The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The absurdity of Donald Trump (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=32145)

BigV 08-09-2016 04:14 PM

The absurdity of Donald Trump
 
This is another thread that's been a long time coming. Goodness knows, there's a superabundance of material.

Today, Trump said that Hillary Clinton becoming President would be bad, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald Trump
"By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

He's implying that the assassination of Hillary Clinton is an option to keep her from becoming President.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

He'll walk this one back too, just like all the others. "Oh, I was just being sarcastic." Bullshit. He's a menace. There are lots of people who won't read that as sarcasm. Hell, *I* don't read it as sarcasm. It's incitement.

Happy Monkey 08-09-2016 05:01 PM

I mentioned it in the "I can't hate" thread. The immediate spin was that he meant the political power of the NRA. But that didn't make sense in context.

It's an interesting politician who you have to take out of context to make sound better.

BigV 08-09-2016 05:22 PM

No one listening to him draws that conclusion.

These are his own words, out of his own mouth. They're consistent with his other statements. This *IS* the real Donald Trump. There's no ambiguity to his remarks.

The explanations and reinterpretations from others in his campaign, no one's fooled or reassured by their attempts to spin Trump's stream-of-consciousness revelations of his inner self.

sexobon 08-09-2016 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 966214)
... Jesus Fucking Christ. ...

Now you've gone and done it. Now divine intervention will cause The Donald to win just to smite you and President Trump will be ALL YOUR FAULT! :eyebrow:

Thanks for being our scapegoat. :D

lumberjim 08-09-2016 06:54 PM

It could be worse. I could run for Mod next January

classicman 08-09-2016 07:20 PM

Quote:

He's implying that the assassination of Hillary Clinton
Quote:

No one listening to him draws that conclusion.

BigV 08-09-2016 08:47 PM

classicman, that's a textbook example of misleading the reader by taking a person's remarks out of context to present the impression that the person you've quoted said the thing YOU want said. Not what the person you quoted said.

BigV 08-09-2016 08:55 PM

By the time I was driving home, the spin story being floated to change the impression of Donald Trump's words was that this interpretation was the work the work of the "dishonest media".

LOL

Griff 08-10-2016 04:21 PM

Trump will make a lot of hay with that media stuff, since people can see the media is in the bag for Hillary. They've enjoyed their Donald time as well since feeding that whack job has been paying their bills for months. So now they're in a position where they've created a race between two horrors and they point at the voters like it's their fault and has nothing to do with the way media covers or doesn't cover candidates.

sexobon 08-10-2016 05:17 PM

Today in a commentary, I heard a plausible explanation for some of what comes out of Trump's yap.

The Donald is used to talking off the top of head with little thought given to the ramifications of how he says things. He's long been associated with the entertainment industry, even appearing in his own television show where if he said something that would turn off an audience; or, get him in trouble with the censors, no problem. There'd always be somebody there to edit it out for him. Even if something untoward he said made it through editing; or, got leaked - no big deal. In the entertainment industry, any publicity, even negative publicity is good to the extent that it keeps one in the public eye. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Trump has; however, carried that mindset and his long established habits over into politics. Unfortunately, there's no editing to take care of his faux pas anymore and spin control isn't anywhere near as effective. He's also finding out that, unlike in the entertainment industry, in politics bad publicity is a bad thing that can be one's undoing. Trump is a creature of habit who's used to doing things his way and having others take care of the aftermath for him. He's slow to make the necessary adjustment and consequently his mouth is going to plague his campaign.

Ah well, first world problems of the rich and famous.

Pico and ME 08-10-2016 06:11 PM

I can see that.

lumberjim 08-10-2016 06:54 PM

the whole shit show is an indictment on our society. That we, as a people are indolent and apathetic enough to allow either of these fictitious characters to represent America to the rest of the world.

Reality TV meets Government is right.

Pico and ME 08-10-2016 06:59 PM

'People' have always been and will always be flawed in that way. One thousand years from now, if still in existence, the story will be the same.

BigV 08-10-2016 10:34 PM

Very well put sexobon.

"We'll fix it in post" -- Sarah Silverman. Just, without the irony. It's abundantly clear that he's had a lifetime of success talking this way, much of it, probably all of it unscripted. And these are his ideas, his words. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that seeks out the advice of experts, least of all people who tell him what to say. He's had a lifetime of having people reward him with their attention, from near and far, sycophants well represented, I'm sure.

And now we're seeing more of the same. Why fuck with success? But as you pointed out, he is in a different milieu. I think Clinton's observation that we're seeing the "real Donald Trump" is on the money. We're seeing a very candid presentation of what we could expect as POTUS (God help us -- Bloomberg).

There are those who find this candor refreshing, and imagine his outsider-ness to politics as the medicine to cure our political ills. I could not disagree more. Let's follow his logic, but from the other direction. Dear Trump supporter, Hillary Clinton has had a lifetime of public service, never having worked a day in her life in the private sector. So, she's the best possible candidate to step in as CEO and Chairman of the Board of MEGACORP, Inc, that is in bankruptcy, covered in lawsuits, has lost it's market share, has a product line that is old and busted, etc etc. *Because* Clinton isn't tainted by private enterprise, she's the best man for the job here.

Amirite?

No, that's absurd too, but it matches Trump's "logic" precisely, it's just plain wrong.

Taking his remark from the OP, think about this. Why would we want a President that is so reliably bad at expressing what he "really means"? How in the world could this possibly be in our nation's best interest?

sexobon 08-11-2016 12:13 AM

To me your analogy is flawed, it's apples and oranges. The President of the United States is* the Chief Executive Officer. Candidate Trump has been a successful CEO. Candidate Clinton has not.

The analogy would be that if one could expect Trump, with his megacorp CEO experience, would be successful at running the country; then, OBAMA, with his POTUS CEO experience would be successful at running a megacorp. That's true (but no guarantee). If Clinton wouldn't make a good CEO of a megacorp, she probably wouldn't make a good President. There's more to running a country than foreign diplomacy.

This doesn't mean someone without previous megacorp CEO experience can't learn how to be a successful President on the job. Some have done it.

Nor does it mean that someone without foreign diplomacy experience can't learn how to be a successful President on the job. Some have done it.

Obama had neither megacorp CEO experience nor foreign diplomacy experience and he did it (more or less).

After being situated as President, it would take Trump a heck of a lot less time to go through speech therapy (pun intended) than it would for Clinton to go through business school at a time when the public's focus is shifting more towards domestic development and away from foreign relations except for international trade. Trump would have minions for that.

(* Depending on what your definition of is, is.)

tw 08-11-2016 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 966219)
It's an interesting politician who you have to take out of context to make sound better.

Review the Oslo Accords. Likud needed them quashed. So Likud used ambiguous statements that sort of called for the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

Moderates said Likud really did not mean that. They reasoned that a "Jew would never kill a Jew". Meanwhile extremists heard something completely different from the exact same words. And so an extremist did what he heard Likud tell him to do. And considered himself a hero.

Does not matter how Trump's statements are interpreted by others. Those statements are skillfully worded to say completely different things to different people. IOW it clearly says to one, who *knows* Hillary will take away their guns, to kill Hillary. Irrelevant to them that you do not conclude same.

Likud successfully got Rabin murdered by saying one thing to moderates and another to extremists - using the exact same words. Donald Trump (even if he did not intend it) has done same.

Last I heard, Trump still has not said in clear and blunt language, "No one is to kill Hillary - ever." He would say that if he was not doing what Likud did. He has called for Hillary's murder in the same manner that Likud called for the murder of Rabin.

sexobon 08-11-2016 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 966364)
... Last I heard, Trump still has not said in clear and blunt language, "No one is to kill Hillary - ever." He would say that if he was not doing what Likud did. He has called for Hillary's murder in the same manner that Likud called for the murder of Rabin.

Hanlon's razor

tw 08-11-2016 08:51 AM

If Trump was not encouraging violence, then he would have bluntly told a 'less than 1%' among us that violence is completely unacceptable. He should have defused and discouraged violent types that he has encouraged. He had numerous opportunities to do so. He knows many have interpreted his remarks as encouraging violence. He intentionally avoided what must be said to deter a violent 'less than 1%'. A 'less than 1%' must bluntly be told that violence is unacceptable. Anything less only encourages these 'adults who are still children' to be violent.

He refused to do so as Likud also refused to do; overtly state an assassination is unacceptable. A responsible man would be fortrightly candid: violence is unacceptable. Trump has refused to do that.

Trumps denials are clearly directed at the other 99%. He says he is not encouraging violence. A classic example of obfuscation. He tells the 99% one thing while encouraging a 'less than 1%' to do another.

This same man openly encouraged violence in his rallies. No accident that a 'less than 1%' are encouraged to be violent. He is preaching to the choir. No way around well crafted propaganda.

Does not matter what you think he said. Completely unacceptable is what he told a 'less than 1%' - using the exact same words. He intentionally refused to dissuade that 'less than 1%' when later challenged to do so.

BigV 08-11-2016 10:56 AM

Trump says Obama is the founder of ISIS.

This guy needs better material, better writers. This is *more* shark-jumping by Trump. And he's eating it up, he's loving the attention.

Absurd?

I think so. I'd love to hear a rational re-imagining of his remarks.

Happy Monkey 08-11-2016 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 966365)

The issue with Hanlon's razor is that malice and stupidity are FAR from mutually exclusive.

sexobon 08-11-2016 05:07 PM

Tw, that Trump didn't diffuse the situation is a benign character flaw at worst. He doesn't have groupies who are going to kill for him. It would be like saying Black Lives Matter is responsible for any killings by black people. It's conspiracy theory fusion paranoia.

BigV, Trump speaks in hyperbole for publicity. Obama withdrew US forces from Iraq; because, he couldn't get certain concessions in a Status of Forces Agreement. That withdrawal opened the door for ISIS.

Happy Monkey, the sophisticated level of malice being attributed to Trump's Second Amendment people statement, one statement crafted to have different meanings for different target audiences, and stupidity as expressed in Hanlon's Razor ARE mutually exclusive.

BigV 08-11-2016 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 966425)
snip--

BigV, Trump speaks in hyperbole for publicity. Obama withdrew US forces from Iraq; because, he couldn't get certain concessions in a Status of Forces Agreement. That withdrawal opened the door for ISIS.

--snip

Donald Trump disagrees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Hewitt and Donald Trump
HH: Iíve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant heís the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
HH: But heís not sympathetic to them. He hates them. Heís trying to kill them.
DT: I donít care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?
HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the mnemonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You donít get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, theyíre hitting with you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, itís no mistake. Everyoneís liking it. I think theyíre liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I donít know if you heard that.

HH: I did. I did. I played it.
DT: I gave her the co-founder.
HH: I know what youíre arguingÖ
DT: Youíre not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?
HH: I donít. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didnít create ISIS. Thatís what I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.
HH: All right, thatís okay.
DT: I mean, with his bad policies, thatís why ISIS came about.
HH: ThatísÖ
DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldnít have had ISIS.
HH: Thatís true.
DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.
HH: And thatís, Iíd just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know Iím keeping you long, and Hopeís going to kill me.

Between you and me, Trump's milk tongue is hyperbole. We agree. But statements like this are an abuse of the language. Yes, he's speaking hyperbolically. Yes, outrage is his jam. But tw hit upon something quite true, that the same words spoken by Trump are heard differently by different audiences. I know this, and I still find him almost incomprehensible. About all I get from his is LOOK AT ME!, self aggrandizement, pomposity, ... It's kind of sickening. What I grok from today's episode of "Orange is the new Blech!" is "HEY! EYES AND EARS HERE! Keep channeling your generalized, simmering dissatisfaction with your life at Obama, it's his fault! And he's the reason you need to be afraid, he's the source, the fountainhead of your fear. I, and I alone, can fix everything. Never forget Trump! TRUUUUMP!!

sexobon 08-12-2016 05:33 AM

Trump's a rascal; but, it works for him. Keep in mind that when it comes to the Presidency, Trump can take it or leave it. Hillary has all her eggs in one basket. That's why Trump not only doesn't have to be politically correct, he can be outrageous! If it backfires in the general election, I don't think he'll be too upset.

In the case of ISIS, Obama knew the void in Iraq would be filled. That region has a history of such occurrences. He may have even figured that a rising regional threat would distract key elements in that region from attacking the West by preoccupying them. If creating the circumstances for an organization to come together and thrive can loosely make one a founder; then, that wasn't Trump's biggest stretch. Trump didn't disagree with what I said, he just didn't limit it to that.

Happy Monkey 08-12-2016 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 966425)
Happy Monkey, the sophisticated level of malice being attributed to Trump's Second Amendment people statement, one statement crafted to have different meanings for different target audiences, and stupidity as expressed in Hanlon's Razor ARE mutually exclusive.

It doesn't have multiple meanings. Trump's people had muiltiple explanations after the fact, but it was a joke about killing Clinton the whole time.

sexobon 08-12-2016 05:10 PM

When I posted the term Hanlon's Razor, it was in response to tw's post (part of which I quoted) implying that Trump's statement was crafted to have different meanings for different target audiences. You say "It doesn't have multiple meanings." Your disagreement is with tw, not with me. I would suggest you take it up with; but, he probably doesn't want to waste too much time with you either.

tw 08-12-2016 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 966425)
Obama withdrew US forces from Iraq; because, he couldn't get certain concessions in a Status of Forces Agreement. That withdrawal opened the door for ISIS.

Even with American withdrawal, Daesh was (should not have been) a threat. But this problem began when officials in the George Jr administration openly declared that Maliki was, well, from the Washington Post on 3 Jul 2014:
Quote:

When Maliki was an obscure member of parliament, I was among the very few Americans in Baghdad who took his phone calls. In 2006, I helped introduce him to the U.S. ambassador, recommending him as a promising option for prime minister. In 2008, I organized his medevac when he fell ill, and I accompanied him for treatment in London, spending 18 hours a day with him at Wellington Hospital. In 2009, I lobbied skeptical regional royals to support Maliki’s government.

By 2010, however, I was urging the vice president of the United States and the White House senior staff to withdraw their support for Maliki. I had come to realize that if he remained in office, he would create a divisive, despotic and sectarian government that would rip the country apart and devastate American interests.
Maliki was George Jr's choosen man. George Jr's response to his own staff (who strongly recommended his removal) was to spend 2 hours daily on a video conference to teach Maliki politics.

Eventually Maliki made war with Sunnis and with Sahdr's army. What he did next made Daesh possible in Iraq.
Quote:

Maliki ... began a systematic campaign to destroy the Iraqi state and replace it with his private office and his political party. He sacked professional generals and replaced them with those personally loyal to him. He coerced Iraq’s chief justice to bar some of his rivals from participating in the elections in March 2010. After the results were announced and Maliki lost to a moderate, pro-Western coalition encompassing all of Iraq’s major ethno-sectarian groups, the judge issued a ruling that awarded Maliki the first chance to form a government, ushering in more tensions and violence.
Does this not sound like the government of S Vietnam? Even Turkmen, Kurds, and Christians were ostracized and obstructed for a deficient dictator's benefit. He consolidated power at the expense of Iraq. What remained was a weak but the only remaining leader.

Worse a legendary Iranian Gen Soleimani, who tried repeatedly to work with Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan, now had the inside track on Maliki. George Jr successfully converted Gen Soleimani from a potential American ally into an American enemy. Soleimani said so personally by literally saying George Jr blew it.

Maliki was beholden to Soleimani because even Americans said he was a bad leader. Due to Maliki, Iraq was on the verge of a civil war. He even used American supplied M1A1 tanks to arrest Sunni leaders in their homes. A wonderful alliance forged by Petraeus that empowered Sunnis to drive out Al Qaeda was destroyed by Maliki - who only craved power. Maliki needed Americans out or subject to Iraqi laws that Maliki could change at will. As sexobon demonstrated, America had to remove all troops even though Obama did not want to. To protect American servicemen from Maliki.

Daesh sent a few hundred soldiers to attack a prison in Mosul. Daesh often used these tiny 'hit and run' attacks to obtain more recruits. Since Maliki was a self serving dictator who replaced American trained officers with political cronies, then three Iraqi divisions (maybe 30,000 men with artillery and M1A1 tanks) dropped all their weapons and ran from Mosul. Even Daesh could not believe how pathetic Iraq had become. America spend more on training the Iraq army than was spend on America's most expensive weapon system - F-22 Raptor. But we know 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Who would ever suspect Maliki was that incompetent since even George Jr personally trained him?

That is Iraq today. It still has too many incompetent Generals and leaders. Even fewer Kurds with less weapons are responsible for most of Iraq's victories against Daesh. We now live with a legacy created ten plus years ago when we alienated Gen Soleimani and installed an incompetent Maliki. Iraq is now so dominated by incompetent leaders and Sunni-Shia hate that it cannot even retake Mosul without American and Gulf State air power.

What a mess. We put in power what eventually became what even Daesh could only pray for. Apparently Muslims can pray for and get the worst leaders. Daesh exists because we put Maliki in power. And then could not remove him until Daesh threatened to conquer Baghdad.

elSicomoro 08-15-2016 07:53 AM

Every day, I am further amused and confused by Mr Trump. This was a tweet from last night:

"I have always been the same person-remain true to self.The media wants me to change but it would be very dishonest to supporters to do so!"

OK, but your ship seems to be taking on a LOT of water...

tw 08-15-2016 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elSicomoro (Post 966735)
OK, but your ship seems to be taking on a LOT of water...

Never ignore lesson from history. That is what educated people said in 1930 Germany. Hitler preached same illogical nonsense. But he was not preaching to logical people. He was preaching to emotionally manipulated people. That is where he got his support - from emotions tied to ridiculous comments. In the middle and late 1930s, the intelligent people eventually succumbed to mostly support Hitler.

Trump does not yet need intelligent people to support him. That is not his target audience. Those will come later - according to lessons from history.

Scary thing is to go to a Trump or Sanders rally. Absolutely amazing the blind an dedicated support - and not one idea what even a Federal Reserve is. They preach soundbytes. Even get angry when confronted by questions that require underlying details. And yes, I saw same blind support among Sanders supporters.

Rather scary. Reminded me of a most Googled question the day after. "What is the EU?"

elSicomoro 08-15-2016 10:32 AM

Unfortunately, we are a world that doesn't like logic and reasoning very often...especially our country. And people only dig in harder when you point out flaws.

tw 08-15-2016 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elSicomoro (Post 966771)
Unfortunately, we are a world that doesn't like logic and reasoning very often...

Nothing changed. Well over 60% of all Americans knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Even though a 1950 science study proved conclusively otherwise. 60% of the population is not officer material - then and now. They entertain their emotions up to 'irrefutable' conclusions rather first learning facts before making a conclusion.

Again I cite a perfect example that all long time Cellar Dwellars are familiar with. No facts said Saddam had WMDs. Reams of facts posted here said otherwise. But emotions "trumped" facts. Go figure.

sexobon 08-16-2016 02:22 AM

So you're saying we should have given Saddam WMDs, then killed him and taken our WMDs back.

We'll do that next time. Thank you for pointing it out.

tw 08-16-2016 10:12 AM

Again, sexobon is sexing it the facts. He can't help himself.

sexobon 08-16-2016 04:19 PM

Of course you know that we have WMDs at a military base in Turkey. We do that just in case we decide we don't like Turkey anymore. We can say they're after our WMD in their country and invade them. The government got the idea from reading your posts.

tw 08-16-2016 07:19 PM

That is more than nine months later. Opinions created by sex are denied by those who use sex to justify their actions.

sexobon 08-16-2016 09:06 PM

We left some Syrian WMDs behind in Syria too. Not enough for that government to win a civil war with if they find where we left them; but, just enough to say the government held back on us and terrorists might get ahold of them. You never know, we may want to invade Syria when Russia gets tired of playing with it. The US government has been responsive to your insistence that other countries actually have WMDs before we invade and kill their leaders. We've been making sure that, in some way, they have them. Good suggestion.

tw 08-17-2016 09:21 AM

More sexing up of reality.

sexobon 08-17-2016 10:32 PM

If we want to invade Iraq again, we won't need to first ensure that they have WMDs; because, we ensured that they have terrorists instead (ever since Obama founded ISIS). It's nice to have a little variety in rationales for invading other countries. It's a spinoff of your idea so you still get to take credit.

tw 08-17-2016 10:55 PM

Obama invented ISSS. When does sexing the truth become whoring? Do you really pay for these myths?

sexobon 08-17-2016 11:00 PM

Are you having a good time tw? We want you to have a good time.

Spexxvet 08-18-2016 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 966933)
If we want to invade Iraq again, ...

Third times a charm

be-bop 08-18-2016 02:10 PM

Watching all this from the UK I ask myself the one question "Will the American public actually vote this cnut into power", I mean George W was bad enough but fuck me Trump!!!!!!
You cannot be serious?..................:D

glatt 08-18-2016 03:03 PM

Trump and Brexit are the same thing. You guys voted for Brexit. How could you do that?

Happy Monkey 08-18-2016 04:12 PM

Just call Trump Mr. Brexit.

Seriously. He wants you to.

Sundae 08-22-2016 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 966985)
Trump and Brexit are the same thing. You guys voted for Brexit. How could you do that?

I didn't. Oh and there were plenty of people who bought into the lies. I've had conversations with them. They are still proud of what they did, but a little ashamed at the manipulation. That sausage factory down the road that sends out a lot of smoke? Turns out it is just a sausage factory. Sorry. And all that money which will now be going to the NHS to keep alive sadsters like me? Erm, it's not. But there are a lot of projects which won't be funded now.

In comparison, I can't say I would compare the decision to leave what was seen as a controlling "foreign" power-house is quite the same as voting for a power-crazy xenophobe to lead the country. But blame's like the opposite of really good butter. There's always plenty to go round. I adore my parents, and they voted Out. So I can't really judge the Trumpers harshly.

Even if I want to, because my parents were gullible idiots.
Bless.

Dude111 08-22-2016 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV
Today, Trump said that Hillary Clinton becoming President would be bad, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Hehe if HE becomes pres,IT WILL BE BAD!!

He is a blasted moron.........

Griff 08-22-2016 06:11 PM

He is a moron and Hillary is a hardcore neo-con on foreign policy... pick your poison I guess. Its pretty bad for the humans either way.

classicman 08-22-2016 06:45 PM

#FeeltheJohnson ...

Griff 08-23-2016 06:30 AM

:whtblk::blkwht:

Johnson or Stein depending on whether I believe we need government at any given moment. I used to be such a libertarian, the old me would have been salivating at the opportunity presented by these two hideous candidates. I'll have to start boning up on Johnson's policy positions. I would prefer a free society.

Happy Monkey 08-23-2016 09:38 AM

Johnson has a flat sales tax plan. So the richer you are, the lower your tax rate.

classicman 08-23-2016 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 967291)
:whtblk::blkwht:

Johnson or Stein depending ....

Eh hem - we made a deal sir.

sexobon 08-23-2016 06:02 PM

If The Donald gets elected, he'll bring to the White House something we really haven't had before. His wife Melania will become the First MILF.

Griff 08-24-2016 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 967334)
Eh hem - we made a deal sir.

I think we made a deal to vote 3rd party not which third party. :) Johnson is more likely at this time. Either way nobody votes 2 evils.

monster 08-24-2016 06:02 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37177938

This is from The Onion, right?

BigV 08-25-2016 11:27 AM

It does kinda make me want to cry. . .

Gravdigr 08-25-2016 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 967337)
If The Donald gets elected, he'll bring to the White House something we really haven't had before. His wife Melania will become the First MILF.

A FLILF?

Have we ever had a palindrome in the White House?

tw 08-25-2016 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gravdigr (Post 967523)
Have we ever had a palindrome in the White House?

George Jr rode bicycles. Does that count?

Romney tried to get into the White House with one as his VP. Does that count?

In each case, nobody knew if he was coming or going.

Griff 08-26-2016 06:52 AM

I'll have what he's having.

xoxoxoBruce 08-26-2016 09:10 AM

The Republicans have conceded the White House, siphoning off money from Trump to dump into their gerrymandered districts to retain control of the House.

elSicomoro 08-26-2016 10:30 PM

That would not surprise me. Only 36 districts are considered competitive by the Cook Report...out of 435. Dems would need to win 30 seats to take over...that's a tall order during any cycle.

regular.joe 08-26-2016 11:49 PM

Long time lurker, sometime reader, longtime since I've posted anything. What a way to return to the Cellar, a thread about Trump. It's been an exciting read so far. That's all I have to say about that. For now.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.