The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:43 pm

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ ... m_fb_mojoe

The dem race looking at Sander in the Trump thread.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:20 pm

If Clinton is indicted, does Bernie win or does Obama pardon her immediately and she continues with her campaign?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:28 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Interesting. I would think that he would know that, given that he works at the polls. This information comes through my mom, though, so maybe she's interpreting his request for a GOP ballot as "registering as a Republican."

Until six or eight years ago taking a party's ballot automatically enrolled you in that party. To remain independent, you had to make a separate stop at the registrar's office to unenroll. I've always been independent so IDK if being enrolled in a party forces you to take that party's ballot -- it's possible that if your dad was a registered D, he might have been restricted to the D ballot. Still, he could go independent rather than becoming a R.

As you said, he should know all this.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:01 am

msduncan wrote:If Clinton is indicted, does Bernie win or does Obama pardon her immediately and she continues with her campaign?

I think you greatly underestimate the power of the Clinton Clan. She'll just form the giant robot Clintron with the rest of her family and take the U.S. by force.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:10 am

I would pay money to see Clintron vs. Mechagodzilla

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:30 pm

At this point, if it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, Cruz, or Carson, I'll vote Hillary. If it comes down to Hillary vs Rubio or Jeb, I'll vote Republican. All that of course is in flux, as I haven't watched a single debate and don't really plan to pay attention until around September.

While I can't stand Hillary's morals (or lack thereof), the good thing about her is that she has bigger balls than Obama and I am certain that she'd A) not be a pushover on the foreign policy stage and B) not rule by committee because she's a stone cold bitch that I can't see handing her decision-making over to underlings.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:33 pm

tgb wrote:I would pay money to see Clintron vs. Mechagodzilla

Have you ever seen them together?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:40 pm

YellowKing wrote:At this point, if it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, Cruz, or Carson, I'll vote Hillary. If it comes down to Hillary vs Rubio or Jeb, I'll vote Republican. All that of course is in flux, as I haven't watched a single debate and don't really plan to pay attention until around September.

While I can't stand Hillary's morals (or lack thereof), the good thing about her is that she has bigger balls than Obama and I am certain that she'd A) not be a pushover on the foreign policy stage and B) not rule by committee because she's a stone cold bitch that I can't see handing her decision-making over to underlings.

RM9 == YellowKing. Well, maybe a less pleasant version of YellowKing, but this is exactly how I feel at this juncture.

Edit to add: My only concern with voting for a non-insane Republican is that it turns over the keys to all the cars to a political party that has a very large contingent that is foaming-at-the-mouth insane (i.e. the idiots that are currently supporting Trump/Cruz/Carson). That will almost certainly lead to repealing Obamacare, which would be a *disaster*.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:43 pm

Honestly, I don't understand being on the fence between parties regardless of who the nominee is. If you vote for the democratic nominee, 90% of what you're getting is the mainstream democratic platform (the 10% being the personal tweaks of the individual candidate). Similarly if you vote for the Republican nominee, 90% of what you're getting is the mainstream Republican platform.

So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:45 pm

El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"

I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:54 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.

I'm confused. I assume Rubio would repeal *Obamacare*, as that is clearly part of the Republican Platform.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:54 pm

How does one measure the lack of a soul? Does she weigh less than wood? Is part of the soulless test a good dunking to see if she floats (and is therefore soulless) or sinks (and is therefore soulful and should be given a recording contract)?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:57 pm

Rubio (1) disputes the science of climate change (2) wants to repeal the ACA (3) strongly opposes abortion and (4) same-sex marriage and finally (5) wants to continue to criminalize marijuana use. I would vote for a soulless husk rather than pull a lever for that nonsense.

Trump just wants to make America great again. How can you fault that?

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 3:13 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Trump just wants to make America great again. How can you fault that?

The Talking Heads, cocaine parties, daddy's empire, and Patrick Nagel as fine art. Let's do this thing!

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 3:18 pm

The article and modern coverage of it.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 3:32 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.

IMHO, Rubio would nominate Supreme Court Justices who lack a soul - which to me is even more important than Presidential souls as they are around longer, and it is far more difficult to reverse soul-less Supreme Court decisions than Presidential actions.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 3:48 pm

Then you guys probably shouldn't vote for Rubio. I'm not voting for Hillary unless the Republicans force me too.

(As for repealing Obamacare and whether Rubio would do it, I did point out that I have that as a concern. If we get to the general election and he's vowing to do that, I'll jump off that train).

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:05 pm

Any Republican running would sign a Congressional repeal of the ACA, and they would do it in week one. How could they possibly do otherwise?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:42 pm

Holman wrote:Any Republican running would sign a Congressional repeal of the ACA, and they would do it in week one. How could they possibly do otherwise?

There were a lot of liberal promises that Obama made that evaporated immediately when you get the job and you actually have to be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Remember when Obama was going to close the detention facility at Guantanamo? It's still open. And he even signed an EO to close it. And it's still open.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:49 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Holman wrote:Any Republican running would sign a Congressional repeal of the ACA, and they would do it in week one. How could they possibly do otherwise?
There were a lot of liberal promises that Obama made that evaporated immediately when you get the job and you actually have to be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Remember when Obama was going to close the detention facility at Guantanamo? It's still open. And he even signed an EO to close it. And it's still open.

Repealing the ACA has been the Republican dream for seven years. Attempting it has been practically all they have done. They vote on it every chance they get, and they will do so immediately after the next president takes office (after probably a dozen more attempts between now and then).

It would be politically impossible for a Bush or a Rubio to stand in the way of that. There's just no way.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:57 pm

Holman wrote:Repealing the ACA has been the Republican dream for seven years. Attempting it has been practically all they have done. They vote on it every chance they get, and they will do so immediately after the next president takes office (after probably a dozen more attempts between now and then).

It would be politically impossible for a Bush or a Rubio to stand in the way of that. There's just no way.

Well, if that becomes clear to me as the election looms, I will integrate that into my decision.

dfs · Post by **dfs** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:01 pm

El Guapo wrote: It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"

Not to break the narrative, but historically both the red and blue parties are the second option here. The "choice" is simply a matter of who gets the welfare.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:01 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Holman wrote:Repealing the ACA has been the Republican dream for seven years. Attempting it has been practically all they have done. They vote on it every chance they get, and they will do so immediately after the next president takes office (after probably a dozen more attempts between now and then).

It would be politically impossible for a Bush or a Rubio to stand in the way of that. There's just no way.
Well, if that becomes clear to me as the election looms, I will integrate that into my decision.

There's no question about it. Bush and Rubio have both repeatedly promised to sign a repeal of Obamacare. Rubio has also tried to take credit for efforts to do so in the senate.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:11 pm

Holman wrote:There's no question about it. Bush and Rubio have both repeatedly promised to sign a repeal of Obamacare. Rubio has also tried to take credit for efforts to do so in the senate.

If I'm not mistaken, they're both currently running in a Republican primary against crazy people. I'll wait until the real contest starts any make my evaluation then.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:27 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Then you guys probably shouldn't vote for Rubio. I'm not voting for Hillary unless the Republicans force me too.

(As for repealing Obamacare and whether Rubio would do it, I did point out that I have that as a concern. If we get to the general election and he's vowing to do that, I'll jump off that train).

Wasn't planning on it, though he was the option in the poll that I thought he would win the GOP Nomination.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:02 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.

That's odd, because the party platform is the part that becomes law after elections.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:02 pm

Yeah, sometimes. Other times not.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:16 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Yeah, sometimes. Other times not.

I would say that there is a much stronger correlation between the party platform and ensuing public policy than a subjective assessment over the state of a stranger's soul. It's not like you are seeing any of the candidates without the filtering of a million communications and campaign consultants.

Regardless, I would encourage you to spend some time on the "issues" section of MarcoRubio.com, with some reference to the 2012 GOP party platform (I don't think the 2016 platform gets approved until the convention), and let me know whether you are on board for a New American Century. I would suggest starting with stopping Common Core. You can also play a fun game where you try to find a climate change policy!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:03 am

Holman wrote:Evangelicals might be up for grabs, but one group knows that Trump is their man:
White Nationalist PAC Blankets Iowa With Robocalls For Trump.

[...]
Apparently this was done without coordination with the Trump team, but we need to hear Trump completely repudiate it immediately. Even if we do, however, it's telling that the racists are using his campaign as a vehicle to raise their own profile and get their message out.

This group has expanded its ad campaign to other states. Trump has not disavowed it, let alone given the full-throated condemnation and rejection it deserves.

Meanwhile, some GOPer is attacking Obama's SOTU address because it condemned Islamophobia and bigotry. The complaint isn't that the president attacked conservatives directly (which he didn't) but that he is insulting Americans by "telling them what to think."

This is the ugliest political season of my lifetime.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:14 am

Let's Make America White Again

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:19 am

hepcat wrote:Let's Make America White Again

Stop stealing my material.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:35 pm

Hey, if I gotta steal, I'm gonna do it from a master, aren't I?

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:41 pm

I just...I don't...

No...just no.

Really, we should just shut down the country.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:51 pm

Wow, that just drones on and on and on. And I usually like Sparkle Motion!

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:06 pm

That was pretty bad... with the sound off. I'm guessing I probably don't want to try it with the sound on.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:31 pm

One of those girls will someday be the next Mrs. Donald Trump if history is any indication.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:34 pm

I would like to sample whatever it is they distributed to the people behind the lectern to get them that visibly excited for the performance. Longest 2 minutes of my life.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:48 pm

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:02 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I would like to sample whatever it is they distributed to the people behind the lectern to get them that visibly excited for the performance. Longest 2 minutes of my life.

But that's only because you hate freedom.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:49 pm

The video reminds me of those North Korean propaganda performances that always involve background cartoons of the Jonger nuking the United States with CGI missiles or what not.