That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Oh, it's utterly terrifying - no doubt about that. I just try to take reassurance from all of the factors which point towards Trump losing.Rip wrote:Just remember he is one wild pitch, passed ball, or unforced error away from strolling across the plate with the game and series winner.
Have a nice day.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John AdamsRip wrote:"Facts are stupid things."tgb wrote:No, he didn't. But here are a few things he did say.tjg_marantz wrote:Reagan never said he'd build a wall or forbid Muslims. Yuge difference.tgb wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again.
They laughed at Reagan when he said he was running for Gov. of CA. Then they laughed when he said he was challenging the incumbent for POTUS.
Anything is possible, and a Trump victory has a real chance of happening.
I wasn't trying to quote John Adams. I was quoting Ronald Reagan.Carpet_pissr wrote:"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John AdamsRip wrote:"Facts are stupid things."tgb wrote:No, he didn't. But here are a few things he did say.tjg_marantz wrote:Reagan never said he'd build a wall or forbid Muslims. Yuge difference.tgb wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again.
They laughed at Reagan when he said he was running for Gov. of CA. Then they laughed when he said he was challenging the incumbent for POTUS.
Anything is possible, and a Trump victory has a real chance of happening.
Under pressure to account for money he claimed to raise for veterans, an irritated Donald Trump lambasted the news media Tuesday for pressing the issue and listed charities he said have now received millions of dollars from a fundraiser he held in January. Phone calls to all 41 of the groups by The Associated Press brought more than two-dozen responses Tuesday. About half reported checks from Trump within the past week, typically dated May 24, the day The Washington Post published a story questioning whether he had distributed all of the money.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told reporters at a testy news conference in New York that the fundraiser, held at the same time as a Fox News GOP debate he was boycotting, raised $5.6 million. He previously had declined to disclose which charities had received the funds, and his campaign has gone back and forth about how much was raised. "The money's all been sent," Trump said at the news conference at Trump Tower on Tuesday. He repeatedly criticized the press for making the money an issue, saying reporters "should be ashamed of themselves" for asking where the money had gone. Throughout the event, Trump slammed the media as "unbelievably dishonest" for its treatment of the issue and dismissed an ABC reporter as "a sleaze." He said many times that he didn't want credit for the fundraising but seemed peeved that he wasn't thanked for it. "Instead of being like, 'Thank you very much, Mr. Trump,' or 'Trump did a good job,' everyone's saying, 'Who got it? Who got it? Who got it?' And you make me look very bad," Trump complained, taking on reporters in the room. "I have never received such bad publicity for doing such a good job.
Not necessarily a bad quality in a President.msduncan wrote:Hillary Clinton isn't just "another Clinton". She's a vile bitch.Max Peck wrote:To be fair, what he has posted previously is consistent with simply wanting the not-Clinton (and by extension, the not-Democrat) candidate to win. President Trump is a small price to pay for not having another President Clinton, amirite?tjg_marantz wrote:Right. A troll. And you say you want neither in the White House but your actions and comments speak volumes about what you really want.
And yes, he does like to troll. And why shouldn't he, when he gets fed so regularly.
Yeah, I don't see him as that apocalyptic either (as President). As I stated many times before, I'd much rather have President Trump than President Cruz.msduncan wrote:Well I'm not a Trump guy either, but I'm simply pointing out that I don't think he'd be as apocalyptic as you think he would be.
And damn the Libertarians for continuing to roll out Gary Johnson as their candidate. I mean Jesus. Do we have to wait a couple decades for him to die in his sleep at 90 to get another candidate?
Yeah, I'm not conceding the point, but rather arguing that msd's main problem (as he perceives it), even if true, isn't necessarily a bad quality in a President.TheMix wrote:So it just occurred to me... "vile bitch" could be one of those "bad if not on your side, great if on your side" kind of things. But no matter how I come at it, I do not think that having Trump "on your side" (in quotes because it is very clear that Trump is only capable of being on his own side) is ever a positive thing.
Right. It was your comment that made me think of the "great if on your side" part. Then I ran with it a bit more.Pyperkub wrote:Yeah, I'm not conceding the point, but rather arguing that msd's main problem (as he perceives it), even if true, isn't necessarily a bad quality in a President.TheMix wrote:So it just occurred to me... "vile bitch" could be one of those "bad if not on your side, great if on your side" kind of things. But no matter how I come at it, I do not think that having Trump "on your side" (in quotes because it is very clear that Trump is only capable of being on his own side) is ever a positive thing.
When a reporter asked if a Trump presidency would take on a similar tone, the billionaire businessman responded, "Yeah, it is going to be like this."
"You think I'm going to change?" he said. "I'm not going to change."
This makes him not only look dishonest, but stupid. I'm no financial genius, but even I know how to backdate a cheque and blame the Post Office.TheMix wrote:Granted I only skimmed it, but my take was much worse.
1. He holds fundraiser for the troops.
2. He says he gave the money to the charities.
3. Media asks what charities. He refuses to answer.
4. An article comes out pointing out that he hasn't provided any evidence that he gave the money.
5. He writes a bunch of checks.
6. He then holds a press conference where he says "see, I gave the money".
My take is that, had the article not come out, that he still wouldn't have given the money. The article forced him to make the donations. My understanding is that he hoped no one would notice the dates on the checks. So that he could pretend that he gave the money a long time ago and lambaste the media for having the audacity to question HIM! When it is clear that the only reason that the donations were made is because of the media.
What a piece of crap work.
It would be fantastic if she was on America's side. She's on Hillary Clinton's side.TheMix wrote:So it just occurred to me... "vile bitch" could be one of those "bad if not on your side, great if on your side" kind of things. But no matter how I come at it, I do not think that having Trump "on your side" (in quotes because it is very clear that Trump is only capable of being on his own side) is ever a positive thing.
Oh and there it is. The goddamn sexist/racist/bigot/denier/shamewordofthefuckingweek accusation. I'm fucking tired of it, and maybe that explains a lot of the anger that is driving the Trump bus.Max Peck wrote:
And yet, people call Clinton a vile bitch crook and choose to vote for Trump because they hate distrust women her.
That you think they are accusations...is baffling. They are facts. He is on record regularly race baiting and making mysoginistic sexist statements. If people are angry about that? Frankly who gives a shit. His rhetoric is unacceptable and it doesn't matter if people don't want to face that.msduncan wrote:Oh and there it is. The goddamn sexist/racist/bigot/denier/shamewordofthefuckingweek accusation. I'm fucking tired of it, and maybe that explains a lot of the anger that is driving the Trump bus.Max Peck wrote:
And yet, people call Clinton a vile bitch crook and choose to vote for Trump because they hate distrust women her.
I believe msduncan thinks he's being called a sexist for hating Clinton. He's not defending Trump.malchior wrote:That you think they are accusations...is baffling. They are facts. He is on record regularly race baiting and making mysoginistic sexist statements. If people are angry about that? Frankly who gives a shit. His rhetoric is unacceptable and it doesn't matter if people don't want to face that.msduncan wrote:Oh and there it is. The goddamn sexist/racist/bigot/denier/shamewordofthefuckingweek accusation. I'm fucking tired of it, and maybe that explains a lot of the anger that is driving the Trump bus.Max Peck wrote:
And yet, people call Clinton a vile bitch crook and choose to vote for Trump because they hate distrust women her.
The press conference today really showcased his flim flam con man ways. He said he wanted no credit for the charity acts even though he used attending the fundraising event as the excuse to skip a debate and grandstanded about it on multiple occasions. Also one of the charity's leaders just *happened* to be in attendance "randomly" and Trump gave him the podium to shame the media. Infuriatingly obvious bullshit.Zarathud wrote:Plus, Trump pulled this PR stunt with other people's money -- and for campaign purposes which is questionable at least.
A bit disingenuous, I believe. She may not believe all the things you believe, and she may be all the things you believe she is, but this statement seems more of just the standard GOP "Democrats hate America" lie (kind of like the Obama isn't American) that they throw around.msduncan wrote:It would be fantastic if she was on America's side. She's on Hillary Clinton's side.TheMix wrote:So it just occurred to me... "vile bitch" could be one of those "bad if not on your side, great if on your side" kind of things. But no matter how I come at it, I do not think that having Trump "on your side" (in quotes because it is very clear that Trump is only capable of being on his own side) is ever a positive thing.
Right, because you're a dude, and it isn't being directed at you. And I'm not suggesting that you or MSD mean it that way. I'm just saying the outrage when people interpret it that way is curious, given that it's a natural interpretation of your language choice.YellowKing wrote:Rightly or wrongly, I don't put too much sexist connotation on the word "bitch." I just see it as the female form of "asshole" or "dickhead," both of which sound weird when applied to a woman.
Ah right, went back and reread that part of the thread. I can see why someone could take what he said that way. Don't know if it was the intent...but hard not to take it that way.Holman wrote:I believe msduncan thinks he's being called a sexist for hating Clinton. He's not defending Trump.
Yeah, like you weren't fishing for it.msduncan wrote:Oh and there it is. The goddamn sexist/racist/bigot/denier/shamewordofthefuckingweek accusation. I'm fucking tired of it, and maybe that explains a lot of the anger that is driving the Trump bus.Max Peck wrote:
And yet, people call Clinton a vile bitch crook and choose to vote for Trump because they hate distrust women her.
One sales manager for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, recounted how he was reprimanded for not pushing a financially struggling couple hard enough to sign up for a $35,000 real estate class, despite his conclusion that it would endanger their economic future. He watched with disgust, he said, as a fellow Trump University salesman persuaded the couple to purchase the class anyway.
“I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme,” Mr. Schnackenberg wrote in his testimony, “and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”
Trump U. sales training class hosted here by Alec BaldwinCaptain Caveman wrote:Not to distract from this bitchin' discussion, but I'm really starting to think this Trump University thing is a pretty big deal and may have real legs. This new New York Times piece has more scathing details.
One sales manager for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, recounted how he was reprimanded for not pushing a financially struggling couple hard enough to sign up for a $35,000 real estate class, despite his conclusion that it would endanger their economic future. He watched with disgust, he said, as a fellow Trump University salesman persuaded the couple to purchase the class anyway.
“I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme,” Mr. Schnackenberg wrote in his testimony, “and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”
I don't think he was fishing for it. I just think he chose a comment that he uses for women he doesn't like. I'm sure he chooses equally bad comments for men he doesn't like as well. The only issue I have with it is this prevailing belief within the conservative community that when someone protests such things, that you're the victim.Alefroth wrote:Yeah, like you weren't fishing for it.msduncan wrote:Oh and there it is. The goddamn sexist/racist/bigot/denier/shamewordofthefuckingweek accusation. I'm fucking tired of it, and maybe that explains a lot of the anger that is driving the Trump bus.Max Peck wrote:
And yet, people call Clinton a vile bitch crook and choose to vote for Trump because they hate distrust women her.
So where does that leave us? Trump said he’d raised $6 million for veterans, but that wasn’t true. He later claimed he never used the $6 million figure, but that wasn’t true. His campaign insisted Trump had contributed $1 million himself, but that wasn’t true. Trump said he “didn’t want to have credit” for the fundraising efforts, but that wasn’t true. He said he and his team were vetting groups they’d never heard of four months after the fact, but that wasn’t true.
And as of yesterday, all of this, the Republican candidate insisted, is the media’s fault. Indeed, Trump thinks journalists should be “ashamed” of themselves for scrutinizing his claims that turned out to be wrong.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but in a normal year, in a normal party, with a normal candidate, this is the sort of controversy that could end a campaign. Legitimate presidential hopefuls can get away with some dissembling and the occasional whopper, but Trump was caught telling obvious falsehoods about support for veterans’ charities.
If this happened to Hillary Clinton, is there any doubt it would be the #1 issue in the presidential race between now and Election Day? That every pundit in America would use this as Exhibit A in their takes on why Americans just can’t trust the Democrat?
