Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:
it's live steaming on youtube

Thanks, but I'm at work.

and off the top rope, clinton body slams trump over his crying wolf of rigged systems



Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is how I feel after listening to trump

Trump looks to me like ever more the honing little kid who has never read the rulebook in a gw store

 Breotan wrote:
I just ran across an article that shows polling numbers which are very bad for both Clinton and Trump - in Utah at least. If poll numbers reflect voting come November, McMullin could very well take the Beehive State. So, what happens then?

Clinton still wins more than 270 votes and claims the nomination. Trump's result is even more embarrassing, and Mormons show they are not to be taken for granted by the Republican party, and other religious conservative groups (such as evangelicals) take a long look at themselves and their collective decision to get behind Trump.

There is a pretty crazy hypothetical where Utah goes to McMullin and Trump's results are strong enough that he stops Clinton getting 270 votes elsewhere, in which case the Republican controlled house would decide the next president, and the senate would decide the VP. Weirdly enough this could produce a result where Mike Pence is the next president, as a Republican senate would rubber stamp him for the job, while the house might remain divided between Democrats, Trump Republicans and non-Trump Republicans, with no group able to get a majority of the vote.

But it's an extreme longshot. It would require Trump recovering about 7 points in the polls, so that he could claw back Iowa, Ohio, Nevada etc... but at the same make no ground or even losing more ground in Utah. One or both of those things is possible, but both happening at the same time would be very strange.

Gordon Shumway wrote:Wait, people are taking the project veritas seriously? Guys, above in the thread people were lambasting Moore for his less than ethical documentary style. He would readily embrace that description, I think. But now people are willing to take the guy who uses many of the same tactics to make his videos as Moore at face value? When Moore's new movie comes out, use the same deductive analysis you use on project veritas' videos, you might be disappointed. Also keep in min that one of those people are indicted under federal law, and it isn't Moore.

One of the other quoted people in my post apparently are....

The Airman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The amount of lies and editing by Project Veritas just means that based on their history there is no reason to even watch their latest video.

He still hasn't released the unedited videos from his previous claims, despite lying that he did.

So Creamer and Foval did not do the things they did or say the things they said, and they both stepped down for no reason?

Sweet, sweet denial. You wouldn't be trying to Correct The Record would you?

I know from reading the rest of the thread that you claim that this comment is tongue in cheek.... but here's a serious answer:

Whether Creamer and Foval did or did not do anything wrong (I will not speculate on it, because, as others pointed out O'Keefe has some serious, serious integrity issues), this is politics, and the mere appearance of impropriety is bad business. So, for politics' sake, they step down. So, to answer your second-to-last question: No, they didn't step down for "no reason," they stepped down because of appearances.

Not sure why the double post, sorry.

So..him not agreeing to accept the results of the election? Thats the scariest thing of all.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So..him not agreeing to accept the results of the election? Thats the scariest thing of all.

Well, he can wail in all of his imputent rage. He can't do anything about it.

 djones520 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So..him not agreeing to accept the results of the election? Thats the scariest thing of all.

Well, he can wail in all of his imputent rage. He can't do anything about it.

Well, aren't there avenues to "demand" recounts? I honestly don't recall whether a candidate can demand/request a recount, or whether that is initiated by someone else.

 djones520 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So..him not agreeing to accept the results of the election? Thats the scariest thing of all.

Well, he can wail in all of his imputent rage. He can't do anything about it.

No, but the more unhinged of his supporters might, and that's what I worry about.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So..him not agreeing to accept the results of the election? Thats the scariest thing of all.

I'd say so, It's a horrible insult to america and our way of life.

We democratically elect the next president, to not accept the results could lead to a civil war. or a bunch of his supporters rioting with their guns so we can see how violent riots can get and see how peaceful the BLM riots were in comparison.

anyone who doesn't like our democracy is free to leave, I bet russia would take them all in.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
this is politics, and the mere appearance of impropriety is bad business. So, for politics' sake, they step down. So, to answer your second-to-last question: No, they didn't step down for "no reason," they stepped down because of appearances.

The same reason why Subway changed the recipe for their bread. Not because they were poisoning the children with evil chemicals, but because it's easier to appease an angry crowd even if you don't do anything wrong.

I don't know if those two guys did anything wrong, and I won't humor a known liar and hack by giving him an extra view on his video to find out what he thinks about it. They may be guilty as charged, they may be innocent, but "stepping down" doesn't actually mean anything.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So..him not agreeing to accept the results of the election? Thats the scariest thing of all.

Well, he can wail in all of his imputent rage. He can't do anything about it.

Well, aren't there avenues to "demand" recounts? I honestly don't recall whether a candidate can demand/request a recount, or whether that is initiated by someone else.

they can, that's how we got shrub, the florida fiasco. No one rioted, the military didn't take over, we all acted like americans and let the rule of law prevailed.

Well trump lost that one badly. It was hilarious to see him slowly get whittled down by Clinton and revert back to his trump self

 d-usa wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
this is politics, and the mere appearance of impropriety is bad business. So, for politics' sake, they step down. So, to answer your second-to-last question: No, they didn't step down for "no reason," they stepped down because of appearances.

The same reason why Subway changed the recipe for their bread. Not because they were poisoning the children with evil chemicals, but because it's easier to appease an angry crowd even if you don't do anything wrong.

I don't know if those two guys did anything wrong, and I won't humor a known liar and hack by giving him an extra view on his video to find out what he thinks about it. They may be guilty as charged, they may be innocent, but "stepping down" doesn't actually mean anything.

Me either.... A friend of mine posted an article with the first video, and while I would call into question even the article, there was one quote that *could* have some merit.... Apparently there is an FEC investigation on-going regarding the woman who was featured in some of the videos and payments made to her.

Such a nasty woman.

Well that was certainly a thing...that happened.

A presidential candidate saying they may refuse to accept the election results...ok...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well that was certainly a thing...that happened.

A presidential candidate saying they may refuse to accept the election results...ok...

Much suspense, such wow.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Are there racists among the Republican Party? Of course there is. There were racists in the Party even back in Lincoln's day, when it was the "party of emancipation". That will never change. But to say that the Republican Party holds the exclusive title as "refuge to racists and bigots", or has more bigots amongst it's ranks than the Democrats, are patent falsehoods and myths perpetuated by the political establishment.

Sure, both parties have racists, it is wrong to claim otherwise. The real distinction between the parties is that the Republican party relies on policy positions that rely on racist beliefs in order to be believable, supportable positions. In the past this was fairly suble, relying on sub-conscious racist assumptions, but under Trump this has become overt - it many cases it is impossible to nod along to Trump's statements.

The reason Trump tends to get labeled a "race baiter" is mostly due to his stances on illegal immigration, #BlackLivesMatter, and tightening up on immigration from predominately Islamic countries.

No, it's because he's said a bunch of really racist things.

How much of that is pandering to his support base, and how much is genuine, is still a big question.

His concern about national borders is genuine (as is the racism he attaches to that issue). One of the strangest things about this campaign is how much people have claimed Trump's real positions are unknown or inconsistent. Sure, he jumps all over the shop on issues that don't matter to him, but on key issues he's been consistent for years. Trump has written three books on politics. They're very stupid, but they show what issues Trump worries about, and in each of those issues Trump is very consistent. National borders, projecting a strong image of US power overseas, taking more aggressive (and in his mind more profitable) positions with other nations, these are things Trump has been consistent on since his first book, written about 15 years ago.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well that was certainly a thing...that happened.

A presidential candidate saying they may refuse to accept the election results...ok...

It was coming. Thanks to the witch hunt we had against Clinton under the Republican Congress we got Gore pulling this same stunt previously. The Republicans, I hope unwittingly, set this sort of thing in motion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Are there racists among the Republican Party? Of course there is. There were racists in the Party even back in Lincoln's day, when it was the "party of emancipation". That will never change. But to say that the Republican Party holds the exclusive title as "refuge to racists and bigots", or has more bigots amongst it's ranks than the Democrats, are patent falsehoods and myths perpetuated by the political establishment.

Sure, both parties have racists, it is wrong to claim otherwise. The real distinction between the parties is that the Republican party relies on policy positions that rely on racist beliefs in order to be believable, supportable positions. In the past this was fairly suble, relying on sub-conscious racist assumptions, but under Trump this has become overt - it many cases it is impossible to nod along to Trump's statements.

That's nonesense, Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism, which is generally championed by the Democratic party. Republican ideology isn't any more or less racist than Democratic ideology.

The two candidates are both ###es who are just generally ###es towards everyone in their 'I'm better than you' expressions and statements. I'm hoping Utah (where I live) does go for this guy from BYU or better yet Johnson (who was govenor when I was in New Mexico, and even then the state thought he was a goofball), and I'm not Mormon.

The Republican party, if it could have not fallen to 'uge', could have trounced Clinton this campaign. She's the flip side of Trump with snotty smirks, a massive amount of baggage, a husband who pretty much says her feminist ideology is total bs, and was a key driver in a $20 trillion dollar deficit. So desperate for change they picked a bloviating megalomaniac. Of course, with the potential for a royal dynasty with Bush III....

 ShieldBrother wrote:
Such a nasty woman.

Not his "you'd be in jail' line but still pretty good.
It was a pretty good debate, I'd out this one in the middle, I want to rewatch it to score it and, like more properly comment on it.
Thought that line about accepting the election result could have been better, I get what he was going for but, even as a fan of Trump I can see that sometimes his thoughts come out wrong,

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But I get this dread feeling I'll be proven right on this and I don't want to be right on this, because it will mean that people will be getting killed.

Problem being Trump is hardly safer option in that regard. Indeed he has potential for lot more people getting killed.

Risk getting some people killed or risk getting many times that many people getting killed? Either way people get killed.

Would be likely tough to have president who doesn't get somebody killed anyway though.

Before the debates I was arguing that in the immediate aftermath of the debates, people might focus on debate performance as the guide of who won each debate, but the real and lasting impact of the debates came from statements made by the candidates, and how these statements would be analysed and accepted/rejected over the medium term. By this measure, is it fair to say that Trump and Pence basically gifted each of the debates to the Democrats?

First debate – Trump’s worst performance, and his statements (and mass of fact checking afterwards) showed Trump lived in a strange world of conspiracy theories and almost entirely no facts. But the biggest takeaway from that debate was Trump’s sexism, an issue raised out of the blue by Clinton, that should have gone nowhere if Trump had shown some discipline. Instead he went off on a rant about Rosie O’Donnell and then followed up after the debate by defending and repeating his statements that a former Miss Universe was fat. Second behind that was Trump continuing to repeat his easily disproven lie that he opposed the Iraq war – somehow he managed to turn the disastrous war that Clinton actually voted for in to a losing issue for him.

The VP debate sure Pence give a better performance, but the real takeaway was the number of times Pence denied Trump had said things that were recorded and very well known. Again, deflection would have looked weaker on the night, but meant no damage in the aftermath. Pence chose poorly and the result was that whatever the VP debate matters, it worked against the Republican ticket.

The second debate saw Trump’s performance improve, but the take away was Trump saying he’d lock up his presidential opponent once he won.

I haven’t seen the third debate, but the big take away appears to be Trump doubling down on his allegations of a rigged process, and being the first US nomination to refuse to accept the result of the election.

Forget all the talk about performance, the story here is that in four debates, the Republicans kicked four own goals.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
sometimes his thoughts come out wrong,

Yes, the problem isn't that he believes a bunch of bald-face lies and has had the peddlers of them organize his "campaign," it's all in how they come out of his mouth.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
sometimes his thoughts come out wrong,

Yes, the problem isn't that he believes a bunch of bald-face lies and has had the peddlers of them organize his "campaign," it's all in how they come out of his mouth.

Hilary just lies for the hell of it, so much so nobody thinks she is ever telling the truth, even if she is.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
That may be, but history shows us that US backed groups have a habit of turning around and biting the US on the ass when they no longer need the US.

Many of those groups are also the sort that find a new cause and new backers once the US no longer needs them. Whoever could have imagined that abandoning (stopping payments and support to) an armed group could make them decide to get their money and purpose doing something else? They might have started as anti-communist rebels, anti-jihadist militias or whatever but once they're left in withdrawal of sweet US dollars and arms they need to find a new fix even if that means perverting the cause they just fought for.

edit: yes, ofc other "big players" do it too.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
sometimes his thoughts come out wrong,

Yes, the problem isn't that he believes a bunch of bald-face lies and has had the peddlers of them organize his "campaign," it's all in how they come out of his mouth.

Hilary just lies for the hell of it, so much so nobody thinks she is ever telling the truth, even if she is.

That's one opinion.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
sometimes his thoughts come out wrong,

Yes, the problem isn't that he believes a bunch of bald-face lies and has had the peddlers of them organize his "campaign," it's all in how they come out of his mouth.

Hilary just lies for the hell of it, so much so nobody thinks she is ever telling the truth, even if she is.

it's a good thing the debates have fact checkers, and the truth is, she was the most truthful candidate running between both parties and trump was the least truthful.

 d-usa wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
sometimes his thoughts come out wrong,

Yes, the problem isn't that he believes a bunch of bald-face lies and has had the peddlers of them organize his "campaign," it's all in how they come out of his mouth.

Hilary just lies for the hell of it, so much so nobody thinks she is ever telling the truth, even if she is.

That's one opinion.

It's weird she just seems to have to lie, even if there isn't a reason to.
Like that Bosnia sniper thing.
I mean why lie about that when she knew there were news crews there...

 sebster wrote:
Forget all the talk about performance, the story here is that in four debates, the Republicans kicked four own goals.

Indeed, the Republican Party of Trump is scoring Steve Smith-level own goals at every chance.