Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote:That's the problem with our country.

Politico wrote:Donald Trump on Wednesday fired back at Hillary Clinton, remarking that he would likely nominate Supreme Court justices who “would look very seriously at her email disaster.”

AWS260 wrote:Does Donald Trump know the difference between Supreme Court justices and the Department of Justice?

Politico wrote:Donald Trump on Wednesday fired back at Hillary Clinton, remarking that he would likely nominate Supreme Court justices who “would look very seriously at her email disaster.”

Carpet_pissr wrote:and business savvy

Jeff V wrote:The only thing he is good as it turning a massive fortune into merely a huge one.

Skinypupy wrote:

Fitzy wrote:Someone needs to get some five year olds and have them read things Trump said.

I susp cut it would sound normal.

Not fair!

Teenage mean girls reading Trump tweets works just about as well.

Jeff V wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:and business savvy

This has been thoroughly discredited. He's worth less than half the billions he would have if he just sat on his pile of money and did nothing. The only thing he is good as it turning a massive fortune into merely a huge one.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Jeff V wrote:He's worth less than half the billions he would have if he just sat on his pile of money and did nothing. The only thing he is good as it turning a massive fortune into merely a huge one.

I would love to see some backup on that...not that I don't doubt it, but I've seen it mentioned enough times anecdotally that I wonder if there is some actual proof there.

Donald Trump believes that there should be punishment for women who undergo abortions if the procedure was outlawed, but indicated he has yet to determine what that punishment should be.

In an exclusive interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the GOP front-runner described himself multiple times as "pro-life" but struggled to define what the legal ramifications of that position should be. When continually pressed for what the answer is regarding punishing women who would break any theoretical ban, Trump said the "answer is that there has to be some form of punishment, yeah."

When asked what kind of punishment he had in mind, Trump lacked specifics and said he has "not determined what the punishment would be." Trump noted that he does "take positions on everything else but this is a very complicated position."
...
The MSNBC host followed up wondering if a man should bear responsibility for abortions as well, to which Trump said "no" he didn't think so.
...
Should the United States change the law of the land on abortion as set by the landmark SCOTUS ruling Roe vs Wade Trump says "you'll go back to a position like they had where people will, perhaps, go to illegal places." Still, he maintains "you have to ban it."

Ohio Republican John Kasich, who participated in an MSNBC town hall moderated by NBC's Chuck Todd earlier in the day, was asked if he agreed with Trump on the prospect of punishing women for abortion. "Absolutely not," Kasich responded. "I do have exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother but of course women shouldn't be punished," he added.
...
The GOP front-runner says "nobody respects women" more than he does. That respect, however, doesn't necessarily translate to Fields. "I would say I don't have great respect for her," Trump told Matthews. He also dodged when asked why he didn't have sympathy for Fields, instead pointing out that the tape being used by the police investigation was his tape and saying that there are more pressing issues at play, like ISIS and foreign threats.

Jaymann wrote:I thought he meant teenage girls reading tweets in Canada.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

AWS260 wrote:Does Donald Trump know the difference between Supreme Court justices and the Department of Justice?

Politico wrote:Donald Trump on Wednesday fired back at Hillary Clinton, remarking that he would likely nominate Supreme Court justices who “would look very seriously at her email disaster.”

Are you serious? The person that says he's "good at the military"(and China IIRC)? Obviously a moron. Yes, he's wealthy, and business savvy, but like his female counterpart in the recent decade of US political buffoonery, he's not exactly an intellectual. He speaks in vague generalities because he has no deep knowledge about the things he's being asked about.

Trump is, by far, the GOP delegate leader — and the only candidate with a realistic shot at winning a majority of delegates before the July convention. But at the same time, nearly two-thirds of Americans view Trump unfavorably — and his image rating has declined since Republican voting began in February.

The danger for Trump is two-fold: His declining popularity is taking a toll on his standing in the 17 states that will hold primaries between now and the end of the process in early June. Losing some of these states — or even winning fewer delegates in proportional states — makes it more difficult for Trump to secure a pre-convention majority of 1,237 delegates.

That’s where Trump’s horrific poll numbers could haunt him again: If Trump misses the threshold to win the nomination outright in bound delegates, it will be more difficult to persuade unbound delegates to put him over the top if they see him as a general election disaster-in-the-making due to his high unfavorability ratings among all voters.

How bad are Trump’s image ratings? The HuffPost Pollster average of recent national polls puts Trump’s favorability at only 31 percent, while 63 percent view him unfavorably.
...
Trump is hardly alone: Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz are also viewed unfavorably by majorities of Americans, according to polling averages. Only John Kasich and Bernie Sanders — neither of whom has faced many negative attacks from either party — have positive image ratings.

D.A.Lewis wrote:

LordMortis wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nFnggBHFUo

This nails it all... And it's from the establishment.

I also like the term "feckless democrats" Feckless needs to find its way into my lexicon.

That was great Thanks
I see colonel Wilkerson on TV occasionally and he has always impressed

Defiant wrote:

D.A.Lewis wrote:

LordMortis wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nFnggBHFUo

This nails it all... And it's from the establishment.

I also like the term "feckless democrats" Feckless needs to find its way into my lexicon.

That was great Thanks
I see colonel Wilkerson on TV occasionally and he has always impressed

He raised the possibility that Israel was been behind the chemical gas attack of civilians in Syria, so I've got to go

"I think the President’s statement was very circumspect, very prudent," Wilkerson says. "We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria… or it could’ve been an actual use by [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad, but we certainly don’t know with the evidence we’ve been given. And what I’m hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flakey."

D.A.Lewis wrote:

Defiant wrote:

D.A.Lewis wrote:

LordMortis wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nFnggBHFUo

This nails it all... And it's from the establishment.

I also like the term "feckless democrats" Feckless needs to find its way into my lexicon.

That was great Thanks
I see colonel Wilkerson on TV occasionally and he has always impressed

He raised the possibility that Israel was been behind the chemical gas attack of civilians in Syria, so I've got to go

ummm, here is the complete quote:

"I think the President’s statement was very circumspect, very prudent," Wilkerson says. "We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria… or it could’ve been an actual use by [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad, but we certainly don’t know with the evidence we’ve been given. And what I’m hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flakey."

D.A.Lewis wrote:
sounds to me like he is making the case that the evidence is flimsy

Defiant wrote:

D.A.Lewis wrote:
sounds to me like he is making the case that the evidence is flimsy

By making a random accusation against an ally for which there isn't just flimsy evidence but no evidence or motivation? It's like saying that "We found Mr Body dead in the Billiards room. We don't have enough evidence yet to be sure who did it. Maybe it was Colonel Mustard? Or maybe it was Miss White? Or maybe Mr Body committed suicide by shooting himself twelve times in the head while his hands were tied behind his back?"

It's the shit you'll find on conspiracy websites and Hezbollah affiliated newspapers.

D.A.Lewis wrote:

Defiant wrote:

D.A.Lewis wrote:
sounds to me like he is making the case that the evidence is flimsy

By making a random accusation against an ally for which there isn't just flimsy evidence but no evidence or motivation? It's like saying that "We found Mr Body dead in the Billiards room. We don't have enough evidence yet to be sure who did it. Maybe it was Colonel Mustard? Or maybe it was Miss White? Or maybe Mr Body committed suicide by shooting himself twelve times in the head while his hands were tied behind his back?"

It's the shit you'll find on conspiracy websites and Hezbollah affiliated newspapers.

You look at it as an accusation, I see it as making crazy samplings, putting no credence in any of the extremes. BTW, I have no problem with your example and the extreme nature of the suicide would be to me a statement that says, "I got nothing." BTW2, I've heard Wilkerson enough times to believe the guy is no conspiracy nut loon.

D.A.Lewis wrote:I see it as making a joke, trying to be funny
I personally like that kind of random humor -

GreenGoo wrote:

D.A.Lewis wrote:I see it as making a joke, trying to be funny
I personally like that kind of random humor -

Ha ha! He should do stand up.

Holman wrote:He's not acting like he's taking a dive, is he?

Holman wrote:I think a Trump looking to make an exit would be more conciliatory towards the people he expected to succeed him. He would be smoothing a path towards lucrative relationships with the Establishment and setting up for his next role as a Grand Statesman of American Business, Tuesdays on Fox.

The Trump that is incapable of such conciliation is the Trump that's incapable of not wanting to have it all, White House included.

El Guapo wrote:
Besides, if he wants to say that he *could* have been President (but not actually be president), then he needs to quit while he's ahead. If he keeps going he either loses (in which case he can't really say that he could have been president) or he wins (and then becomes President).

Now would be the time for him to make up a reason to exit the race (too hard on the family, etc. etc.).

Chaz wrote:Oh no, see, this doesn't take into account Trumpthink. See, I suspect that his ideal situation is that he wins the nomination, but then loses the general. Then, he can tell everyone that he SHOULD have been president, but the UNFAIR process ROBBED him of the chance. He would obviously be the wronged one here, since he's the best candidate and not a loser, he's got the best polls that say so. So, you see, he totally should have won, but was cheated out of it.

This way, he's still a winner, while not having to actually be the President.

Defiant wrote:

Holman wrote:He's not acting like he's taking a dive, is he?

Its hard to say. He's frequently done things that have been political suicide for other politicians.

tgb wrote:People close to him have said that he really doesn't want the job

Grifman wrote:

tgb wrote:People close to him have said that he really doesn't want the job

Links?

Grifman wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Holman wrote:He's not acting like he's taking a dive, is he?

Its hard to say. He's frequently done things that have been political suicide for other politicians.

Maybe he needs to further test the limits and just murder someone.

Kraken wrote:

hepcat wrote:I sometimes find myself almost hoping Trump wins. It would be a complete clusterf*%+* but I think we have enough failsafes in place to prevent him from doing anything too harmful.

I dunno...there's a nonzero chance that he'd be the last president. Democracy's looking increasingly wobbly already. Although a part of me thinks it would make for a fascinating endgame, I was kinda hoping to enjoy a few years of retirement before it all goes to hell. I'm too old to enjoy the apocalypse now.

But you're right, history is replete with stories of mad kings and emperors whose states somehow muddled through.