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/
Sure, as long as we agree on what the right thing is.GreenGoo wrote:We like you when you do the right thing, so that's a happy coincidence. At least most of us in the west.
QFT. If W had not relegated Afghanistan to the back burner so he could pursue his vendetta against Saddam, we would not still be fighting a holding action there today.geezer wrote: unless we believe Gore would have launched a war against Iraq in response to 9/11, I think the W administration launched this country (and the world) down a very dangerous path that could have been entirely avoided. That singular action will literally change the face of the world for probably the rest of our lives, and not in a positive way. IMHO of course.
Affirmative.Dogstar wrote:I think there's another one including a reporter for People magazine.
For a point of reference, taking our water by force...bad thing.RunningMn9 wrote:Sure, as long as we agree on what the right thing is.GreenGoo wrote:We like you when you do the right thing, so that's a happy coincidence. At least most of us in the west.
Like, different continents.Defiant wrote:I don't know if I've seen that video specifically, but I've seen stuff where he said he has a relationship with Russia while other videos saying he doesn't have any relationship with Russia.
IIRC, in one case he claimed he had a close relationship with Putin but he was apparently referring to being interviewed in the same show when they were both interviewed remotely from different locations.
First term Bush minus Iraq was pretty solid. Basically we'd be in complete agreement if he hadn't spent billions while giving tax cuts and having thousands of Americans lose their lives for questionable motives and no results. If I was in a bad mood I'd actually say negative results for the region and America as well.RunningMn9 wrote:I think we tend to magnify the differences because that's how we tell things apart. We don't know the Congressional makeup for most of Gore's term and how that would impact things. We also have no real idea on what Gore would have done. The reality is that I don't see a single way in which my day-to-day life would have been appreciably different with any of those candidates as President.
But even if you disagree with my characterization, the point I am making is that the normal choice is within an expected 0-10 range.
Trump is -100.
Holy shiat.Max Peck wrote:Affirmative.Dogstar wrote:I think there's another one including a reporter for People magazine.
A state Parliament in Australia on Thursday unanimously passed a motion that described U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump as "a revolting slug unfit for public office."
Jeremy Buckingham, a lawmaker from the minor Greens party, introduced the motion to the New South Wales Legislative Council, the Parliament's upper house.
"This house ... agrees with those who have described Mr. Trump as a 'revolting slug' unfit for public office," the motion said.
The house "condemns the misogynist, hateful comments" made by the Republican candidate about women and minorities, including the remarks revealed by media at the weekend "that clearly describe sexual assault," the motion said.
Had any lawmaker objected to the motion, it would have been struck off the list of parliamentary business. Because there was no objection, the motion was recorded as having been unanimously agreed to by the Sydney-based house.
"It's a great that all sides of Australian politics, from conservatives to liberals to Greens, agree that Donald Trump is a 'revolting slug' and completely unfit for public office," Buckingham said in a statement.
"It's clear that all reasonable and decent people find Donald Trump's behavior obnoxious and that the world is hoping American voters reject his politics of hate," Buckingham said.
I think he may have grabbed his Pussy Riot.RunningMn9 wrote:Ummm...
Not sure if this is new or old news? Been away for a bit and on my phone with thumbs so less inclined to do a deep search.
It's already became a legit concern but he's said he won't drop outSkinypupy wrote:Does he even make it to the election? That's got to become a legit concern at this point.
I think it would take a legal or health issue for Trump not to finish at this point. Now I'm going to have to do research as to what happens if a candidate is actually arrested during a Presidential campaign, and if it's ever happened before.Defiant wrote:It's already became a legit concern but he's said he won't drop outSkinypupy wrote:Does he even make it to the election? That's got to become a legit concern at this point.
I'm fairly sure we haven't had a president arrested during a campaign, though I think there was a congressman in the last 10 years or so that was in jail during reelection (IIRC, he lost)Dogstar wrote:I think it would take a legal or health issue for Trump not to finish at this point. Now I'm going to have to do research as to what happens if a candidate is actually arrested during a Presidential campaign, and if it's ever happened before.Defiant wrote:It's already became a legit concern but he's said he won't drop outSkinypupy wrote:Does he even make it to the election? That's got to become a legit concern at this point.
Depends on your definition of significant. In an ordinary election all of the candidates promote different interests, but they all serve a small pool of competing oligarchs. Trump doesn't. Blowing up the establishment might have appeal if it weren't wrapped in an incompetent fascist dictatorship.Defiant wrote:I guess I'm somewhere in the middle - I don't think it ever is a Tweedledee/Tweedledum choice - there are significant differences (sometimes even different candidates within the party can produce such differences as well) -
There's a causal connection between "blowing up the establishment" (as opposed to reforming / changing the establishment) and fascist dictatorships (both incompetent and otherwise).Kraken wrote:Depends on your definition of significant. In an ordinary election all of the candidates promote different interests, but they all serve a small pool of competing oligarchs. Trump doesn't. Blowing up the establishment might have appeal if it weren't wrapped in an incompetent fascist dictatorship.Defiant wrote:I guess I'm somewhere in the middle - I don't think it ever is a Tweedledee/Tweedledum choice - there are significant differences (sometimes even different candidates within the party can produce such differences as well) -
The main difference here being that Trump IS one of those oligarchs. He serves his own interests, nothing else.Kraken wrote: Depends on your definition of significant. In an ordinary election all of the candidates promote different interests, but they all serve a small pool of competing oligarchs.
I was listening to talk radio last night during my evening commute and the host spent 60+ minutes speaking with NJ residents that were disgusted that what Trump did 12 years ago was even an issue. I had to keep listening because I thought for sure someone would call in and be put through to point out that talking about women's boobs wasn't the problem. But no, for over an hour it was all about how ridiculous this all was and that it was "locker room talk" from over a decade ago. Maybe now that women are actually starting to come forward with stories of their assaults, is it too much to hope that perhaps these people will finally understand what the actual problem is?Skinypupy wrote:Does he even make it to the election? That's got to become a legit concern at this point.
This... He should have known the bones in his closet will be fair game since he went there with Billhepcat wrote:Trump wanted to play the game this way, so he shouldn't be surprised to discover the rules apply to him too.
Mistakes were made.Smoove_B wrote:I was listening to talk radio last night during my evening commute
INSKEEP: Is his personal life or any candidate's personal life relevant to you?
FALWELL, JR.: Well, I think Jesus said we're all sinners. When they ask that question, I always talk about the story of the woman at the well who had had five husbands and she was living with somebody she wasn't married to, and they wanted to stone her. And Jesus said he's - he who is without sin cast the first stone. I just see how Donald Trump treats other people, and I'm impressed by that.
INSKEEP: Somebody asked him in an interview if he had sought forgiveness as a Christian at any time. And he gave a not too explicit answer. He didn't quite say yes.
FALWELL, JR.: Well, he - his background is a New York businessman. He doesn't talk like we do as evangelical Christians, and so his way of describing his faith may not appear to line up with others. He just expresses his faith in a different way than many evangelical Christians do.
INSKEEP: In the "60 Minutes" interview the other day, Lesley Stahl said, in passing, you're not the most humble person. And he broke in and said, I'm very humble. I'm humble in ways you'll never understand.
FALWELL, JR.: Yeah. I've never seen any arrogance. I do think he is...
INSKEEP: Do you think he's humble?
FALWELL, JR.: I do. I do. I think he's very outspoken, and I think he is - what's the old saying? If it's true, it ain't bragging.
That's an impressive statement.I'm humble in ways you'll never understand.
Holman wrote:INSKEEP: Is his personal life or any candidate's personal life relevant to you?
FALWELL, JR.: Well, I think Jesus said we're all sinners. When they ask that question, I always talk about the story of the woman at the well who had had five husbands and she was living with somebody she wasn't married to, and they wanted to stone her. And Jesus said he's - he who is without sin cast the first stone. At that point, Trump whipped out a device that fired rocks at a rate of close to a hundred per minute and began firing. After he was finished and the woman was dead, he gave her younger sister his card, told her to call him as they were definitely going to have an affair, then he downed a full box of tic tacs, told everyone he was winning in polls for Sodomites AS WELL AS CHRISTIANS, and then rode off on a Trump camel.
Jerry Falwell Sr.Holman wrote: But what explains Jerry Falwell, Jr.?
June 2016: A Born-Again Donald Trump? Believe It, Evangelical Leader Says.tgb wrote: Trump hasn't even claimed to have had a religious epiphany, has he?
This was around the time Dobson, Ralph Reed, and others were working hard to sell Trump to Evangelicals who had supported Cruz.Has Donald J. Trump become a born-again Christian?
That is the suggestion of James C. Dobson, one of America’s leading evangelicals, who said Mr. Trump had recently come “to accept a relationship with Christ” and was now “a baby Christian.”
Dr. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family and one of the country’s most prominent social conservatives, gave his account at a meeting Mr. Trump had in New York on Tuesday with hundreds of Christian conservatives.
In an interview recorded at the event by a Pennsylvania pastor, the Rev. Michael Anthony, Dr. Dobson said he knew the person who had led Mr. Trump to Christ, though he did not name him.
“I don’t know when it was, but it has not been long,” Dr. Dobson said. “I believe he really made a commitment, but he’s a baby Christian.”
The New York Times wrote:On Monday, on a trip through Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump began the day urging the almost entirely white crowd outside Pittsburgh to show up to vote, warning about “other communities” that could hijack his victory.
“So important that you watch other communities, because we don’t want this election stolen from us,” he said. “We do not want this election stolen.”
Later, at the evening rally in Wilkes-Barre, Mr. Trump raised more concerns about voting fraud: “I just hear such reports about Philadelphia,” he said. “I hear these horror shows, and we have to make sure that this election is not stolen from us and is not taken away from us.”
He added for emphasis: “Everybody knows what I’m talking about.”
Yeah, a lot of Philly Democrats are liberal.AWS260 wrote:Trump's strategy for victory in Pennsylvania is apparently to start a race war.The New York Times wrote:On Monday, on a trip through Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump began the day urging the almost entirely white crowd outside Pittsburgh to show up to vote, warning about “other communities” that could hijack his victory.
“So important that you watch other communities, because we don’t want this election stolen from us,” he said. “We do not want this election stolen.”
Later, at the evening rally in Wilkes-Barre, Mr. Trump raised more concerns about voting fraud: “I just hear such reports about Philadelphia,” he said. “I hear these horror shows, and we have to make sure that this election is not stolen from us and is not taken away from us.”
He added for emphasis: “Everybody knows what I’m talking about.”