Trump news

[Rajvik]

How bout the pundits piss off until they decide to give equal bitch time to Obama's plagiarism of Elizabeth Warren, amongst several others.

I'm about sick and tired of hearing "Oh the Republicans are so mean and so nasty and they hate everyone who isn't white and male and over 40
 

[robkelk]

...
I'm about sick and tired of hearing "Oh the Republicans are so mean and so nasty and they hate everyone who isn't white and male and over 40

Looking at the Republicans from the outside, that's certainly what they appear to be. Maybe a drastic change in behaviour would help solve that image issue.

Not saying that the other party doesn't also have image issues, mind you.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Rajvik]

And why do they have that image issue? Because they have been tarred with the brush of the Democrats bad deeds, while the blacks, Hispanics women and homosexuals of the Republican party are either ignored by the media or told that "they are just confused and don't know where they belong by the main stream media pundits and the Democrats
 

[Black Aeronaut]

Rajvik. At the very least, Democrats do not promote xenophobia, racism, violence, bigotry, and misogyny. I'll take ordinary greed, corruption, and fraud over that any day of the week because that, at least, won't get me fucking shot in the street for being Hispanic. (Seriously, the shit is starting to sound like "Best Of Eurasia - The Nazi and Bolshevik Collection".)

[robkelk]

And why do they have that image issue? Because they have been tarred with the brush of the Democrats bad deeds, while the blacks, Hispanics women and homosexuals of the Republican party are either ignored by the media or told that "they are just confused and don't know where they belong by the main stream media pundits and the Democrats

Possibly. There's also the actual statements by a particular Republican politician that need to be taken into account: things like planning to build a wall between the USA and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it, threatening to sue people who report on things that make him look bad, insulting the female moderator of a candidates' debate, musing about repealing the 14th Amendment and gutting the 1st Amendment, proposing to ban the entry of any Muslim to the USA, suggesting the USA should default on its debt - all things that we've discussed in this very thread.

The GOP chose him, knowing all of that. The GOP gets to deal with the outcome of choosing him. Actions have consequences.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Norgarth]

A tiny wall has appeared around Trump's Hollywood Star. 8Phttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/street-a ... d=40739794
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin

[ordnance11]

Rajvik wrote:

---

How bout the pundits piss off until they decide to give equal bitch time to Obama's plagiarism of Elizabeth Warren, amongst several others.

I'm about sick and tired of hearing "Oh the Republicans are so mean and so nasty and they hate everyone who isn't white and male and over 40

And why do they have that image issue? Because they have been tarred
with the brush of the Democrats bad deeds, while the blacks, Hispanics
women and homosexuals of the Republican party are either ignored by the
media or told that "they are just confused and don't know where they
belong by the main stream media pundits and the Democrats

Well, look at the GOP convention on TV. How many delegates are black and Latino? The GOP Latinos at the convention at not very happy at Trump. Neither are the GOP LGTB community. Especially after the plank for LBGT's were shot by the GOP committee. And how many delegates do you see are white, male and over 40? Go over to Alabama and see what Judge Roy Moore is doing over there. The GOP is doing it to themselves.Trying to lurch back to the 80's.
Let me put it in this context. The worst match up the GOP can put up is Trump vs Clinton. And what did they just do today? Even Ted Cruz might had been a better match up.
Also something else:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magaz ... 9D&gwt=pay

One
day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached
out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the
presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared
in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the
United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step
of coordinating
with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the
nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under
the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an
offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful
vice president in history?
When
Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained
that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and
foreign policy.
Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

My take is that Trump has no interest in the day to day job of being POTUS and would out source it. The VP gets to run the country and the headaches and be blamed for any failures. Trump gets to play President and gets to hog all the glory and fanfare. That reminds me too much of Bush'43 and Dick Cheney in his first term. We all know were that lead to.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

The latest:
Cruz snubs Trump

Trump's reaction
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[DHBirr]

ordnance11 wrote:

When
Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained
that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and
foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

Oooooo-kay....  
Assuming for the moment the Kasich adviser isn't outright lying (he is a political operative, after all) or suffering serious memory problems, exactly what can be done by a human agency aside from domestic and foreign policy to make a country great?  Really, a nation's "greatness" comes down to resources, domestic policy, foreign policy, and luck ... or divine favor, for those who believe in such things.  Acquiring/developing new resources would be a result of domestic and/or foreign policy.  So ... luck?  Divine favor?  Are those going to be Trump's area of responsibility?
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[Bob Schroeck]

Ord, your link goes right back to the forums.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

Fixed
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

Came across this article:
Trump's ghostwriter tells all
This is what I found interesting:

Schwartz thought that “The Art of the Deal” would be an easy project.
The book’s structure would be simple: he’d chronicle half a dozen or so
of Trump’s biggest real-estate deals, dispense some bromides about how
to succeed in business, and fill in Trump’s life story. For research, he
planned to interview Trump on a series of Saturday mornings. The first
session didn’t go as planned, however. After Trump gave him a tour of
his marble-and-gilt apartment atop Trump Tower—which, to Schwartz,
looked unlived-in, like the lobby of a hotel—they began to talk. But the
discussion was soon hobbled by what Schwartz regards as one of Trump’s
most essential characteristics: “He has no attention span.”
“Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this
fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,”
Schwartz told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s
never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s
impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own
self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ”
Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s
inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he
had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to
imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said.

This is for me the most damming. You have a candidate for President with the attention span of a 6 year old. Who presented with a problem would probably go for the most simplistic solution. Or cannot be bothered with it. I am not asking for a Woodrow Wilson, but I'd like to have a President who wold think things through before he acts.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Jinx999]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36852805
And he's said he's willing to ignore one of the centrepieces of world security to save money. And national defence is supposedly one of the strengths of the republican party.

[ordnance11]

Well Trump's acceptance speech theme is "Midnite in America. I alone can fix it." Sounds like a pitch a strongman would say. We have enough dictators in this world. Don't need another one.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rajvik]

robkelk wrote:

---

Rajvik wrote:

---

And why do they have that image issue? Because they have been tarred with the brush of the Democrats bad deeds, while the blacks, Hispanics women and homosexuals of the Republican party are either ignored by the media or told that "they are just confused and don't know where they belong by the main stream media pundits and the Democrats

Possibly. There's also the actual statements by a particular Republican politician that need to be taken into account: things like planning to build a wall between the USA and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it, threatening to sue people who report on things that make him look bad, insulting the female moderator of a candidates' debate, musing about repealing the 14th Amendment and gutting the 1st Amendment, proposing to ban the entry of any Muslim to the USA, suggesting the USA should default on its debt - all things that we've discussed in this very thread.

The GOP chose him, knowing all of that. The GOP gets to deal with the outcome of choosing him. Actions have consequences.

Alright, i'll finally get down to answering this now that i'm not stuck on my phone. 1) the wall- there is an old saying that good fences make good neighbors, I am all for LEGAL immigration, but we have limits to that for a reason, and of course we only want the best of what is available because, quite frankly we want to improve our nation not drag it down to the level of whatever hell hole that the immigrant came from. This is not xenophobic, its good sense. Also, the serious lack of security on the Mexico/US border means that if someone was willing to truck in the supplies they could move a large number of people across that border without our knowledge, and the last thing we want is another San Bernadino, or Orlando, or gods forbid September 11.

Also remember, for approximately sixty some years it was illegal for anyone to immigrate to the US unless they had special permission from Congress, US military abroad were denied the ability to marry locals and court martialed for doing so.

2) Suing people- a newspaper prints a story that is slanderous to a person they have the right to sue them, period bloody dot. If the media releases something that is either thinly researched, or simple accusation it has a lot of power because the majority of the populace have become sheeple, they listen to the loudest voice in the room and do what they are told. That said the world's media are a VERY LOUD VOICE, and most people take what they say at face value, that would be ok if they were as neutral as they claimed to be, but there was a reason that we called CNN the Clinton News Network in the 90's. From the way they covered Bill and Hillary you would have thought that little blue dress of Monica's was theirs not hers.

3)female moderator- I saw that debate, one of the few that i bothered to watch. I am fighting for words other than she deserved it to describe what i saw, (and i was a Carson supporter at the time). She was blatantly bias, in fact other than a CNN anchor's comment about "shivers up my legs" about Obama's speeches back in 08 i haven't seen any moderator or anchor be so blatant in their fawning over a candidate

4) Repealing Amendments- I have heard nothing about this, however regardless of if he wanted to or not, there is no way he could since it would require the passing of a new amendment repealing the old one. i think this is just someone stirring the racist pot agenda against him

5) Banning Muslims- I love how people seem to think that banning people from a certain region, nation or religion from entering our country while we are systematically at war with aspects of the religion of said region, nation or religion is a bad thing. Face the facts, we are at war with MUSLIM EXTREMISM, and since we are unable to read the minds and hearts of every person who crosses our border then its only logical to stop the flow of people who might wish to do our nation or our people harm, to do less, let alone intentionally bringing in thousands of potential terrorists, is patently irresponsible and dangerous.

6) defaulting on the debt- Apparently the majority of our debt is owed internally, so it will be defaulted on at some point regardless, (I see this being fairly soon as more and more baby boomers retire and seek their social security which has been pilfered by both sides of the aisle to prop up social and corporate welfare over the last 50 or so years. 

The military (which is honestly my own sacred cow) is going to have to learn to stretch things father, make them last longer and realize that they can't have all the nice new cool toys because while we have spent the last 40 years or so riding the cutting edge of technology, the military industrial complex is fixing to have to take a back seat to practicality and normal consumerism. Frankly we could cancel the orders on the F-35 and the V-22 and get out from under a boondoggle and a practical waste respectively, limit the number of F-22's to what we have and still kick the ass of any nation out there except maybe China. The current war we have to fight doesn't need tech anyway, it also doesn't need 70 ton tanks so the Abrams and its tenetive replacement, (yes i've heard that there is one in the works but no real knowledge there yet) can be kept at its current levels/drawing board. What we do need is good body armor, and boots on the ground. This is a war that is not going to be fought with high tech, but could be fought with WWII tech, because its a matter of being in peoples faces. In short, military spending can be seriously cut.

Social programs also can take a serious hit, as i stated in the Dolist thread, if you are so lazy/apathetic that you cannot even put up the pretense of looking for a job, then i have no sympathy for you, and otherwise, if you are not willing to lower yourself to do jobs that you seem to think are beneath you, you are not going to find any work. If you can't be bothered then you're going to have your money taken away, if you have kids and you allow that, then you will have your kids taken away. Its cold, its mean, and it shows little to no heart where "Caring for those less fortunate" are concerned. I don't care, as I have also said, I am an asshole, pick yourself up by your own damn bootstraps and figure something out as far as work to put money in your pocket and food on your own damn table because the government cannot and should not have to carry your dead weight for more than a year to 18 months.

Now, as to trade issues, FUCK NAFTA AND THE TPP. I hope i said it loud enough and get my point across, Tariffs have been a traditional tax to protect home grown industry, they have always been used as such so that local industry could get their feet under them. WE HAVE LET OUR MANUFACTURING ABILITY DIE, we used to have a thriving electronics industry, it went overseas, why you ask, because of several reasons, one being unions demanding more money for the worker, another being that the EPA brought the hammer down on the companies due to the industrial pollutants that were released constantly during the manufacturing process. because of this and other reasons (including rising taxes) the companies that produced electronics either went out of business or went overseas where labor was cheaper and pollution was either not as closely monitored or you could bribe your way out of trouble. And while the American consumer reaped the benefits the American worker faced the consequences. In short, WE OUTSOURCED OUR POLLUTION ALONG WITH THE WORK,  but as usual, "Not In My Back Yard so I don't care" and who in the world has to deal with things like the Kyoto accords, not the third world shit holes where this takes place, no its the US and Europe.

Now, Hillary is touting a federal $15 an hour minimum wage as one of her talking points, this is utter bullshit and will cause several things. 
1. costs of goods and services will go up.
2. people will be replaced with more automation because its cheaper than the workers. 
3. the people who make between the current minimum wage and the new one will only get raised to the new minimum unless they are union and a certain amount is guaranteed in their union contract, that means that people like me will have their work relegated to the same amount of money you pay the DAMN MCDONALDS CASHIER. In other words it devalues the "low education" work force. 

Thats all i have for now, have fun  
 

[robkelk]

And why do they have that image issue? Because they have been tarred with the brush of the Democrats bad deeds, while the blacks, Hispanics women and homosexuals of the Republican party are either ignored by the media or told that "they are just confused and don't know where they belong by the main stream media pundits and the Democrats

Possibly. There's also the actual statements by a particular Republican politician that need to be taken into account: things like planning to build a wall between the USA and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it, threatening to sue people who report on things that make him look bad, insulting the female moderator of a candidates' debate, musing about repealing the 14th Amendment and gutting the 1st Amendment, proposing to ban the entry of any Muslim to the USA, suggesting the USA should default on its debt - all things that we've discussed in this very thread.

The GOP chose him, knowing all of that. The GOP gets to deal with the outcome of choosing him. Actions have consequences.

Alright, i'll finally get down to answering this now that i'm not stuck on my phone. 1) the wall- there is an old saying that good fences make good neighbors, I am all for LEGAL immigration, but we have limits to that for a reason, and of course we only want the best of what is available because, quite frankly we want to improve our nation not drag it down to the level of whatever hell hole that the immigrant came from. This is not xenophobic, its good sense. Also, the serious lack of security on the Mexico/US border means that if someone was willing to truck in the supplies they could move a large number of people across that border without our knowledge, and the last thing we want is another San Bernadino, or Orlando, or gods forbid September 11.

Calling someone else's country a "hell hole" is xenophobic, not good sense. And if it is that bad, leaving people in it is indefensible. (If you're Christian, it's also a sin, according to Matthew 25:41-46.) Also, if there's a "serious lack of security on the Mexico/US border", why hasn't it been exploited yet despite there being a number of people who have reason to do so?

I notice you didn't address the important part of this point: "and get Mexico to pay for it" You want a wall, fine, build a wall - it's your country. Why are you looking to some other country for handouts to pay for it?

Also remember, for approximately sixty some years it was illegal for anyone to immigrate to the US unless they had special permission from Congress, US military abroad were denied the ability to marry locals and court martialed for doing so.

And you fixed that. Why take a backward step?

2) Suing people- a newspaper prints a story that is slanderous to a person...

Who said anything about slander? (Remainder of attempted deflection snipped.)

3)female moderator- I saw that debate, one of the few that i bothered to watch. I am fighting for words other than she deserved it to describe what i saw, (and i was a Carson supporter at the time). She was blatantly bias, in fact other than a CNN anchor's comment about "shivers up my legs" about Obama's speeches back in 08 i haven't seen any moderator or anchor be so blatant in their fawning over a candidate

Is that call for insulting her?

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, since you should have learned it already: Everybody in the world is biased. Somebody who cannot accept that and move on is not fit for high public office, especially an office where he'll need to interact with people who do not share his biases and who he cannot fire.

4) Repealing Amendments- I have heard nothing about this, however regardless of if he wanted to or not, there is no way he could since it would require the passing of a new amendment repealing the old one. i think this is just someone stirring the racist pot agenda against him

We've discussed it in this very thread. Go back and follow the links.

5) Banning Muslims- I love how people seem to think that banning people from a certain region, nation or religion from entering our country while we are systematically at war with aspects of the religion of said region, nation or religion is a bad thing. Face the facts, we are at war with MUSLIM EXTREMISM, and since we are unable to read the minds and hearts of every person who crosses our border then its only logical to stop the flow of people who might wish to do our nation or our people harm, to do less, let alone intentionally bringing in thousands of potential terrorists, is patently irresponsible and dangerous.

When was this war declared? Which members of Congress voted in favor of it?

We took an event that should have been treated as a case of mass murder - 9/11 - and used it as a pretext to invade a country, and now some of us are wondering why the people of that country and their allies don't like us. Actions have consequences.

6) defaulting on the debt- Apparently the majority of our debt is owed internally, so it will be defaulted on at some point regardless, (I see this being fairly soon as more and more baby boomers retire and seek their social security which has been pilfered by both sides of the aisle to prop up social and corporate welfare over the last 50 or so years. 

According to http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsrepor ... nfo_ss.htm , Social Security is in a separate fund and has been since 1940. (That fund isn't doing too well as of the end of 2014, according to that report, but that's because people are living longer and collecting more Social Security payments.) Conflating Social Security with other Federal debt may be common practice, but it's an incorrect practice.

The military (which is honestly my own sacred cow) is going to have to learn to stretch things father, make them last longer and realize that they can't have all the nice new cool toys because while we have spent the last 40 years or so riding the cutting edge of technology, the military industrial complex is fixing to have to take a back seat to practicality and normal consumerism. Frankly we could cancel the orders on the F-35 and the V-22 and get out from under a boondoggle and a practical waste respectively, limit the number of F-22's to what we have and still kick the ass of any nation out there except maybe China. The current war we have to fight doesn't need tech anyway, it also doesn't need 70 ton tanks so the Abrams and its tenetive replacement, (yes i've heard that there is one in the works but no real knowledge there yet) can be kept at its current levels/drawing board. What we do need is good body armor, and boots on the ground. This is a war that is not going to be fought with high tech, but could be fought with WWII tech, because its a matter of being in peoples faces. In short, military spending can be seriously cut.

Deploying with WWII tech means accepting the risk of WWII casualties - and most civilians have no stomach for that any more. Also, ships and aircraft wear out. Other than that (and the "at war" bit I've already addressed), I find no fault with this position.

Social programs also can take a serious hit, as i stated in the Dolist thread, if you are so lazy/apathetic that you cannot even put up the pretense of looking for a job, then i have no sympathy for you, and otherwise, if you are not willing to lower yourself to do jobs that you seem to think are beneath you, you are not going to find any work. If you can't be bothered then you're going to have your money taken away, if you have kids and you allow that, then you will have your kids taken away. Its cold, its mean, and it shows little to no heart where "Caring for those less fortunate" are concerned. I don't care, as I have also said, I am an asshole, pick yourself up by your own damn bootstraps and figure something out as far as work to put money in your pocket and food on your own damn table because the government cannot and should not have to carry your dead weight for more than a year to 18 months.

Now, as to trade issues, FUCK NAFTA AND THE TPP. I hope i said it loud enough and get my point across, Tariffs have been a traditional tax to protect home grown industry, they have always been used as such so that local industry could get their feet under them. WE HAVE LET OUR MANUFACTURING ABILITY DIE, we used to have a thriving electronics industry, it went overseas, why you ask, because of several reasons, one being unions demanding more money for the worker, another being that the EPA brought the hammer down on the companies due to the industrial pollutants that were released constantly during the manufacturing process. because of this and other reasons (including rising taxes) the companies that produced electronics either went out of business or went overseas where labor was cheaper and pollution was either not as closely monitored or you could bribe your way out of trouble. And while the American consumer reaped the benefits the American worker faced the consequences. In short, WE OUTSOURCED OUR POLLUTION ALONG WITH THE WORK,  but as usual, "Not In My Back Yard so I don't care" and who in the world has to deal with things like the Kyoto accords, not the third world shit holes where this takes place, no its the US and Europe.

Now, Hillary is touting a federal $15 an hour minimum wage as one of her talking points, this is utter bullshit and will cause several things. 
1. costs of goods and services will go up.
2. people will be replaced with more automation because its cheaper than the workers. 
3. the people who make between the current minimum wage and the new one will only get raised to the new minimum unless they are union and a certain amount is guaranteed in their union contract, that means that people like me will have their work relegated to the same amount of money you pay the DAMN MCDONALDS CASHIER. In other words it devalues the "low education" work force. 

Thats all i have for now, have fun  

Wow. I don't know where to begin pointing out the contradictions in all that.

No, I do know where to begin: "pick yourself up by your own damn bootstraps and figure something out as far as work ... WE HAVE LET OUR MANUFACTURING ABILITY DIE" You want people to take jobs that you say don't exist any more. That's a good trick - how do you do it?

(Oh, and a $15 an hour minimum wage is standard throughout the First World. You can't do something the rest of us can?)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Black Aeronaut]

I'd like to chime in on the issue with jobs that no longer exist here in America and expand on it with a bit of common sense.

Mainly, the fact that no matter what you do, those jobs are NEVER coming back. Ever.

The thing is that jobs that are typically exported are ones where:
1. Very little formal education is required to do the job in question
2. The labor pool in the competing country is significantly less expensive than your own
3. Many businessmen do not really care about details such as who gets laid off. All that matters is the bottom line. QED.

Without getting into his qualifications, let us remember this simple fact: Trump is a businessman. And he is exactly the sort of businessman that I point out in Point #3. If you honestly think that he cares about us, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

And right now, he's trying to tell us that he's going to 'Make America Great Again'?

Now, it doesn't matter what you do. Go ahead and clap your hands while screaming "I BELIEVE IN FAIRIES!" Those jobs won't come back.

The industries might come back, and that would be nice from a standpoint of tax revenues. But they will be highly automated versions of their former selves. Tags should read "Made With Pride In America by Robbie Robot". And then there's the whole corporate tax reform thing.

We need to get used to the fact that, even as long as thirty years ago, America has been shifting towards being a services-oriented economy. And you cannot get away with paying people below the poverty line in an economy like that.

Also, there's the fact that we've all been over this before:

The hilarious part is that this movie came out right before the stock market crash of the late eighties.

Ambition... that is good. Greed is terrible and destroys not only companies, but entire economies as well, faster than you could ever imagine. And there is enough greed in a Trump presidency to take down the entire world.

When that happens, I'll be one of the first ones out there with a pitch fork and torch.

[ordnance11]

And this just in..Trump asked the Russians to find Hillary's missing emails. And the timing of the info dump..I wouldn't be surprised if Putin is trying to help is pal.
So vote for Trump and prove yourself to be a patriot. For what country is going to be up in the air.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Labster]

I'm not really sure how to feel about a U.S. Presidential candidate asking a rival foreign power to reenact Watergate. I don't think there's a name for that feeling.
Edit: FYI: Mike Pence's daughter has no reflection in mirrors.
-- ∇×V

[Bob Schroeck]

Not strictly Trump, but related: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... er-for-gop]Conservatives agree: DNC was a disaster for the GOP.
(Edit:  removed paragraph with links to news story that was a year old instead of being immediate, as I thought.)
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

Remember that joke website about moving to Cape Breton if Trump wins? Apparently, it isn't a joke to a few people.

CBC News: 'Trump Bump' in Cape Breton draws tourists, but few new residents

(Since I'm mentioning a "move to Canada if candidate X wins" story, here's the government's official immigration website.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

And for one of the last posts in this instance of the Trump thread, what do you get when you replace Calvin's head with Donald Trump's?

and Hobbes
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Bob Schroeck]

And another, far less humorous:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/maybe_d ... _not_well/]Maybe Donald Trump has really lost his mind: What if the GOP frontrunner isn’t crazy, but simply not well?

This brings back memories of similar concerns being expressed over Ronald Reagan because of his age. Reagan being Reagan, he joked about being regularly checked. I doubt Trump will joke about it if anyone brings it up to him.

Although the article is serious, I have to say that I do love one bit of no doubt semi-intentional humor the author included:

At times it can be very hard to distinguish between extreme right-wing politics and symptoms of dementia.

Edit:  fixed my broken markup.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Dartz]

Trump: So, uh, why don't we just nuke the fuck out of 'em?
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Bob Schroeck]

Conservative columnist, gadfly and wit P.J. O'Rourke http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -know.html]is endorsing Hilary Clinton with the most devastatingly eviscerating comments about why he'd rather vote for her than Trump.  Even if you don't ever agree with him, read it, just for the laughs.

Hillary is a terrible bien pensant, taking her opinions from the top of the star-studded social ladder. In another day and place she’d be campaigning from Tara with the slogan “Fiddle-Dee-Dee.” Frankly, Hillary, I don’t give a damn. I endorse you anyway.
Better bien pensant than pas de pensees.
Better a nit of wit than a louse.
Better a mangy cat than a rabid dog.
Better the scurrying of mousey progressivism gnawing at the fabric of society in the White House than a rat sitting on the Oval Office desk.
Better to root up the garden of free enterprise with the Democratic pigs than run off a protectionist cliff with the Gadarene swine Republicans.
...
Hillary, you are the crone in crony capitalism. I endorse you.
I choose Goldman Sachs’s milch cow over the cretin bull siring his herds of mini-Minotaurs—half-men, half-bullshit—laying waste to the country.
Better a Marie Antoinette of the left saying, “Let them eat fruit and fiber,” than a Know Nothing who would be Robespierre if he could spell it.

Of course, he has more than a "beat Trump" motive -- he sees a Hilary Presidency as inevitably leading to a resurgence of the Republican Party, but he also acknowledges that supporting Trump would mean there would be no Republican Party to resurge, and possibly no democratic system for it to resurge in.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.