Donald Trump Thread aka End of Days

[NightWolve]

We'll see what Assange claims to have on Clinton in the near future and I'm willing to bet a healthy % of those condemning Trump's tweet supported what Julian Assange has done (such as with his top leaker, the infamous Edward Snowden) or will do (which endorses all the illegal hacking/espionage/seditious actions by those who sent him classified information or whatever).

Julian Assange: Wikileaks to Release 'A Lot More' on Hillary Clinton
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/27/julian-assange-wikileaks-release-lot-hilary-clinton/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/politics/julian-assange-dnc-email-leak-hack/


As for Trump's quote & tweet, best to read that instead of the news press' distorted characterization of it.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/758335147183788032

(1) Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. (2) If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!

BBC "claims" those comments "encourage" a future hack by Russia when those email servers were long ago taken down, handed over to the FBI for examination post-deletion by Hillary "You-f*cking-Jew-bastard!" Clinton's "crew..." I think it's fair to call that characterization a distortion.

He's going by reports that believe these email servers were illegally accessed by outsider(s) and had content retrieved from them, and if so, to turn those emails over to the FBI. While it could be interesting and lead to changes to prevent things like this in the future, it'd be illegally obtained evidence and becomes objective endorsement of the past activity.

So, if the servers were already hacked by a person, by Russia, by China or whoever, and the information exists somewhere, should it be sent to the FBI given that Clinton's "clean-up crew" deleted what they wanted before turning them over ?? Is your opposition that this question should not be explored publicly, and kept private or just because it's Trump ??


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/756804886038192128

Leaked e-mails of DNC show plans to destroy Bernie Sanders. Mock his heritage and much more. On-line from Wikileakes, really vicious. RIGGED

By talking about WikiLeaks, reporting what those hacked emails show how the DNC worked against Bernie Sanders for example, I agree there's a level of objective endorsement of the illegal methods it relies on (which applies to the news press as well as anybody else that refers to such reports), but to what exactly is your opposition/criticism here would be my question ?

[spenoza]

If we can survive two Bushes, we can survive Trump. I'm not too worried either way.

I'm a white male, I have nothing to fear from Trump OR Clinton. But the LGBT people I know? They have something to fear from Trump. And people of color, and Muslims, and other minority groups as well, potentially.  Those are the folks I'm worried about. I'm not worried for me. I'm worried for them.

[NightWolve]

The tweet was damage control after the fact.

OK, I read the article again, (edited my previous post accordingly) so it started with a quote "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" plus the tweet, and BBC is forwarding Clinton's distorted characterization (and hiding behind it) that this is to encourage a future hack, but the point still stands objectively, those email servers were long ago disconnected and handed over to the FBI as evidence... However, if they were hacked during their years of service to Clinton, and some of her deleted emails still exist somewhere by whoever did the hacking, yeah, he's encouraging the release of that info to the FBI in a "might as well" fashion as else otherwise her deleted emails would be lost forever, so what further laws she broke and whatever was done/said will never be known, etc.

Clinton has been a failure or mediocre in all her years of government service, and her extraordinary set-up of private email servers shows a high level of incompetence beyond the propensity for secrecy... All she had to do was sit there for a few years and add "secretary of state" to her resume, collect her paycheck at taxpayer expense, sit quiet for the most part, pretend she's doing "great work" for the American people now and then, but she botched even that...

[ToyMachine78]

Saying her use of private email servers is incompetence is naive. The Clintons are very smart and manipulative people.

I believe the use of private servers was to conceal the YUGE conflict of interest and inside deals she was making as head of the state dept and the Clinton foundation.

Bottom line is that bitch is crooked as hell, and the Clintons have been surrounded by scandal forever. She must not be President.

[NightWolve]

If we can survive two Bushes, we can survive Trump. I'm not too worried either way.

I'm a white male, I have nothing to fear from Trump OR Clinton. But the LGBT people I know? They have something to fear from Trump. And people of color, and Muslims, and other minority groups as well, potentially.  Those are the folks I'm worried about. I'm not worried for me. I'm worried for them.

I think LGBT people have something to fear from Hillary "You-f*cking-Jew-bastard!" Clinton and the democrats' policies of (1) if you like your overpopulation, you get to keep your overpopulation, keep 'em coming, keep 'em coming, keep 'em coming, that is, perpetual immigration including from Muhammadan lands of the Middle East given their blind lust for power and need to fill democrat voter registration rolls (we're still a bit overpopulated by republican voters, so...), and (2) gun-control, making sure that all 49-50 patrons/people who were executed or shot by the Muhammadan son of Afghanistan immigrants at the Pulse night club in Florida be unarmed, unable to carry any firearms under the generalization that if a gay guy tried to shoot back at the terrorist, he just would've shot another gay guy, and we can't have a Wild West situation, only politicians should get to have armed-guards, beyond that, the rest of you should just be limited to "calling the police" when there's trouble (it's for your own good!), etc.

How about holding immigration from at least Saudi Arabia (you know, where most of the 9/11 terrorists were imported from) hostage until they abolish the death penalty for same-sex couples or atheists ? Can we get any bipartisan support on that ?? Or would that be asking too much for our supposed Muhammadan "friends" over there ? Nope, guess we can't... Nevermind.

[ToyMachine78]

If we can survive two Bushes, we can survive Trump. I'm not too worried either way.

I'm a white male, I have nothing to fear from Trump OR Clinton. But the LGBT people I know? They have something to fear from Trump. And people of color, and Muslims, and other minority groups as well, potentially.  Those are the folks I'm worried about. I'm not worried for me. I'm worried for them.

I think LGBT people have something to fear from Hillary "You-f*cking-Jew-bastard!" Clinton and the democrats' policies of (1) if you like your overpopulation, you get to keep your overpopulation, keep 'em coming, keep 'em coming, keep 'em coming, that is, perpetual immigration including from Muhammadan lands of the Middle East given their blind lust for power and need to fill democrat voter registration rolls (we're still a bit overpopulated by republican voters, so...), and (2) gun-control, making sure that all 49-50 patrons/people who were executed or shot by the Muhammadan son of Afghanistan immigrants at the Pulse night club in Florida be unarmed, unable to carry any firearms under the generalization that if a gay guy tried to shoot back at the terrorist, he just would've shot another gay guy, and we can't have a Wild West situation, only politicians should get to have armed-guards, beyond that, the rest of you should just be limited to "calling the police" when there's trouble (it's for your own good!), etc.

How about holding immigration from at least Saudi Arabia (you know, where most of the 9/11 terrorists were imported from) hostage until they abolish the death penalty for same-sex couples or atheists ? Can we get any bipartisan support on that ?? Or would that be asking too much for our supposed Muhammadan "friends" over there ? Nope, guess we can't... Nevermind.

I concur. Eveyone has something to be afraid of if Hillary moves forward with Obama's Syrian Refugee plan. Western Europe is regretting that shit!

[NightWolve]

Speak of the devil with WikiLeaks just now! So it's official that the DNC's voicemail system was hacked. Heh.

On the night President Obama and Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine were scheduled to speak to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the anti-secrecy whistle-blower group released hacked voicemails of top Democratic officials.
Wikileaks put up a page containing 29 mp3 files of calls, identified by phone number, running approximately 14 minutes combined.
None of the messages listened to by The Washington Times contained anything immediately obvious as embarrassing or incriminating.
However, the very fact the DNC voicemail system has been hacked is embarrassing and could augur the release of far more damaging material later.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/wikileaks-pushes-leaked-dnc-voicemails-226344
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/27/wikileaks-releases-hacked-dnc-voicemails/

[spenoza]

Wow, there is some deep, deep rabbit hole conspiracy lovin' in here. Scary stuff.

[NightWolve]

Billary for president!

Hell of a twitch or whatever that was! 

[NightWolve]

So hard right now

I would've posted this in the Random thread, but continuing on your theme... ;) So in a rare, VERY RARE, public, affectionate display of bipartisanship, THIS happened:

[DeshDildo]

Billary for president!

Hell of a twitch or whatever that was! 

I'm thinking if Hillary opened her mouth like that more often there wouldn't have been nearly as many scandals in Bill's past.

[jperryss]

Hell of a twitch or whatever that was! 

Acid kicked in.

[Emerald Rocker]

If we can survive two Bushes, we can survive Trump. I'm not too worried either way.

I'm a white male, I have nothing to fear from Trump OR Clinton. But the LGBT people I know? They have something to fear from Trump. And people of color, and Muslims, and other minority groups as well, potentially.  Those are the folks I'm worried about. I'm not worried for me. I'm worried for them.

LGBT - Trump specifically said that he wants to protect LGBTQ citizens from foreign ideologies that seek to kill them.  When GOP delegates applauded, Trump off-the-cuff thanked them for applauding that.  He has also said that gay marriage is "the law of the land" and on the Apprentice, he certainly seemed comfortable dealing with gay people.  So I really don't know why LGBT people have something to fear from Trump.  If the fear is simply because he represents the Republican party, consider this:
Hillary Clinton will never convince diehard Republicans to change their views of gay people.  She is the enemy.  The only person in this election cycle who can influence Republican minds is Trump -- and he is by far the most pro-LGBT Republican who has ever run for this office.

People of color - Trump wants to reduce inner-city crime (which is on the rise over the last two years, not on the decline) and provide education choice.  He also wants to stop illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts people of color.  I don't know why they would fear Trump.  If anything, they should fear Hillary.  She is operating under the assumption that crime is down, she thinks Americans have never had it so good, and she has close ties to the teachers' unions that oppose education choice (her personal view is hard to discern, which I interpret as not really having one).  Hillary also wants to increase the number of low-education workers in the country via immigration/refugees/maybe-amnesty, which again, disproportionately hurts people of color.  And look at cities that have had multiple generations of Democrat mayors: Detroit (poverty) and Chicago (crime).  Long-term Democrat influence has not been beneficial to people of color.

Muslims - I understand why they would fear Trump.  That being said, he has softened his view to instead look at the specific countries that people are coming from.  However, muslims still fear how they will be viewed by Americans-at-large.  That being said, Americans will continue to be suspicious of muslims as long as ISIS is around, no matter who is president.  So really the question is: who will do a better job at containing/stopping ISIS?

[DildoKKKobold]

Actually, its pretty sad if she has epilepsy. I dislike Hillary immensely, but I wouldn't wish epilepsy on anyone, even my worst enemy.

Interestingly, some historians also believed Julius Caesar had epilepsy.

[esteban]

If we can survive two Bushes, we can survive Trump. I'm not too worried either way.

I'm a white male, I have nothing to fear from Trump OR Clinton. But the LGBT people I know? They have something to fear from Trump. And people of color, and Muslims, and other minority groups as well, potentially.  Those are the folks I'm worried about. I'm not worried for me. I'm worried for them.

LGBT - Trump specifically said that he wants to protect LGBTQ citizens from foreign ideologies that seek to kill them.  When GOP delegates applauded, Trump off-the-cuff thanked them for applauding that.  He has also said that gay marriage is "the law of the land" and on the Apprentice, he certainly seemed comfortable dealing with gay people.  So I really don't know why LGBT people have something to fear from Trump.  If the fear is simply because he represents the Republican party, consider this:
Hillary Clinton will never convince diehard Republicans to change their views of gay people.  She is the enemy.  The only person in this election cycle who can influence Republican minds is Trump -- and he is by far the most pro-LGBT Republican who has ever run for this office.

People of color - Trump wants to reduce inner-city crime (which is on the rise over the last two years, not on the decline) and provide education choice.  He also wants to stop illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts people of color.  I don't know why they would fear Trump.  If anything, they should fear Hillary.  She is operating under the assumption that crime is down, she thinks Americans have never had it so good, and she has close ties to the teachers' unions that oppose education choice (her personal view is hard to discern, which I interpret as not really having one).  Hillary also wants to increase the number of low-education workers in the country via immigration/refugees/maybe-amnesty, which again, disproportionately hurts people of color.  And look at cities that have had multiple generations of Democrat mayors: Detroit (poverty) and Chicago (crime).  Long-term Democrat influence has not been beneficial to people of color.

Muslims - I understand why they would fear Trump.  That being said, he has softened his view to instead look at the specific countries that people are coming from.  However, muslims still fear how they will be viewed by Americans-at-large.  That being said, Americans will continue to be suspicious of muslims as long as ISIS is around, no matter who is president.  So really the question is: who will do a better job at containing/stopping ISIS?

Trolling at its finest.

Go back to sleep.

[ToyMachine78]

If we can survive two Bushes, we can survive Trump. I'm not too worried either way.

I'm a white male, I have nothing to fear from Trump OR Clinton. But the LGBT people I know? They have something to fear from Trump. And people of color, and Muslims, and other minority groups as well, potentially.  Those are the folks I'm worried about. I'm not worried for me. I'm worried for them.

LGBT - Trump specifically said that he wants to protect LGBTQ citizens from foreign ideologies that seek to kill them.  When GOP delegates applauded, Trump off-the-cuff thanked them for applauding that.  He has also said that gay marriage is "the law of the land" and on the Apprentice, he certainly seemed comfortable dealing with gay people.  So I really don't know why LGBT people have something to fear from Trump.  If the fear is simply because he represents the Republican party, consider this:
Hillary Clinton will never convince diehard Republicans to change their views of gay people.  She is the enemy.  The only person in this election cycle who can influence Republican minds is Trump -- and he is by far the most pro-LGBT Republican who has ever run for this office.

People of color - Trump wants to reduce inner-city crime (which is on the rise over the last two years, not on the decline) and provide education choice.  He also wants to stop illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts people of color.  I don't know why they would fear Trump.  If anything, they should fear Hillary.  She is operating under the assumption that crime is down, she thinks Americans have never had it so good, and she has close ties to the teachers' unions that oppose education choice (her personal view is hard to discern, which I interpret as not really having one).  Hillary also wants to increase the number of low-education workers in the country via immigration/refugees/maybe-amnesty, which again, disproportionately hurts people of color.  And look at cities that have had multiple generations of Democrat mayors: Detroit (poverty) and Chicago (crime).  Long-term Democrat influence has not been beneficial to people of color.

Muslims - I understand why they would fear Trump.  That being said, he has softened his view to instead look at the specific countries that people are coming from.  However, muslims still fear how they will be viewed by Americans-at-large.  That being said, Americans will continue to be suspicious of muslims as long as ISIS is around, no matter who is president.  So really the question is: who will do a better job at containing/stopping ISIS?

Trolling at its finest.

Go back to sleep.

/46faa8632649169486f107b87a187846.jpg

[Emerald Rocker]

I'm a white male, I have nothing to fear from Trump OR Clinton. But the LGBT people I know? They have something to fear from Trump. And people of color, and Muslims, and other minority groups as well, potentially.  Those are the folks I'm worried about. I'm not worried for me. I'm worried for them.

LGBT - Trump specifically said that he wants to protect LGBTQ citizens from foreign ideologies that seek to kill them.  When GOP delegates applauded, Trump off-the-cuff thanked them for applauding that.  He has also said that gay marriage is "the law of the land" and on the Apprentice, he certainly seemed comfortable dealing with gay people.  So I really don't know why LGBT people have something to fear from Trump.  If the fear is simply because he represents the Republican party, consider this:
Hillary Clinton will never convince diehard Republicans to change their views of gay people.  She is the enemy.  The only person in this election cycle who can influence Republican minds is Trump -- and he is by far the most pro-LGBT Republican who has ever run for this office.

People of color - Trump wants to reduce inner-city crime (which is on the rise over the last two years, not on the decline) and provide education choice.  He also wants to stop illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts people of color.  I don't know why they would fear Trump.  If anything, they should fear Hillary.  She is operating under the assumption that crime is down, she thinks Americans have never had it so good, and she has close ties to the teachers' unions that oppose education choice (her personal view is hard to discern, which I interpret as not really having one).  Hillary also wants to increase the number of low-education workers in the country via immigration/refugees/maybe-amnesty, which again, disproportionately hurts people of color.  And look at cities that have had multiple generations of Democrat mayors: Detroit (poverty) and Chicago (crime).  Long-term Democrat influence has not been beneficial to people of color.

Muslims - I understand why they would fear Trump.  That being said, he has softened his view to instead look at the specific countries that people are coming from.  However, muslims still fear how they will be viewed by Americans-at-large.  That being said, Americans will continue to be suspicious of muslims as long as ISIS is around, no matter who is president.  So really the question is: who will do a better job at containing/stopping ISIS?

Trolling at its finest.

Go back to sleep.

I see that you have no real response.  Your inability to counter reinforces my belief that I am right.  Thanks for the affirmation.

[Emerald Rocker]

I agree with Emerald Rocker... Except for stuff re: Mexican rapists, middle easterners, abortion

Thank you for agreeing with me about LGBT and people of color.  I'd like to address the new points that you bring up.

re: Mexican rapists building their own wall -- Donald Trump wants the failed country of Mexico to build the wall.  Whether rapists build it or whether honest citizens build it, I don't think he cares.  He just wants something in place to protect American citizens from (1) the violence spilling over the border from Mexico and (2) the hard drugs that are crossing the border and making their way all the way up to New Hampshire.  If the Mexican government were actually able to defend its own citizens from the drug cartels, then you wouldn't hear him calling for a wall because it wouldn't be needed.  Talk to people in Mexico -- they hate Trump in one breath, and confirm that he's right in the next.  Bodies are dumped in broad daylight, buses are pulled over by cartels (passengers robbed or raped), muggings and home invasions are rampant, and Mexicans who try to stand up to corruption are assassinated in grisly fashion (their bodies are put on display).  One town actually decided to kick out its entire police force -- because they knew the police are corrupt.  If Mexico were a middle-eastern country, then Obama and Hillary Clinton would totally be in favor of regime change.  But since it's our neighbor and there are political points to be earned, I guess they aren't interested.

re: Muslims -- I already addressed that one, but I'll add a bit more.  No one (other than you) has said that people must carry an ID to prove they aren't muslims.  I do understand why muslims fear Trump.  His actual ideas on this subject are controversial enough.  People like you spreading false stories doesn't help.

re: abortion -- Donald Trump's stance (when asked the hypothetical question "if abortion were criminalized, should women be punished?") was the logical, common-sense extension of conservative anti-abortion policy.  That was his mistake -- he tried to apply common sense to political beliefs.  Everyone proceeded to tell him that he was wrong (even though he was right, if you believe the pro-life rhetoric).  Trump changed his position, which proves that he can listen and take advice.  He then proceeded to try and *soften* the official Republican position on abortion by making exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.  The Republican party rejected this change, even though most Republican voters agree with it.

[TheClash603]

Trump's tax plan is where he loses me.  I have read about 10 independent studies which state it will do damage to our economy.  Reagan was a disaster in this regard, Trump will be worse.  You cannot collect less revenue and expect for stuff to be magically paid for.  Look at California that went from deficit under Republican leadership to large surplus under Democrat leadership.  It is just common sense, ask for money, be able to pay for more stuff...  it pains me that relatively smart people have been tricked to believe this is fake.  I predict Emerald Rocker will have some point to prove cutting taxes makes long term sense, and I predict that it will be one of the many points I have heard before and has been proven incorrect via not only study, but also in practice (ie - California).

The abortion thing is my second strong point of contention.

If Trump's tax plan wasn't abysmal, I would vote for the guy because I think I like him more than Hillary is most places.  However, his tax plan is such a bad idea, it overshadows everything else which is good about him or bad about Hillary.

[Emerald Rocker]

You cannot collect less revenue and expect for stuff to be magically paid for.  Look at California that went from deficit under Republican leadership to large surplus under Democrat leadership.  It is just common sense, ask for money, be able to pay for more stuff...

In California, Jerry Brown deserves a lot of credit.  Many businesses had left California already, so he managed to squeeze a surplus out of an already-weakened state.  He didn't just raise taxes -- he also significantly cut budget, including cuts to welfare and state medical programs.  To stay within budget, he needs to make sure businesses stay in California.  The $15 minimum wage passed in California earlier this year is going to hurt.  To Brown's credit, he knew that.  To his discredit, he signed off on it anyway.  That will probably turn out to be tough for his successor.

But to your point, tax percentage is one piece of an equation.  There are multiple ways to reach a productive result, and most states are able to stay within their budget.  California under Jerry Brown is one example.  Texas (no state income tax) is another example, as is New Hampshire (no state income tax, no sales tax).  And then there's Illinois, which went from surplus under Republican leadership to a deficit under Democrat leadership.  They raised taxes and still fell deeper into debt.  So we have examples that go both ways.

I'm not going to say that Trump's tax plan will work.  I don't know if it will work.  But I do trust him to try and turn things around if he sees it not working.  That's what CEOs do.

[NightWolve]

Actually, its pretty sad if she has epilepsy. I dislike Hillary immensely, but I wouldn't wish epilepsy on anyone, even my worst enemy.

Was it, or was she trying to be funny in an awkward "Hey, OMG you surprised me! Ease up, ease up!!" kinda way ? That seems possible too, but very weird. She also might've been a little "tipsy" after a few drinks, I dunno. Heh.

Reagan was a disaster in this regard, Trump will be worse.  You cannot collect less revenue and expect for stuff to be magically paid for.  Look at California that went from deficit under Republican leadership to large surplus under Democrat leadership.  It is just common sense, ask for money, be able to pay for more stuff...

Reagan had to work with a democrat-run House on budgets during his terms in office. A budget bill has to begin in the House per its power of the purse, and democrats controlled the House for all 8 years of his presidency, republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years, and in his final 2 years as president, democrats regained full control of Congress which is when most of the gridlock kicked in.

Now the House has to work at some level with the president or face his veto unless enough majorities exist to override it. The significant top tax rate reductions from ~70% to ~30% which he is known for occurred in his first term when republicans won the Senate, the first time they gained a majority in a branch of Congress since 1953. He wanted to push back against big government-spending, liberate the private sector/economy from oppressive ultra-high taxation rates, challenge the Soviet Communist Union with the additional goal of liberation for millions of Europeans, and I think he was successful in that regard.

You say he was a disaster purely on spending (outgoing) versus taxation (ingoing), but his gambles led to great economic growth/expansion in the 90's, and the Reagan revolution after he left office where republicans captured the House for the first time in 40 years leading to meaningful spending cuts/reforms where you eventually saw surpluses for several years before 9/11 and Bush. I suppose you'd prefer to just credit B.J. "Bubba" Clinton for those surpluses, but it mainly happened because of Newt Gingrich's GOP leadership and forcing spending compromises that you normally can't get from democrats. Clinton vetoed serious reductions to favored democrat social programs though and you had a shutdown standoff as we had under Obama, but you did get bipartisan efforts with meaningful welfare reform (which Obama reversed) and other cuts, just as it was with Reagan having to work with House democrats until they gained the Senate in his last 2 years.

Both Reagan and Clinton agreed to push the tax rates a little bit back upwards to refine the budgeting (and Bush senior inbetween), but we're far better off from that ultra-high tax era inherited from World War II where you had 90% outright theft tax brackets until JFK brought it down to 70%, and then Reagan with his "great leap downward" battle of economic liberation to ~30%... Confiscatory Marxist tax thieving-scheming buttholes have been butthurt ever since of course...

Anyway, that said, I don't see how Trump will allegedly be worse if Congress stays in republican hands because the GOP will be able to go for meaningful spending reductions simultaneously. And if democrats take over at least the Senate (which is a possibility), you'll just have gridlock and little if anything meaningful/significant will get passed.

I don't believe in the big-government or the big-socialist state view/inclination that spending levels are always justified, "just trust them," that there's no waste, fraud and abuse, that all spending levels are just too important, too "precious" and cannot be cut/reduced, that we must tax our way out of it, yadda yadda, etc. Bullshit, they're the provable disaster, they piss away trillions without batting an eye... $300 to $600 millions of dollars to build f*cking websites, NEVER before happened in the history of the country or IT that it cost that much to build some database-driven shopping-cart website (for insurance policies in their case)... I can hire a few Nulltard's for $50,000 to a million in the WORST possible case to build a damn website like that!

For some, actually, their thoughts about "Making America Great Again!" *would* be to go back to pre-Reagan, JFK 70% or FDR 90% tax rates... I believe Bernie Sanders said as much at one point... But things have hovered between that 30-40% range ever since and hopefully big-government tax-and-spend extremists of that level will never succeed again.

Except if you consider the case of the Mexican rapists who will pay to build a wall to keep themselves out.

Amnesty International reported 60% of women illegally crossing the Mexican border say they were raped along the way... The later report Trump was going by says 80% and the perpetrators can be coyotes (those who smuggle them in), fellow male migrants, bandits, or government authorities. Now, the trick by Far Left hacks is to distort what Trump said as 100%/ALL of the male Mexicans breaking into the country are rapists in order to intimidate him from reporting this fact in the future, using it to clamp down on illegal immigration (can't say no to democrats, those are future democrat voters/welfare recipients by and large after all) and painting/libeling him as a racist, xenophobe, bigot, etc. to cost him the Latino vote. It's Politics 101. The southern border should be under control for many reasons, WE should get to control who comes in and at what rates (like Mexico itself does on its own southern border), not the other way around, the person who wants to break-in gets to decide willy nilly, etc...

http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women-chasing-the-american-dream/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR41/014/2010/en/8459f0ac-03ce-4302-8bd2-3305bdae9cde/amr410142010eng.pdf

And of course there are the disgusting women, who bleed out of wherever,

* To be fair, he was only insulting Rosie O'Donnell as "disgusting" and someone who "talks like a truck driver" (which bothered me as an insult to truck drivers and my dad actually was one) after she started a feud, attacking him for not firing a Miss USA winner (her whole attack was weird, Trump just said he believes in second chances, but she trashed him anyway for his personal problems, as if he fired her and was taking a moral high ground). It's unjust to take a feud with one person cause she happens to be a woman, make it plural to then generalize it as if it was against an entire gender somehow. Rosie is a 9/11 inside-job conspiracy "truther" troll/nut (Bush knocked down the towers!) like Charlie Sheen and she is disgusting for that at least, I have zero respect for her.

* On the same interview where Trump used the expression about Megan Kelly being angry, "having blood coming out of her eyes or wherever," just minutes later, he also said Chris Wallace had "blood coming out of his eyes also," a male host in that same Fox News panel. However, Far Left hacks ever opportunistic just seized upon the expression against Kelly to build up the anti-women narrative and hopefully cost him some female vote. That the expression was used on Chris Wallace is virtually unknown given what the news press focused on. He did respond to the claims that the "wherever" part of the expression *must* mean he was insinuating she was on her menstrual period, but he referred to people claiming that as "deviants," only a deviant would put that thought into the expression and that in his mind it was eyes, nose, ears, etc. That's partisanship for ya though, if you hate him, you'll assign the worst possible meaning when he's not careful and says something ambiguous that lends itself to "fill-in-the-blank-with-whatever."

[Sparky]

Trump or Hilary? It's bananas, if trump wins make sure you watch the movie " The Road"
This Canadian loves you guys but going to head north when trump gets in.

[esteban]

I see that you have no real response.  Your inability to counter reinforces my belief that I am right.  Thanks for the affirmation.

Actually, it was the most dignified response possible.

Two scenarios:
(1) You are sincere. If so, then we shouldn't waste our time arguing, since we are diametrically opposed.

(2) You are having a bit of fun and trying to creatively rationalize Trump's overtly racist, xenophobic, anti-democratic, nativist, misogynistic, etc. talking points—talking points because he has no viable plans/policies, nor does he have a genuine understanding of how social, political, economic, etc. issues are created and solved in *reality*.

See? I gave you credit for being a troll (scenario #2), because scenario #1 is rather an insult. To sincerely support Trump is to be... special. That's the nicest way to label it.



By the way, you know me: I'll debate issues anytime. I don't care about the personalities of politicians. That's bullshit. I care about the policies.

You also know that, like most reasonable folks, Bill Clinton represented nothing more than Republican Lite—the damage his policies caused (dismantling social welfare, for starters) still haunts us today. Hilary = Republican Lite.

America is a sad, confused mess of pain.

The fact that the weakest, most vulnerable groups in society are routinely stigmatized, exploited and scapegoated is simply wrong.

We see things very differently, Emerald Rocker.

At least we can find common ground in TG-16/PCE

THERE IS HOPE

[NightWolve]

To sincerely support Trump is to be... special. That's the nicest way to label it.

Or it means you can't or don't support the democrats and their platform/ideas for the country, and it's the same republican vote that would've occurred regardless. I think a healthy % of democrats will be pulling the lever for Hillary "You-f*cking-Jew-bastard!" Clinton without sincerity as they would've done so for any other democrat, and as part of the usual anti-republican vote, but would've preferred someone less corrupt, dishonest, criminal, and pretty much a general failure or mediocre in all her years of government service. At least republicans dispatched another Bush, Mr. "First my father, then my brother, now me, it's my turn, my turn, vote for me!" and we hoped democrats would finally dispatch the Clinton Crime Family, but alas, the great "old white guy" hope that was Bernie Sanders failed, he got close though.

That is the lesser of 2 evils choice, I could stay home or vote for Trump who I think has been pretty interesting and entertaining to watch, but I'm certainly not gonna flip and vote for the other party's platform just because of rude or questionable comments here and there on his part. There are Supreme Court vacancies coming up and Clinton or Trump will be determining its future for another generation, so I'm not staying home come election time. The primary made its choices, so that's what we're stuck with. The 3rd party votes are still mostly throwaway votes in this country (versus parliamentary systems in other countries), but if you still wanna vote exactly your conscience, it's up to you.

[BigusSchmuck]

To sincerely support Trump is to be... special. That's the nicest way to label it.

Or it means you can't or don't support the democrats and their platform/ideas for the country, and it's the same republican vote that would've occurred regardless. I think a healthy % of democrats will be pulling the lever for Hillary "You-f*cking-Jew-bastard!" Clinton without sincerity as they would've done so for any other democrat, and as part of the usual anti-republican vote, but would've preferred someone less corrupt, dishonest, criminal, and pretty much a general failure or mediocre in all her years of government service. At least republicans dispatched another Bush, Mr. "First my father, then my brother, now me, it's my turn, my turn, vote for me!" and we hoped democrats would finally dispatch the Clinton Crime Family, but alas, the great "old white guy" hope that was Bernie Sanders failed, he got close though.

That is the lesser of 2 evils choice, I could stay home or vote for Trump who I think has been pretty interesting and entertaining to watch, but I'm certainly not gonna flip and vote for the other party's platform just because of rude or questionable comments here and there on his part. There are Supreme Court vacancies coming up and Clinton or Trump will be determining its future for another generation, so I'm not staying home come election time. The primary made its choices, so that's what we're stuck with. The 3rd party votes are still mostly throwaway votes in this country (versus parliamentary systems in other countries), but if you still wanna vote exactly your conscience, it's up to you.

13% disagrees with you. And CNN is hosting a Libertarian Town Hall with Anderson Cooper.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/libertarian-town-hall-gary-johnson-william-weld/index.html

[NecroPhile]

"I've built buildings and employed people while making billions of dollars!  Talk about sacrifice!!!!"

I'm not going to say that Trump's tax plan will work.  I don't know if it will work.  But I do trust him to try and turn things around if he sees it not working.  That's what CEOs do.

Or they declare bankruptcy and leave everyone else holding the bag.

[jlued686]

I'm not voting for Trump because he doesn't have a god-damned clue what he's talking about. He makes it all up as he goes along. And when he's confronted with his contradictions, or you know...the actual truth, his ego forces him to continue spouting bullshit.

I get that people want someone who's not a career politician. Someone who will "shake things up" or whatever. But Trump is not that guy. He actually seems to be the opposite of what they want. He's a petulant blowhard taking the world along on his massive ego trip.

Trump is a thrice-married, admitted adulterer, elite east-coast trust-fund kid, "former" Democrat, (all things that conservatives supposedly hate). He's side-show carnival barker who can't properly form a complete sentence, speak beyond a 4th grade level or think beyond his simplistic impulses. He tosses out petty, childish insults (Lyin', Little, Crooked, Failing, Pocahontas, etc., etc., etc.), makes sweeping policy remarks without a second thought to their ramifications, and thinks of nobody but himself. Despite all of this, damn hypocrites have literally called him "God's chosen candidate".

He's a con man. A sham. Completely full of shit. And it's shocking to me how many people are unable or (more likely) unwilling to see through it. I have found that some people would rather shoot themselves in the face rather than concede that the candidate of their party is a complete and utter fool.

His wall will never happen, nor will his ban on Muslims, nor will 90% of the other bullshit, half-assed "policies" he's "proposed". They are nothing more than soundbites to stir up shit with the dim-witted, fear-based ignoramuses who adore him.

And before anybody responds, "But Hillary duhr, durh, durh!" I will tell you that's a child's response. Nevermind the fact that I am not a fan of Hillary and am probably not voting at all because where I live, it's already been decided. But to respond in that way is equal to "I know you are but what am I?" This is about Trump.

And Nightwolve, I in no way want to pick a fight with you because I know from experience how futile of an endeavor that is. (Plus, you're a cool guy). But in my opinion, it goes far beyond a "couple" rude or questionable comments. The guy is a dangerous and willfully ignorant ego-maniac, far more than any "real" politician I've ever seen. And regarding Supreme Court justices, we've had an opening for, what, six months? The whole process is fucked anyway, so let's just hold off another four years and hope for decent candidates.

[Emerald Rocker]

(2) You are having a bit of fun and trying to creatively rationalize Trump's overtly racist, xenophobic, anti-democratic, nativist, misogynistic, etc. talking points—talking points

I suspect you're trolling *me* now.  I'll respond anyway.

Through years of abuse by hyper-sensitive judgmentalists (a truly annoying combination of personality traits), the term "racist" has lost its punch.  For years, people have accused others of non-existent racism to the point that it's a joke.  Whenever my friends disagree with something, we start by shouting "RACIST!"  It's kind of like shouting "OBJECTION!" except funnier.

The desire to secure national borders is not racist.  The desire to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is not racist.  "Mexican" can either refer to nationality or heritage.  It is not a race.  There are many races represented within Mexico.  I want the border secured from all illegal immigration -- that includes white Mexicans who illegally try to cross.  It's a matter of prioritizing the welfare of citizens above the welfare of non-citizens.  All citizens -- of all colors.

If you call Trump racist because of that, then you are also calling me racist, because I agree with him that we need stronger security on the southern border.  We need it on the southern border because that is where the failed country sits.  I don't care what color 30%, 50%, 70% of its citizens are.  Mexico is a den of drug cartels and I don't want that spilling in.

Similarly, the word "misogynist" has lost its meaning.  It used to mean dislike/hatred of women.  Now it is just another buzzword that people use when they don't like a particular thing that someone said, or don't like the way they phrased it.  Making a rude comment towards a woman does not make someone a misogynist.  Adhering to traditions that have been contemporarily deemed sexist does not make someone a misogynist.  Believing that life is sacred -- and adopting a pro-life position because of it -- does not make someone a misogynist.  It means there's a philosophical disagreement.  That's different from misogyny.

Nowadays, when I hear someone referred to as a "racist", my gut reaction is: "that person is not racist."  When I hear someone referred to as a "misogynist", my gut reaction is: "that person is not a misogynist".  That's what happens when epithets are so often misapplied.

In conclusion, Blodia is a travesty that was developed by a team of misogynist racists.

[ToyMachine78]

Yeah I don't get what's racist about actually enforcing current US law.

[NecroPhile]

I don't really care about it being racist or not.  It's much more disconcerting that he thinks it can be built far quicker and cheaper than the fences and walls that Bush built, that it'd make a difference (has he not heard of ladders and tunnels?), and that he can make Mexico pay for it.

Pure fantasy.

[EvilEvoIX]

Trump or Hilary? It's bananas, if trump wins make sure you watch the movie " The Road"
This Canadian loves you guys but going to head north when trump gets in.

Everyone says they are going to Canada if Trump wins, not a one says they are going to Mexico.  Geee I wonder why.....

[Gredler]

Trump or Hilary? It's bananas, if trump wins make sure you watch the movie " The Road"
This Canadian loves you guys but going to head north when trump gets in.

Everyone says they are going to Canada if Trump wins, not a one says they are going to Mexico.  Geee I wonder why.....

Mexico is bad ass, and I plan on retiring there. Canada is only good for hockey, and even then it's too cold for roller hockey. Beach hockey down south is the shiznit

[BigusSchmuck]

Trump or Hilary? It's bananas, if trump wins make sure you watch the movie " The Road"
This Canadian loves you guys but going to head north when trump gets in.

Everyone says they are going to Canada if Trump wins, not a one says they are going to Mexico.  Geee I wonder why.....

Well the beheading thing and drug war for starters lol. At least tequlia is cheap in Mexico.

[Otaking]

[BlueBMW]

I have to agree that both candidates are pathetic.  If Clinton loses, the DNC can only blame themselves.  They had a shoe in candidate in their hands and they intentionally forced it the other way.  The Republicans have no idea what to do.  They let their mess get so far out of hand that now they dont have a frickin clue what to do.  Half of the GOP doesn't want to support Trump, the other half know's hes terrible.  But its what they have to work with now.

I will be voting this year, but I suspect I wont be marking anyone for the presidency.  I'll be focussed on down ballot candidates and local issues.  Colorado Amendment 69 is the one I'll be watching the closest.

The quick and dirty on Amendment 69...  statewide healthcare for all paid for by a 10% payroll tax (3.33% employee 6.66% employer)  Every analysis done on the proposal says it will work great and save plenty of money both for consumers and businesses.  The only people it will hurt are insurance companies and employers who dont already provide or subsidize healthcare for their employees (ie: cheapasses)  You know its a good idea when the insurance companies are dumping MILLIONS to fight it.  They know that if it passes, it will work and then other states will follow suit.  Kind of like the marijuana thing.  We pioneered it now other states are looking at it and starting to come around on the issue.

[EvilEvoIX]

I have to agree that both candidates are pathetic.  If Clinton loses, the DNC can only blame themselves.  They had a shoe in candidate in their hands and they intentionally forced it the other way.  The Republicans have no idea what to do.  They let their mess get so far out of hand that now they dont have a frickin clue what to do.  Half of the GOP doesn't want to support Trump, the other half know's hes terrible.  But its what they have to work with now.

I will be voting this year, but I suspect I wont be marking anyone for the presidency.  I'll be focussed on down ballot candidates and local issues.  Colorado Amendment 69 is the one I'll be watching the closest.

The quick and dirty on Amendment 69...  statewide healthcare for all paid for by a 10% payroll tax (3.33% employee 6.66% employer)  Every analysis done on the proposal says it will work great and save plenty of money both for consumers and businesses.  The only people it will hurt are insurance companies and employers who dont already provide or subsidize healthcare for their employees (ie: cheapasses)  You know its a good idea when the insurance companies are dumping MILLIONS to fight it.  They know that if it passes, it will work and then other states will follow suit.  Kind of like the marijuana thing.  We pioneered it now other states are looking at it and starting to come around on the issue.

Trump is not a republican.  He's s populist.  A vote for him is a referendum on the broken system we have.  Hillary is the very definition of corruption and pay for play.  She's completely naked now it she will lose.  Trump isn't the best answer but how fun would it be to have a man that won't be beholden to anyone but himself.


Typical liberal stand is that he's too mean or he'll launch all the nukes at once, they roll their eyes, make gaging noises, call everyone racist, build safe spaces, pretend Hillary is clean.


Get used to saying president trump.

[BlueBMW]

Well if things get too dicey my uncle did offer to sponsor me moving to Australia.  Only trouble there is the serious lack of snow down under.

[EvilEvoIX]

Well if things get too dicey my uncle did offer to sponsor me moving to Australia.  Only trouble there is the serious lack of snow down under.

Australia a good move.  Huge area with only 20 million or so.

[BigusSchmuck]

Highly unlikely we see a Trump presidency. Now if they let Johnson or Stein debate, then maybe, but without monetary reform it won't matter who wins.

[Emerald Rocker]

Hillary Clinton called voters like me deplorable people because I have "racist" and "sexist" beliefs -- in other words, because I disagree with her.  I was never going to vote for Clinton, but now I know that she has no intention of being my president.  Her desperate effort to shame Trump supporters has just made me more public about my support.  I will record a Youtube dance video when she loses (there's your incentive to vote for Trump right there).

BlueBMW, will Amendment 69 eliminate "insurance" in Colorado entirely?  Like, does it mean that healthcare is directly paid for by the state government (and thus the insurance companies cease operations)?

[BlueBMW]

BlueBMW, will Amendment 69 eliminate "insurance" in Colorado entirely?  Like, does it mean that healthcare is directly paid for by the state government (and thus the insurance companies cease operations)?

All medical and dental related expenses will be paid directly by the state run program.  The exception is Medicare, VA and Tricare recipients in which case the state will supplement those plans.  There is no provision forcing insurance companies to cease operations.  I suspect there would still be a small market for premium insurance plans but I don't know what they would cover or if they would even be viable.  The way the plan states it is that any resident of any employment status or age would be covered.  That tells me that no matter who you are, working or not, young or old you are covered by the plan.

It sounds like the only ones who lose are insurance companies, since while they can still operate may find they don't have nearly as many customers, and employers who currently do not contribute towards employee health insurance.  Though it is also my understanding that it is expected that the IRS will allow the employer paid portion to be tax deductible.  An extension of this is that the plan will also cover the medical portion of workers compensation which further reduces employer expenses.

Self employed may stand to see some change in costs as every non-employer income is also taxed at the 10%.  This includes self employment, estate, etc.  The tax is expected to deductible by the IRS however so the actual impact will be less than 10% and could very likely end up costing less than paying for conventional insurance.

As an side, the limits for income taxed for this are 350k for single filers and 450k for joint filers.

The system is exempt from the Colorado TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) laws which control how much tax can be collected and when tax can be increased.   That said, any increase in the taxes for this system must be approved by a vote by registered Colorado votors.


This site does a pretty good job explaining it all without all the spin from proponents and opponents of the amendment:

http://colorado69.org/

EDIT:  Apparently as far as what the system will pay providers... 

"Medicare reimbursement rates will not be affected by ColoradoCare. Therefore, reimbursement for ColoradoCare patients is expected to be around 141% of the Medicare rate so that the average reimbursement rate to providers (of Medicare patients plus ColoradoCare patients) will be around 133% of the Medicare reimbursement rate."

133% was a target rate that is sustainable by the program and expected to be sufficient to attract and retain quality providers.

[EvilEvoIX]

Evo... Every time I believe you to be the most retarded creature on the planet, you go and affirm my belief.

Thank you... Though I do tire of being right all the time. Surprise me and demonstrate an IQ point now and then.

Doesn't matter what your belief is John.  You offer jabs and constant anger but no real substance.  We've seen you post and it's cute and all but what do you offer really?  What does matter is that your house constantly floods with other peoples shit.  Brings a smile to my face every time.

[EvilEvoIX]

Hillary Clinton called voters like me deplorable people because I have "racist" and "sexist" beliefs -- in other words, because I disagree with her.  I was never going to vote for Clinton, but now I know that she has no intention of being my president.  Her desperate effort to shame Trump supporters has just made me more public about my support.  I will record a Youtube dance video when she loses (there's your incentive to vote for Trump right there).

BlueBMW, will Amendment 69 eliminate "insurance" in Colorado entirely?  Like, does it mean that healthcare is directly paid for by the state government (and thus the insurance companies cease operations)?

Geee I wonder if Nulltard will all you names for having a different opinion.

[TheClash603]

In other news, I tried to suggest Amendment 69 with my girlfriend last night and it did not go over well...

At least we are moving towards universal health care.

[EvilEvoIX]

In other news, I tried to suggest Amendment 69 with my girlfriend last night and it did not go over well...

At least we are moving towards universal health care.

Which is what it should have been in the first place.  Obama care is falling under its own weight, and it's taxing poor people who cannot afford it.

[BlueBMW]

Which is what it should have been in the first place.  Obama care is falling under its own weight, and it's taxing poor people who cannot afford it.

Its failiing because of the lack of a public option which the insurance companies made sure was taken out.  Again they knew it would work and cost them money hence why the correct business decision was to spend enormous amounts of money to rewrite the law to their liking.

The one major plus so far with the ACA is the no pre-existing conditions part.  People who were never able to get insurance are insured now.  That alone was worth it.

[TheClash603]

Obama will be a failure of a president to me because of Obamacare.  I want a universal option and he was in a position to get that done based on democratic control early in his presidency.  He buckled and came up with a half ass hybrid private/public option that no one is happy with.  A true private universal option was within reach and Obama did not have the authority to get it done when everything was in his favor to do so.

[Emerald Rocker]

The disintegration of ACA is why I can't get behind a federal public option -- too many special interests get in the pool and I can't trust it to be administered properly.  Instead of a public option, ACA set up federally-funded co-ops... and more than half of those have gone out of business now.  Competence is not the federal government's strength.  I feel much better about a state program since that's regional and gives voters more power to shape how it operates.  The idea that every state has to be the same frustrates me, so I'm glad to see Colorado taking steps towards doing something different.

The pre-existing exclusion in pre-ACA insurance policies was done to keep prices down.  Remove that exclusion, and it's no surprise that prices are going up a lot.  Coverage is never going to be both accessible and affordable until we solve for why medical costs are so high.  In theory, insurance shouldn't even be a necessity -- it should be an optional purchase for catastrophic events only (in other words, it should be "insurance").  The fact that people without insurance are billed an exponentially higher rate for medical treatment than people who have insurance is bogus. Also the difference in medical treatment price from one insurance company to another is bogus.  What the hospital charges should be what the hospital charges; it shouldn't be some fluid amount that customers can't understand.

Thanks for the link BlueBMW, I'll read up on it.

[NecroPhile]

Hillary is the very definition of corruption and pay for play....

Unlike Trump.  No nepotism or shady deals there, right?

Trump isn't the best answer but how fun would it be to have a man that won't be beholden to anyone but himself....

.... and the foreign investors, particularly the Chinese and Russian ones.

.... pretend Hilary is clean.

While you pretend that Trump is an angel?  Your hypocrisy is showing, bruh.

[Senshi]

lol at people who think expanding government will solve their problems. "Well gee if we just pass this law then we'll fix it", "if we just dump taxes into this program", "if we just tax weed we pay the deficit" blah blah blah. Yea and create 10 other problems for each you fix.