things about Rosie? He made some crude comments about women?

Seriously. Other than the left's favorite lines of "he's unhinged!", "he's crazy!", what, specifically, has Trump said or done that makes you think he would engage in simultaneous mass murder the likes of which the world has never seen?

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:04 PM

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 10:17 PM

Maybe it'd be a good idea to investigate what the man has actually said about nuclear weapons as opposed to attempting to tell people what they should think about the other stuff he's said.

Sure I'll bite, what has Trump said about using nuclear weapons?

If you're gonna say something like "He said he wouldn't take nukes off the table" then just no. No. Just...just no.

drauz

10-11-2016, 10:17 PM

Maybe it'd be a good idea to investigate what the man has actually said about nuclear weapons as opposed to telling people what they should think about the other stuff he's said.

From the very article she linked WAY at the bottom:

“I don’t want to rule out anything. I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons. … I will be the last to use it, I will not be a happy trigger like some people might think. I will be the last, but I will never ever rule it out.”

“I will have a military that’s so strong and powerful, and so respected, we’re not gonna have to nuke anybody.”

“I would love to see a nuclear-free world. Will that happen? Chances are extremely small that will happen. So I think that’s something that in an ideal world is wonderful, but I think it’s not going to happen very easily.”

“To me, always the No. 1 security threat to the United States is nuclear… and we have to be unbelievably careful.”

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:21 PM

Sure I'll bite, what has Trump said about using nuclear weapons?

If you're gonna say something like "He said he wouldn't take nukes off the table" then just no. No. Just...just no.

Dig deeper. The funny bit is the worst stuff was shared by one of his supporters.

There's a LOT more.

Geijon Khyree

10-11-2016, 10:23 PM

His problem is he hasnt said shit of substance. Nearly zero.

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 10:23 PM

Dig deeper. The funny bit is the worst stuff was shared by one of his supporters.

Stop flirting with me and just tell me what specifically you are referring to.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:25 PM

Stop flirting with me and just tell me what specifically you are referring to.

Sorry. You have to do some research for yourself for once. He's said quite a lot and he's your party member after all.

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 10:26 PM

Sorry. You have to do some research for yourself for once. He's said quite a lot and he's your party member after all.

So...nothing?

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 10:28 PM

Still waiting to hear from you Hillarists on why you think her plan to go to war with Russia over Syria is a sound one.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:29 PM

So...nothing?

You haven't even read what your Presidential candidate has said. Like Trump you're probably scared of it.

Still waiting to hear from you Hillarists on why you think her plan to go to war with Russia over Syria is a sound one.

Ask Mike Pence.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 10:32 PM

You haven't even read what your Presidential candidate has said. Like Trump you're probably scared of it.

Ask Mike Pence.

I'm asking you guys.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:35 PM

I'm asking you guys.

Hmm.

I just have to tell you that the provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength. And if Russia chooses to be involved and continue—I should say, to be involved—in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 10:36 PM

Hmm.

So what are your thoughts? Is going to war over Russia a good idea?

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:38 PM

So what are your thoughts? Is going to war over Russia a good idea?

Rather than your usual trolling attempts I'd suggest you ponder a world where we have a party saying that we simultaneously have to be stronger against Russia and then flipping out when people actually suggest it.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 10:40 PM

Rather than your usual trolling attempts I'd suggest you ponder a world where we have a party saying that we simultaneously have to be stronger against Russia and then flipping out when people actually suggest it.

This isn't trolling, it's a serious question. Do you or do you not think going to war with Russia is a good idea? It's a simple yes or no question.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 10:44 PM

Let me guess, there are no left wing talking points on how to defend her stance on this, am I right? Awaiting your marching orders before you feel safe enough to comment on her disastrous foreign policy ideas?

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:44 PM

This isn't trolling, it's a serious question. Do you or do you not think going to war with Russia is a good idea? It's a simple yes or no question.

"It's a simple yes or no question" is absolutely trolling.

What might be behind this curious dichotomy of "stand up to Russia" and "bitch out in front of Russia?"

"Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”"

Why don't you want people to oppose Russia?

You're so much of a Putin stooge that you want them to interfere with an American election.

Are you being paid?

Let me guess, there are no left wing talking points on how to defend her stance on this, am I right? Awaiting your marching orders before you feel safe enough to comment on her disastrous foreign policy ideas?

Is the salary higher than the sales price of silvers? Some other folks might want to sign up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 10:50 PM

"It's a simple yes or no question" is absolutely trolling.

What might be behind this curious dichotomy of "stand up to Russia" and "bitch out in front of Russia?"

"Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”"

Why don't you want people to oppose Russia?

You're so much of a Putin stooge that you want them to interfere with an American election.

Are you being paid?

Is the salary higher than the sales price of silvers? Some other folks might want to sign up.

How is that trolling? I'm asking for people's opinions on something their candidate has openly talked about.. Do you, or do you not, support that decision? Is advocating for war against a nuclear superpower your idea of good foreign policy? I keep hearing Hillary's supporters talk about how dangerous Trump is in regards to foreign policy but when it come's to Hillary's policy it's nothing but crickets. Grow a spine and stop deflecting.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:52 PM

How is that trolling? I'm asking for people's opinions on something their candidate has openly talked about.. Do you, or do you not, support that decision? Is advocating for war against a nuclear superpower your idea of good foreign policy? I keep hearing Hillary's supporters talk about how dangerous Trump is in regards to foreign policy but when it come's to Hillary's policy it's nothing but crickets. Grow a spine and stop deflecting.

I'm curious as to the salary for your campaign.

It's trolling because it represents an active attempt to distort a foreign policy position of an American candidate... the sort of thing Putin would pay for.

Were you replaced? Did you sell your account? Are you even you any more?

http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/13170_1.jpg

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 10:56 PM

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 10:57 PM

Okay who is being the troll now? I ask a simple question and you're ranting and raving about me being a paid stooge for the Russians?

How am I distorting Hillary's position? She has openly stated multiple times she is in favor of enacting a no-fly zone in Syria, even though that would put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.

https://serendipitousanachronisms.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/tumblr_m28edebihf1ql4a37o1_500.gif

I'm making fun of your nonsense. That's far different than ranting or raving.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:02 PM

Here's the Joint Chief of Staff's own words on what a no fly zone in Syria would result in.

“Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia,”

Here's Hillary's thoughts on the subject.

“I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air, to try to provide some way to take stock of what’s happening, to try to stem the flow of refugees,” Clinton said in an interview with NBC affiliate WHDH in Boston after a campaign event nearby.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 11:06 PM

Here's the Joint Chief of Staff's own words on what a no fly zone in Syria would result in.

Here's Hillary's thoughts on the subject.

The most common subcategory of active measures is dezinformatsiya, or disinformation: feverish if believable lies cooked up by Moscow Centre and planted in friendly media outlets to make democratic nations look sinister.

Poor attribution and purposeful "interpretation" of a source would fit right in.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:08 PM

Spin, deflect, ignore.

Got any other tricks up your sleeve?

Sad to see a grown ass teacher behave like an annoying 5 year old.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:11 PM

I'm making fun of your nonsense. That's far different than ranting or raving.

You're ranting like a madman. Come back to reality, we miss you.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 11:13 PM

You're ranting like a madman. Come back to reality, we miss you.

How many "guaranteed!" deadlines did you miss in your "quest" to see Hillary in jail?

You were trolling. It isn't worth actual discussion when you don't even show proper sourcing or context to further your "quest."

Your slavish service to Russia interfering in the US election isn't distinguishable from paid trolling for Putin.

Spin, deflect, ignore.

Got any other tricks up your sleeve?

Sad to see a grown ass teacher behave like an annoying 5 year old.

Five year olds usually stop with their dreams when confronted by reality. They also concede points more readily than you.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:21 PM

How many "guaranteed!" deadlines did you miss in your "quest" to see Hillary in jail?

You were trolling. It isn't worth actual discussion when you don't even show proper sourcing or context to further your "quest."

Your slavish service to Russia interfering in the US election isn't distinguishable from paid trolling for Putin.

Five year olds usually stop with their dreams when confronted by reality. They also concede points more readily than you.

Those that can, do.

Those that can't, teach.

Good job on proving that correct, Conan.

Geijon Khyree

10-11-2016, 11:25 PM

“Go register,” Trump implored. “Make sure you go out and vote Nov. 28.”

It's 48 days away til Trump says you can vote!

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 11:25 PM

Those that can, do.

Those that can't, teach.

Good job on proving that correct, Conan.

What exactly are you doing with your time Justin?

You were wrong about a basic political truth. You've clung to it recklessly for what, a year now?

You've accepted nonsensical sources as fact on a consistent and constant basis. You took Reddit seriously.

Now you're pretending that protecting the people of Syria would guarantee war with Russia in an attempted gotcha on people who won't follow along in your misguided journey.

I feel legitimately bad for you.

time4fun

10-11-2016, 11:27 PM

What exactly are you doing with your time Justin?

You were wrong about a basic political truth. You've clung to it recklessly for what, a year now?

You've accepted nonsensical sources as fact on a consistent and constant basis. You took Reddit seriously.

Now you're pretending that protecting the people of Syria would guarantee war with Russia in an attempted gotcha on people who won't follow along in your misguided journey.

I feel legitimately bad for you.

QFT.

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 11:30 PM

I guess I'll just ask again, see if any Democrats can give me a solid answer.

What exactly has Trump ever said to make any fear mongering Democrat think he would actually start launching nukes for absolutely no good reason?

He said some mean things about Rosie? He made some crude comments about women?

Seriously. Other than the left's favorite lines of "he's unhinged!", "he's crazy!", what, specifically, has Trump said or done that makes you think he would engage in simultaneous mass murder the likes of which the world has never seen?

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 11:31 PM

I feel legitimately bad for you.

Says the man who said "Of course Trump will destroy the world with nukes! Just look at what he said about nukes! What did he say? JUST LOOK!"

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 11:32 PM

Says the man who said "Of course Trump will destroy the world with nukes! Just look at what he said about nukes! What did he say? JUST LOOK!"

I'm sorry that you don't know how to use Google. That's even worse.

I'll give you a hint. The answer involves a host who's program is a coffee euphemism.

I'm curious if you've ever actually researched ANYTHING that Trump has said.

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:34 PM

Now you're pretending that protecting the people of Syria would guarantee war with Russia in an attempted gotcha on people who won't follow along in your misguided journey.

As I stated earlier, that came directly from General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Are you saying you know better than him?

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:35 PM

Says the man who said "Of course Trump will destroy the world with nukes! Just look at what he said about nukes! What did he say? JUST LOOK!"

Don't expect any serious replies from him.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 11:37 PM

As I stated earlier, that came directly from General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Are you saying you know better than him?

Except you didn't. You said "The Joint Chiefs of Staff" and didn't reveal the context of it to make it look like it fit entirely with your interpretation.

And where did you get your interpretation? Russian media of course.

https://www.rt.com/usa/360317-carter-dunford-syria-russia-senate/

Don't expect any serious replies from him.

Since we know you wouldn't be up to it.

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/760790261370753025

Further:

"MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.
TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?"

https://youtu.be/jCHQPCXbt1w?t=1m

"DICKERSON: They talk about the presidency and who has the finger on the button. The United States has not used nuclear weapons since 1945. When should it?
TRUMP: Well, it is an absolute last stance. And, you know, I use the word unpredictable. You want to be unpredictable.
And somebody recently said — I made a great business deal. And the person on the other side was interviewed by a newspaper. And how did Trump do this? And they said, he`s so unpredictable. And I didn`t know if he meant it positively or negative. It turned out he meant it positively."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVTAaJ1fzfc

We don’t know who these people are. The fact is, we need unpredictability. And when you ask a question like that, it’s a very — it’s a very sad thing to have to answer it, because the enemy is watching and I have a very good chance of winning and I frankly don’t want the enemy to know how I’m thinking.

WALLACE: You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?
TRUMP: In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes.
WALLACE: Understood.
TRUMP: It’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG5RCgTySFw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxujhzt9FTk

...and it goes on. He absolutely could find even more himself.

Tgo01

10-11-2016, 11:38 PM

I'm sorry that you don't know how to use Google.

The old "Google it" answer.

Well I Googled for the answer and Google told me you were wrong. Now what?

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:44 PM

Except you didn't. You said "The Joint Chiefs of Staff" and didn't reveal the context of it to make it look like it fit entirely with your interpretation.

And where did you get your interpretation? Russian media of course.

https://www.rt.com/usa/360317-carter-dunford-syria-russia-senate/

I watched it on CSPAN actually. And how else am I supposed to interpret it when he says pretty bluntly it would require going to war against Syria and Russia.. are you saying there's another way to interpret that?

Androidpk

10-11-2016, 11:56 PM

And now we've gotten to the point where anyone questioning Hillary must be a Russian sympathizer.. McCarthy would be proud of the reckless accusations.

Warriorbird

10-11-2016, 11:58 PM

I watched it on CSPAN actually. And how else am I supposed to interpret it when he says pretty bluntly it would require going to war against Syria and Russia.. are you saying there's another way to interpret that?

You took her claim from October of 2015 for your tactic. You didn't argue from her debate points because... you didn't want to reveal your reliance on RT and Sputnik International?

And now we've gotten to the point where anyone questioning Hillary must be a Russian sympathizer.. McCarthy would be proud of the reckless accusations.

You've bought into a Russian dictator's attempt to influence an American election wholeheartedly. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.

:::

The irony here is I'd be fine with you using real points against Clinton. You've gone with stuff from RedState, Reddit, Russian hackers, and Russian media outlets.

Your current stance is absolutely bending over to the idea of Putin as unstoppable. If we don't actually go to Syria you'll go on about how we're 'weak against Russia.'

Whining and wailing either way.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 12:12 AM

You took her claim from October of 2015 for your tactic. You didn't argue from her debate points because... you didn't want to reveal your reliance on RT and Sputnik International?

You've bought into a Russian dictator's attempt to influence an American election wholeheartedly. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.

Her position hasn't changed one bit. Here are her own words from the most recent debate.

So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones.

Stop being a moron.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 12:16 AM

Her position hasn't changed one bit. Here are her own words from the most recent debate.

Stop being a moron.

So in order to stop directly reading what you got from Putin's PR people you went to the debate itself. Congratulations! Your strings aren't at all being pulled.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 12:19 AM

I watched it on TV just like millions of others. Congratulations on being the dumbest motherfucker in the room tonight!

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 12:23 AM

I watched it on TV just like millions of others. Congratulations on being the dumbest motherfucker in the room tonight!

And then looked back to find out how to use it to further your "mission", read a bunch of Russian PR lines, and spouted out just what Putin wanted you to.

Just like you've done for over a year.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201610011045910777-dunford-hillary-war-syria-russia/

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 12:29 AM

Ayup, General Dunford is a Russian plant. Nice job of insulting the US Military's highest ranking office.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 12:30 AM

Ayup, General Dunford is a Russian plant. Nice job of insulting the US Military's highest ranking office.

Not in the slightest! That's what makes it even better. You're just really good at taking Russian hackers and Russian PR pieces seriously.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 12:34 AM

Not in the slightest! That's what makes it even better. You're just really good at taking Russian hackers and Russian PR pieces seriously.

Typical liberal hating on those serving in the armed forces. Like I said, those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 12:39 AM

Typical liberal hating on those serving in the armed forces. Like I said, those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

And what again are you doing?

What's your actual goal here other than opposition to Clinton?

Do you want the US to give into Russia Obama style? Do you want the US to resist Russia Clinton style?

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 12:43 AM

You've yet to answer my question on Hillary's stance on Syria and Russia but you want me to answer your questions.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 12:52 AM

You've yet to answer my question on Hillary's stance on Syria and Russia but you want me to answer your questions.

I don't think Bush and Obama letting Putin do precisely what he wants has worked out. I see the wisdom to Obama's attempt to get Russia to help us attack our enemies but I think Putin has empowered himself in the process.

I think it takes a lot of guts to suggest we give humanitarian aid to Syrians no matter what we have to do to get there. Brinkmanship has worked in American foreign policy with Russia before. All of Putin's attempts to bring Hillary down have made me support her and the idea more.

I'd personally rather we moved away from the Middle East but I think a bold move would be better than having a candidate who owes much of his livelihood to Russia being their catspaw.

Your turn.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 01:05 AM

So just to clarify you think trying to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria is a good idea?

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 01:09 AM

So just to clarify you think trying to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria is a good idea?

...and we move on to "gotcha!" setup rather than an actual answer from you. Yeah, that was completely pointless. Well trolled. I almost took you seriously for a second.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 01:31 AM

...and we move on to "gotcha!" setup rather than an actual answer from you. Yeah, that was completely pointless. Well trolled. I almost took you seriously for a second.

It isn't a gotcha. My question from the very beginning is what Hillary's supporters think of her idea to enforce a no fly zone. Not sure why you're incapable of answering it.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 01:37 AM

It isn't a gotcha. My question from the very beginning is what Hillary's supporters think of her idea to enforce a no fly zone. Not sure why you're incapable of answering it.

I answered it pretty clearly. I'd personally prefer that America move away from the Middle East but if the choice is between a strong move that stands against Putin (the no fly zone) or our President serving as the unwitting tool of Putin/Russia (Trump) I'd prefer the no fly zone.

"So just to clarify let me frame your answer just one way." is a prime trolling technique.

Now do you have some viewpoint other than "must resist Clinton!"? Do you think Bush and Clinton had the right idea in giving into Putin instead?

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 01:43 AM

You clearly know a lot about trolling techniques for someone that claims to not be a troll.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 01:44 AM

You clearly know a lot about trolling techniques for someone that claims to not be a troll.

When did I claim that? I said I was purposefully making fun of you earlier in this thread.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 01:53 AM

Good to know when you can't offer a simple straight answer you resort to trolling. Might want to brush up on your techniques though, even Wrathbringer does a better job.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 01:55 AM

Good to know when you can't offer a simple straight answer you resort to trolling. Might want to brush up on your techniques though, even Wrathbringer does a better job.

What are you even talking about? I answered your question and now you're completely failing to answer mine. I'm not the one who can't acknowledge what I'm doing.

You have a complete inability to face up to what you do. I don't have that problem.

"Must get Clinton!" "Must support Russia!"

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 02:27 AM

The russians are coming, the russians are coming!

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 02:31 AM

Parkbandit

10-12-2016, 07:27 AM

There is a two man system, hes not just gonna open the football and start launching nukes.

This isn't how it works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1tGCDeOi2o

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA... holy shit, I just watched this last night and sort of rolled my eyes at this scene thinking what type of stupid would be required to believe this is something we need to prevent from happening.

Oh yea.. time4fun

ETA: Warriorbird too now it seems.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 07:49 AM

And yes, after singing and dancing over multiple posts you finally admitted that you support your candidates decision to risk a military confrontation with Russia, despite lambasting Trump and saying he has dangerous foreign policy ideas. That is some very nice cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.

I'd prefer someone who'd stand up against Russia than back down like Bush and Obama.

I'd prefer Bush or Obama because they don't owe Russia money.

macgyver

10-12-2016, 09:20 AM

I'd prefer someone who'd stand up against Russia than back down like Bush and Obama.

I'd prefer Bush or Obama because they don't owe Russia money.

Just give Trump a chance. Seriously, over the hundreds of years of this country's political life we had only a handful of Presidents who came from "outside" and in recent modern history none. Those few that did though were game changing giants. General Eisenhower who created the interstate system and DARPA, George Washington the founding general of the Republic, and Abraham Lincoln (a poor hick outsider who couldn't even afford the train fare to get to Washington after he was elected into the House). Now I'm not saying Trump is going to be 1/100th the greatness as these Presidents were,but will he be better then 40 years in "the game" Hillary. Absolutely. No doubt.

Ashliana

10-12-2016, 09:51 AM

Androidpk's retarded responses to Warriorbird

So your "educated" position is: Standing up to Russia's blatant provocations with US strength (as we have frequently done in NATO states, and frequently do with South Korea in response to North Korean provocations) is "risking a military confrontation." Naturally, by your logic, in response to any aggression by an adversary, we should simply concede.

You've come off as hilariously deluded and misinformed as your candidate is. Which pretty much explains why you're supporting him. And naturally, you had zero response to WB pointing out that even Pence, unlike Trump, actually knows what the typical (bipartisan) response to the aggression of our adversaries is. This is where that "lack of fitness to serve" Clinton threw at Trump comes from.

Similarly, I love how you're minimizing the hostile actions of Russia while Parkbandit, in this very thread, tried to criticize Obama on the notion that Romney was indeed correct, and that Russia somehow is our number one geopolitical rival. Did he say anything to you about it? Nope. Of course not.

I love how the modern-day GOP position has gone from:
"America should be the world's policeman, Russia is the world's #1 threat" to
"We can't do anything that would risk getting in an armed conflict with a much weaker nation, liberals are scary warmongers, Putin's a wonderful, strong leader"

and somehow you've come out thinking you have either a rational (or consistent) position.

Methais

10-12-2016, 10:26 AM

Sorry, most of us are burdened by this thing called common sense and think you're a fucking idiot.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/58145113.jpg

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 10:36 AM

So your "educated" position is: Standing up to Russia's blatant provocations with US strength (as we have frequently done in NATO states, and frequently do with South Korea in response to North Korean provocations) is "risking a military confrontation." Naturally, by your logic, in response to any aggression by an adversary, we should simply concede.

You've come off as hilariously deluded and misinformed as your candidate is. Which pretty much explains why you're supporting him. And naturally, you had zero response to WB pointing out that even Pence, unlike Trump, actually knows what the typical (bipartisan) response to the aggression of our adversaries is. This is where that "lack of fitness to serve" Clinton threw at Trump comes from.

Similarly, I love how you're minimizing the hostile actions of Russia while Parkbandit, in this very thread, tried to criticize Obama on the notion that Romney was indeed correct, and that Russia somehow is our number one geopolitical rival. Did he say anything to you about it? Nope. Of course not.

I love how the modern-day GOP position has gone from:
"America should be the world's policeman, Russia is the world's #1 threat" to
"We can't do anything that would risk getting in an armed conflict with a much weaker nation, liberals are scary warmongers, Putin's a wonderful, strong leader"

and somehow you've come out thinking you have either a rational (or consistent) position.

Yes, my educated position that I share with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is he and the rest of the military and pentagon hilariously deluded and misinformed? Do you know better than them?

And why do you keep saying "your candidate"? I've already told you Trump isn't my candidate and the GOP isn't my party. Try again, but please put some effort into it, thanks.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 10:37 AM

I'd prefer someone who'd stand up against Russia than back down like Bush and Obama.

I'd prefer Bush or Obama because they don't owe Russia money.

Shut up, warmonger.

Wrathbringer

10-12-2016, 11:23 AM

Have you guys considered sloth ownership?

Ashliana

10-12-2016, 11:26 AM

Yes, my educated position that I share with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is he and the rest of the military and pentagon hilariously deluded and misinformed? Do you know better than them?

I can guarantee you, the military's position isn't "cede all ground to Russia, never respond to anything they do" as you're quite delusionally interpreting. You are deluded and misinformed, not the JCS -- you're quite obviously lacking the context surrounding the conversation. Support for a no-fly zone is bipartisan; John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Petraeus (remember him?), Robert Gates, etc., all support the idea. The question is whether or not the US would follow-through and actually shoot down offending planes, and what Syria or Russia would do in response. All our interactions with Russia are a game of chicken -- a game of chicken that has never resulted "in war."

Gen. Dunford's exact words werE: "for us to control all of the airspace in Syria it would require us to go to war, against Syria and Russia." Emphasis mine.

You've interpreted Hillary's support for a NFZ -- a pie-in-the-sky goal -- to be a unilaterally implemented solution, nationwide, the instant she takes office, a caricature and straw man that you're doing precisely so that you can reduce a complex, continuously changing situation into a soundbite you can use to criticize a candidate (or their supporters).

If there was an easy solution to Syria, we would have already implemented it.

And why do you keep saying "your candidate"? I've already told you Trump isn't my candidate and the GOP isn't my party. Try again, but please put some effort into it, thanks.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif

I notice how you entirely sidestepped the jump of the conservative position from "America should be the world's police, we need to re-establish America as the world's sole superpower" to "Cower in a corner from the Almighty Russia, let a much weaker country dictate all global events" in a single election cycle.

And it's just a WEIRD COINCIDENCE that your "analysis" of the situation fits in line perfectly with the spin that Putin's propaganda machine's been putting out.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 11:48 AM

Yes, controlling the air space, which is what a no-fly zone entails, could lead to a direct military conflict with Russia. And I don't know of any conservative position to cower in a corner from Russia so I don't know where you're getting that from.

Methais

10-12-2016, 12:30 PM

I can guarantee you, the military's position isn't "cede all ground to Russia, never respond to anything they do" as you're quite delusionally interpreting. You are deluded and misinformed, not the JCS -- you're quite obviously lacking the context surrounding the conversation. Support for a no-fly zone is bipartisan; John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Petraeus (remember him?), Robert Gates, etc., all support the idea. The question is whether or not the US would follow-through and actually shoot down offending planes, and what Syria or Russia would do in response. All our interactions with Russia are a game of chicken -- a game of chicken that has never resulted "in war."

Gen. Dunford's exact words werE: "for us to control all of the airspace in Syria it would require us to go to war, against Syria and Russia." Emphasis mine.

You've interpreted Hillary's support for a NFZ -- a pie-in-the-sky goal -- to be a unilaterally implemented solution, nationwide, the instant she takes office, a caricature and straw man that you're doing precisely so that you can reduce a complex, continuously changing situation into a soundbite you can use to criticize a candidate (or their supporters).

If there was an easy solution to Syria, we would have already implemented it.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif

I notice how you entirely sidestepped the jump of the conservative position from "America should be the world's police, we need to re-establish America as the world's sole superpower" to "Cower in a corner from the Almighty Russia, let a much weaker country dictate all global events" in a single election cycle.

And it's just a WEIRD COINCIDENCE that your "analysis" of the situation fits in line perfectly with the spin that Putin's propaganda machine's been putting out.

Your always sound so cunty. Like you have an "I'd like to speak to the manager" haircut.

time4fun

10-12-2016, 12:48 PM

Two fun developments yesterday :

1) Russia filed a complaint against a UN official yesterday (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/russia-donald-trump-united-nations-protest/) for using anti-Trump language. Yeah, take that one in for a second. They are VERY actively trying to get him elected.

2) Politico got a group of people who did biographies of Trump (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-biographers-214350) in the past (and who had access to him, his family, his colleagues, etc) and asked them what they thought about his recent behavior.

He was repeatedly referred to as predatory, dangerous, and aggressive. Here are some highlights from the biographers:

D’Antonio: I didn’t come up with anything that anyone would go on the record. I did interview women who confirmed some pretty aggressive, if not violent—actually, I considered it violent sexual behavior—but no one will go on the record with this.

Glasser: In many ways, a lot of what Trump has done has been sort of predictable, at least very consistent with his personality and with his past, as you all have documented it. But what has gone on in the last few months since we had our initial conversation, that has actually surprised you about Trump? Michael has posited that the fact that Trump has actually held it together this long, that we’re having the implosion now in October of 2016, might be the surprise.

Barrett: The parallels between the period of time leading up to his downfall in 1990 and the campaign now are striking. And what he did last night in standing up in this moment of crisis and being a victim—he thought of himself as a victim in the downfall of 1990 and playing the victim card and being as angry at others as he was in the ’90s in the way in which he dealt with the bankers. It was very strikingly similar to that period of time. But when you’ve dealt with the bankers in 1990, you could figure out a way where both of you came out with something and lost something. But in this case, there’s going to be a winner and a loser. And so there’s some similarities, but ultimately, he’s going to be a loser. He managed to survive in almost an unbelievable way when his empire collapsed, but managed to survive with the aid of the bankers. But this time, it’s going to be a straight‑out loss on the biggest stage he’s ever been on, and how he handles that—I don’t think we’ve got any precedent for that.

It's time to admit that this is a scary man and a scary moment that needs to be dealt with

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 12:57 PM

Has Trump been indicted for anything scary?

macgyver

10-12-2016, 12:59 PM

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 01:02 PM

He's going to win. These pollsters are contacting likely voters and are not truly representative of the people who are going to come out for Trump on election night. There's going to be people who've never voted in their lives come out for Trump and coupled with (at least parts of) the Republican base; he'll get over the 270 mark.

It's too bad the liberals insisted on pushing their toxic candidate into the nomination. Sanders would have mopped the floor with Trump and we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

Ashliana

10-12-2016, 01:27 PM

Your always sound so cunty. Like you have an "I'd like to speak to the manager" haircut.

:rofl:

I'd rather sound "cunty" than the flippant jackassery you've so carefully cultivated. It's as an inevitable consequence of dealing with people who are allergic to facts and go into a heehawing circlejerk about their evidence-free position du jour.

Yes, controlling the air space, which is what a no-fly zone entails, could lead to a direct military conflict with Russia.

You do realize there are percentages of Syria less than the 100% that Dunford referred to as likely leading to war? Either you didn't read what I wrote, or your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

And I don't know of any conservative position to cower in a corner from Russia so I don't know where you're getting that from.

First, Trump's been serving up apologia for Putin and Russia for months. Second, your repeated earlier insistence that pursuing any American interests in Syria are tantamount to inevitable war. Moronic statements like: "you support your candidates decision to risk a military confrontation with Russia." The entire cold war was a non-stop series of us "risking a military confrontation with Russia."

US involvement in Syria isn't a 0 / 100 "we do nothing and preserve peace, or establish a unilateral, 100% NFZ over Syria and declare war on Russia" false dichotomy like you've delusionally created for yourself. You're either arguing in totally bad faith, or are mind-bogglingly ignorant.

It's too bad the liberals insisted on pushing their toxic candidate into the nomination. Sanders would have mopped the floor with Trump and we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

It's hard to believe that you liked Bernie but miraculously hate Clinton--and somehow think she's worse than Trump, despite his positions being much further away from Bernie's than Clinton's.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 01:43 PM

As I said in another thread, hilarious to see that the liberals have come full circle, from hating on Bush during his tenure to joining the warmongering neocons with open arms.

Ashliana

10-12-2016, 01:49 PM

You want to see things in black and white either out of cynical political expedience, or you've got the established, reflexive conservative distaste (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html) for ambiguity.

There are options between isolationism and warmongering. You're addicted to false dichotomies and, more importantly, once again skipped the glaring issue that comes with you claiming to like Bernie while simultaneously decrying the candidate who's far closer to Bernie than Trump.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 02:05 PM

Last time I checked Bernie wasn't a warmonger.

Parkbandit

10-12-2016, 02:08 PM

He's going to win. These pollsters are contacting likely voters and are not truly representative of the people who are going to come out for Trump on election night. There's going to be people who've never voted in their lives come out for Trump and coupled with (at least parts of) the Republican base; he'll get over the 270 mark.

I thought the same way, but with the latest polls, it's not looking likely.

Methais

10-12-2016, 02:14 PM

:rofl:

I'd rather sound "cunty" than the flippant jackassery you've so carefully cultivated. It's as an inevitable consequence of dealing with people who are allergic to facts and go into a heehawing circlejerk about their evidence-free position du jour.

You do realize there are percentages of Syria less than the 100% that Dunford referred to as likely leading to war? Either you didn't read what I wrote, or your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

First, Trump's been serving up apologia for Putin and Russia for months. Second, your repeated earlier insistence that pursuing any American interests in Syria are tantamount to inevitable war. Moronic statements like: "you support your candidates decision to risk a military confrontation with Russia." The entire cold war was a non-stop series of us "risking a military confrontation with Russia."

US involvement in Syria isn't a 0 / 100 "we do nothing and preserve peace, or establish a unilateral, 100% NFZ over Syria and declare war on Russia" false dichotomy like you've delusionally created for yourself. You're either arguing in totally bad faith, or are mind-bogglingly ignorant.

It's hard to believe that you liked Bernie but miraculously hate Clinton--and somehow think she's worse than Trump, despite his positions being much further away from Bernie's than Clinton's.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/018/181/managerhaircut.jpg

Parkbandit

10-12-2016, 02:25 PM

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/018/181/managerhaircut.jpg

That would be a dream come true.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 02:30 PM

Must drive you liberals mad knowing there are so many democrats voting for Stein instead of Hillary.

Ashliana

10-12-2016, 02:38 PM

Last time I checked Bernie wasn't a warmonger.

We've established that you don't really know what actions will or won't lead to war, and that you don't really care about progressive ideals.

Must drive you liberals mad knowing there are so many democrats voting for Stein instead of Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

The conservatives have already lost this election -- and a whole bunch of Republicans are going down in flames with Trump. In hilarious, oh-so-deserved flames. It's time you come to terms with reality.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 02:46 PM

I'm not interested in the Republican party and I'm not interested in your distorted reality. And yes, I do care about progressive values. Try harder, troll.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 02:49 PM

"How dare you vote 3rd party instead of Hillary!"

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062010/1275905143_raging-midget.gif

Ashliana

10-12-2016, 02:49 PM

Enjoy throwing your vote away.

Methais

10-12-2016, 03:07 PM

Enjoy throwing your vote away.

If Hillary's going to win in such a landslide like you say, then his vote shouldn't matter enough to be considered thrown away.

If everyone "threw their vote away" then that would mean nobody threw their vote away.

Candor

10-12-2016, 03:07 PM

Enjoy throwing your vote away.

Speaking for myself, I will vote for who I think is the best candidate. If that's a third party candidate, then fine. Voting for a person who I think is not the best candidate would be throwing my vote away. If you believe otherwise, that's your problem, not mine.

Ashliana

10-12-2016, 03:13 PM

You're allowed to have a different philosophy than mine. If you, Candor, want to vote for whomever the best candidate is -- with no regard to how likely it is they'll be elected -- that's your prerogative. If my realistic choices are:

A) the status quo with some eventual small improvements
B) a total shitshow with a loose cannon at the helm

It's pretty obvious who I'm going to vote for. But then again, I live in a swing state where my vote matters. If I lived in, say, California or Texas, maybe I'd vote for a third party candidate.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 03:56 PM

Maybe if you had some shred of proof that Hillary would offer some "eventual (lol) small improvements" I might concede.

I'm in a swing state too and I can't wait to cast my vote for 3rd party.

Archigeek

10-12-2016, 07:11 PM

Parkbandit

10-12-2016, 07:19 PM

News organizations trying to keep things sounding close. The truth is that the Libertarian party is drawing more voters than the Green party. I think it's pretty obvious that most Libertarian 3rd party voters are coming from the Republican side, while Green party voters are coming from the Democratic side, and the Libertarian party is garnering far more votes than the Green party. Trump is losing a lot more voters to 3rd party candidates than Clinton is.

Or.. it means Stein is a fucking lunatic and makes Johnson look almost normal?

Neveragain

10-12-2016, 07:38 PM

Enjoy throwing your vote away.

The monkeys are getting mad that another monkey found his way out of the cage.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 07:41 PM

time4fun

10-12-2016, 07:45 PM

Why not both?

They're both fucking lunatics, agreed.

Wrathbringer

10-12-2016, 07:48 PM

The monkeys are getting mad that another monkey found his way out of the cage.

this

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 07:52 PM

There isn't a single sane candidate left.

drauz

10-12-2016, 07:55 PM

"How dare you vote 3rd party instead of Hillary!"

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062010/1275905143_raging-midget.gif

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_ could_start_a_nuclear_war.html

Neveragain

10-12-2016, 07:59 PM

We've established that you don't really know what actions will or won't lead to war, and that you don't really care about progressive ideals.

Can you list what these regressive ideals are?

drauz

10-12-2016, 08:03 PM

Can you list what these regressive ideals are?

You doing better Pirate?

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 08:05 PM

You doing better Pirate?

:lol:

crb

10-12-2016, 08:14 PM

News organizations trying to keep things sounding close. The truth is that the Libertarian party is drawing more voters than the Green party. I think it's pretty obvious that most Libertarian 3rd party voters are coming from the Republican side, while Green party voters are coming from the Democratic side, and the Libertarian party is garnering far more votes than the Green party. Trump is losing a lot more voters to 3rd party candidates than Clinton is.

Actually, most of the smart statistics types (538, etc), have indicated that Gary Johnson pulls more from the left (probably Bernie types) than from the right. After recent events I expect his pull from the right to catch up.

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 08:17 PM

Actually, most of the smart statistics types (538, etc), have indicated that Gary Johnson pulls more from the left (probably Bernie types) than from the right. After recent events I expect his pull from the right to catch up.

I'd love to see the associated links.

Neveragain

10-12-2016, 08:22 PM

You doing better Pirate?

I was always fine, even better after receiving an e-mail that blamed me for the actions of characters I never played or even heard of. Meh, cucks will be cucks. You know, the same cucks that blame the PC for chasing off players?

Taernath

10-12-2016, 08:33 PM

I was always fine, even better after receiving an e-mail that blamed me for the actions of characters I never played or even heard of. Meh, cucks will be cucks. You know, the same cucks that blame the PC for chasing off players?

So triggered.

drauz

10-12-2016, 08:33 PM

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 08:38 PM

So triggered.

Aren't the cucks the ones that get triggered?

Taernath

10-12-2016, 09:01 PM

Aren't the cucks the ones that get triggered?

I think that's SJWs. You think Cuckmaster5000 is a closet SJW?

Warriorbird

10-12-2016, 09:02 PM

I think that's SJWs. You think Cuckmaster5000 is a closet SJW?

I just thought he liked being cuckolded?

Neveragain

10-12-2016, 09:08 PM

You should make a post about it! Share the injustice!

I think I did that, I believe that gained me membership to the GS axis of evil. ::ponders:: I kind of like that.

Taernath

10-12-2016, 09:09 PM

I just thought he liked being cuckolded?

I dont think by definition he can be. A while ago he said he was a one of those Men Going Their Own Way, and you need to have not sworn off women in order to live with a bunch of dudes in the woods to be cuckolded.

Neveragain

10-12-2016, 09:11 PM

Aren't the cucks the ones that get triggered?

I think you have me confused for the people that e-mail a GM when people don't play a nice guy. Kind of like the ones that grabbed Wyrom by the pussy and dragged him to the PC.

Androidpk

10-12-2016, 09:22 PM

I think I did that, I believe that gained me membership to the GS axis of evil. ::ponders:: I kind of like that.

More like the axis of cowardly morons.

Neveragain

10-12-2016, 09:30 PM

More like the axis of cowardly morons.

With your history, I take that as a compliment.

Androidpk

10-13-2016, 12:19 PM

Any liberal outrage over a protester getting beat up by Hillarists at a rally?

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-campaign-losing-patience-bill-rape-protesters/

Whirlin

10-13-2016, 12:29 PM

Any liberal outrage over a protester getting beat up by Hillarists at a rally?

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-campaign-losing-patience-bill-rape-protesters/
Thus bring the score of protesters getting beat up at rallies to 50000 for Trump and 1 for Clinton.

Taernath

10-13-2016, 12:37 PM

Any liberal outrage over a protester getting beat up by Hillarists at a rally?

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-campaign-losing-patience-bill-rape-protesters/

Not really, but I'm not outraged at the guys who get beat up at Trump rallies either. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Androidpk

10-13-2016, 12:41 PM

Thus bring the score of protesters getting beat up at rallies to 50000 for Trump and 1 for Clinton.

I think those numbers are off by just a little bit.

Androidpk

10-13-2016, 12:47 PM

Not really, but I'm not outraged at the guys who get beat up at Trump rallies either. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You'll be outraged and like it!

Latrinsorm

10-13-2016, 08:21 PM

It's a barometer for which way other swing states will go and to be brutally honest the race is so tight that Trump needs every state he can get. NC, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Colorado are all mandatory for him to pull this off. And to throw my two cents in, the electoral state system is stupid. It's always the same handful of states that effectively decides who becomes President. I wish they would just go by straight up popular vote regardless of where you live; it put's so much more importance to an individual vote.It has been the same states recently, but the demographics are shifting. For example Virginia and Florida are moving towards solid blue, while Ohio is moving towards solid red. And if there's another realignment a la 1968, all bets are off. The obvious possibility there that people have been talking about for decades is the Republican Party embracing Hispanics, but this would require liberalization pretty much across the board (except abortion): gun control, LGBT rights, death penalty, path to citizenship are all areas where Hispanics overall are centrist if not outright leftist. We don't have to go all the way to the Democrats, but can we go far enough without deterring turnout from the right? I think so, and if we actually became the party of limited government instead of just talking about it we could get the economic conservative social liberal bloc we all hear so much about too.

Everyone has seen the end of the line coming for the Southern Strategy and its descendants. I don't think anyone saw it flaming out so spectacularly, but maybe that's what it'll take to realign.
He's going to win. These pollsters are contacting likely voters and are not truly representative of the people who are going to come out for Trump on election night. There's going to be people who've never voted in their lives come out for Trump and coupled with (at least parts of) the Republican base; he'll get over the 270 mark.Tgo01's buddy Nate Silver wrote a pretty neat piece about this (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/). His argument is that if non voters were being energized by Trump, we would see relatively higher voter registration from the demographics that support him, but there is no such registration gap. This reduces the pool of missing Trump voters from those not registered to vote to those who are and just don't vote often, who are only 30% the size of the first group. It's also worth noting that the Hispanic voter eligible population in history has far lower turnout than the white, and Trump's behavior could just as easily energize those non voters to register and vote against him.
It isn't about picking who will win, it's about going with a 3rd party to show the R's and D's that we won't tolerate bullshit candidates.I asked this in another thread, but why would they care? There have been plenty of third parties since the dawn of this two party system, including ones that were wildly more successful than any third party candidate will be this year. When specifically did those third party votes effect change in the other parties?