In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 22 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: Trump, former Democrat and Hillary donor. Now the epitome of the Republican party. Please. You can continue asserting it, but that doesn't make it true. The fascination has more to do with him, and less with his positions. Even the liberals in this thread can't get enough of Trump.
Not all of the party, just a significant portion. You can deny it if you want, but it makes you look foolish.
Just curious how long he has to stay in the top three before Republicans admit he's legitimately representing the views of a significant chunk of the party? 1 month, 2, 4, 8?
What's foolish is ignoring the obvious explanation for the one you have manufactured, because it fits what you already believe. Trump doesn't even do well among the Tea Party (the "far right"). The appeal is him, and these articles point out as much. He even has high unpopularity ratings among Republicans.
And of course the ending line. The absurdity where I'm supposed to give some sort of specific time frame to acknowledge your position. As if his views are the reason he's up in the polls in the first place. It's a complete non-starter.
But I forgot, I'm debating the person who is convinced Sanders has a real shot and that Hillary is scared of him. lol. Every time you try to "analyze" people on the right, it ends up being wrong. This time is no different.
How do you suppose he drove those negative ratings down?
So you're just going to stick with denial, that's cool.
Meanwhile Sanders will be holding the largest online organizing meeting in history, but please go on lol.
You can't give a time because you'll still be saying he doesn't represent the party if he wins the nomination.
The data and the people who work on these things agree with me, so yeah. I'm going to say your baseless claim is BS until proven otherwise.
Are those the same ones that said Romney would win the general and the other polls/experts were wrong or is there a new crop you're looking at?
On July 22 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: Trump, former Democrat and Hillary donor. Now the epitome of the Republican party. Please. You can continue asserting it, but that doesn't make it true. The fascination has more to do with him, and less with his positions. Even the liberals in this thread can't get enough of Trump.
Not all of the party, just a significant portion. You can deny it if you want, but it makes you look foolish.
Just curious how long he has to stay in the top three before Republicans admit he's legitimately representing the views of a significant chunk of the party? 1 month, 2, 4, 8?
What's foolish is ignoring the obvious explanation for the one you have manufactured, because it fits what you already believe. Trump doesn't even do well among the Tea Party (the "far right"). The appeal is him, and these articles point out as much. He even has high unpopularity ratings among Republicans.
And of course the ending line. The absurdity where I'm supposed to give some sort of specific time frame to acknowledge your position. As if his views are the reason he's up in the polls in the first place. It's a complete non-starter.
But I forgot, I'm debating the person who is convinced Sanders has a real shot and that Hillary is scared of him. lol. Every time you try to "analyze" people on the right, it ends up being wrong. This time is no different.
How do you suppose he drove those negative ratings down?
So you're just going to stick with denial, that's cool.
Meanwhile Sanders will be holding the largest online organizing meeting in history, but please go on lol.
You can't give a time because you'll still be saying he doesn't represent the party if he wins the nomination.
The data and the people who work on these things agree with me, so yeah. I'm going to say your baseless claim is BS until proven otherwise.
Are those the same ones that said Romney would win the general and the other polls/experts were wrong or is there a new crop you're looking at?
Face it, you have nothing but your own beliefs to back up your thoughts about Trump and Republicans.
And since you apparently aren't interested in reading the articles I link to, I see no reason to continue.
You go on living in GH World where all the racist Republicans make it Trump, who will face the saint, his Holiness, Bernard Sanders.
Edit: Even the Onion piece knows what Trump mania is all about.
Edit 2: Trump has many lib postions, or at least did. That's already known. But that's not juicy media, which is what this obsession is about.
On July 22 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: Trump, former Democrat and Hillary donor. Now the epitome of the Republican party. Please. You can continue asserting it, but that doesn't make it true. The fascination has more to do with him, and less with his positions. Even the liberals in this thread can't get enough of Trump.
Not all of the party, just a significant portion. You can deny it if you want, but it makes you look foolish.
Just curious how long he has to stay in the top three before Republicans admit he's legitimately representing the views of a significant chunk of the party? 1 month, 2, 4, 8?
What's foolish is ignoring the obvious explanation for the one you have manufactured, because it fits what you already believe. Trump doesn't even do well among the Tea Party (the "far right"). The appeal is him, and these articles point out as much. He even has high unpopularity ratings among Republicans.
And of course the ending line. The absurdity where I'm supposed to give some sort of specific time frame to acknowledge your position. As if his views are the reason he's up in the polls in the first place. It's a complete non-starter.
But I forgot, I'm debating the person who is convinced Sanders has a real shot and that Hillary is scared of him. lol. Every time you try to "analyze" people on the right, it ends up being wrong. This time is no different.
How do you suppose he drove those negative ratings down?
So you're just going to stick with denial, that's cool.
Meanwhile Sanders will be holding the largest online organizing meeting in history, but please go on lol.
You can't give a time because you'll still be saying he doesn't represent the party if he wins the nomination.
The data and the people who work on these things agree with me, so yeah. I'm going to say your baseless claim is BS until proven otherwise.
Are those the same ones that said Romney would win the general and the other polls/experts were wrong or is there a new crop you're looking at?
Face it, you have nothing but your own beliefs to back up your thoughts about Trump and Republicans.
And since you apparently aren't interested in reading the articles I link to, I see no reason to continue.
You go on living in GH World where all the racist Republicans make it Trump, who will face the saint, his Holiness, Bernard Sanders.
haha. I think Trump leading and driving down his negatives says a lot more than you do. The fact that everyone is attacking him is kind of a universal sign in politics that they can't beat him by just pushing their own messages. Which means they can't win on the issues alone, they have to make people not believe Trump. No one is attacking him on any of his positions themselves they are all attacking him personally.
The only beef is how he says things not what he is saying....If anything but his rhetoric and trustworthyness was the issue we would know by now. There is no difference in policy (that they want to admit). How you interpret that as them disagreeing with his positions I don't know.
I have plenty of statistics on Bernie too, like Bernie demolishing everyone in #of donors, biggest rallies, more Obama donors than Hillary, biggest organizing meeting in the history of electoral politics, (at least 2x the size of Hillary's), anecdotes of hundreds of alleged republicans turning toward Sanders, personal experience turning my parents from away from the GOP toward Bernie, and plenty more.
Lorenzo Davis is a retired Chicago police commander who took a job at the Independent Police Review Authority, the agency that investigates police brutality. Davis says he was fired because he determined that several officers who shot and even killed civilians were not justified in doing so.
"They've exonerated police officers. They've said that the police officers' actions were correct," Davis said.
Davis could not be specific about the cases that still have not been resolved, but he says his team of investigators for IPRA found as many as six incidents where the cop was not justified in shooting the civilian victim. But Davis, also a former CPD detective, says his boss at IPRA told him to change his finding and determine that each shooting was justified.
"They told me to change it," Davis said. "Change it. And if I did not change it, I was insubordinate and I would be disciplined."
Nearly 400 civilians have been shot and killed by Chicago police gunfire since 2007, and IPRA has found only one case to be "not justified".
On July 22 2015 14:40 Mohdoo wrote: So what are everyone's guesses? Will Trump be at the first debate? Will it hurt or help his numbers?
Well he definitely makes the cut-off and will get an invitation.
If he turns it down for some bullshit reason, that'll pretty much expose him as someone who isn't serious about running.
If he does go, he might have to actually argue some politics, which would be bad for him (unless he can continue to snake his way out of giving real answers, which isn't too hard considering these debate formats are jokes).
I really wish we had actual debates instead of these loser debate formats. Let em go at it for 8 hours or even more over multiple days. Have some rules to get people to actually answer questions instead of dodging them.
On July 22 2015 21:07 zlefin wrote: I really wish we had actual debates instead of these loser debate formats. Let em go at it for 8 hours or even more over multiple days. Have some rules to get people to actually answer questions instead of dodging them.
On July 22 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: Trump, former Democrat and Hillary donor. Now the epitome of the Republican party. Please. You can continue asserting it, but that doesn't make it true. The fascination has more to do with him, and less with his positions. Even the liberals in this thread can't get enough of Trump.
Not all of the party, just a significant portion. You can deny it if you want, but it makes you look foolish.
Just curious how long he has to stay in the top three before Republicans admit he's legitimately representing the views of a significant chunk of the party? 1 month, 2, 4, 8?
What's foolish is ignoring the obvious explanation for the one you have manufactured, because it fits what you already believe. Trump doesn't even do well among the Tea Party (the "far right"). The appeal is him, and these articles point out as much. He even has high unpopularity ratings among Republicans.
And of course the ending line. The absurdity where I'm supposed to give some sort of specific time frame to acknowledge your position. As if his views are the reason he's up in the polls in the first place. It's a complete non-starter.
But I forgot, I'm debating the person who is convinced Sanders has a real shot and that Hillary is scared of him. lol. Every time you try to "analyze" people on the right, it ends up being wrong. This time is no different.
How do you suppose he drove those negative ratings down?
So you're just going to stick with denial, that's cool.
Meanwhile Sanders will be holding the largest online organizing meeting in history, but please go on lol.
You can't give a time because you'll still be saying he doesn't represent the party if he wins the nomination.
The data and the people who work on these things agree with me, so yeah. I'm going to say your baseless claim is BS until proven otherwise.
Are those the same ones that said Romney would win the general and the other polls/experts were wrong or is there a new crop you're looking at?
Face it, you have nothing but your own beliefs to back up your thoughts about Trump and Republicans.
And since you apparently aren't interested in reading the articles I link to, I see no reason to continue.
You go on living in GH World where all the racist Republicans make it Trump, who will face the saint, his Holiness, Bernard Sanders.
Lorenzo Davis is a retired Chicago police commander who took a job at the Independent Police Review Authority, the agency that investigates police brutality. Davis says he was fired because he determined that several officers who shot and even killed civilians were not justified in doing so.
"They've exonerated police officers. They've said that the police officers' actions were correct," Davis said.
Davis could not be specific about the cases that still have not been resolved, but he says his team of investigators for IPRA found as many as six incidents where the cop was not justified in shooting the civilian victim. But Davis, also a former CPD detective, says his boss at IPRA told him to change his finding and determine that each shooting was justified.
"They told me to change it," Davis said. "Change it. And if I did not change it, I was insubordinate and I would be disciplined."
Nearly 400 civilians have been shot and killed by Chicago police gunfire since 2007, and IPRA has found only one case to be "not justified".
Trump — with 24 percent support among likely Republican voters — holds a comfortable, double-digit lead over nearest competitor Scott Walker, who captures 13 percent support.
Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, and Sen. Marco Rubio round up the top 5 with 12, 8, and 7 percentage points of support, respectively. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, sits in sixth place with 5 percentage points.
The top ten candidates in terms of voter support, based on recent polling, will participate in the first debate. The Donald is leading the field by double-digits. 'Murica.
Trump — with 24 percent support among likely Republican voters — holds a comfortable, double-digit lead over nearest competitor Scott Walker, who captures 13 percent support.
Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, and Sen. Marco Rubio round up the top 5 with 12, 8, and 7 percentage points of support, respectively. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, sits in sixth place with 5 percentage points.
The top ten candidates in terms of voter support, based on recent polling, will participate in the first debate. The Donald is leading the field by double-digits. 'Murica.
Please look at July, 2007 polls and the clown show that was and how lead. He leads in an time when nothing has really happened yet. Its like approval ratings for presidents in the first 100 days in office.
On July 22 2015 14:40 Mohdoo wrote: So what are everyone's guesses? Will Trump be at the first debate? Will it hurt or help his numbers?
If he dodges debates, I doubt he will hold his lead. That's a lot of camera time to lose out on.
On July 22 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: Trump, former Democrat and Hillary donor. Now the epitome of the Republican party. Please. You can continue asserting it, but that doesn't make it true. The fascination has more to do with him, and less with his positions. Even the liberals in this thread can't get enough of Trump.
Not all of the party, just a significant portion. You can deny it if you want, but it makes you look foolish.
Just curious how long he has to stay in the top three before Republicans admit he's legitimately representing the views of a significant chunk of the party? 1 month, 2, 4, 8?
What's foolish is ignoring the obvious explanation for the one you have manufactured, because it fits what you already believe. Trump doesn't even do well among the Tea Party (the "far right"). The appeal is him, and these articles point out as much. He even has high unpopularity ratings among Republicans.
And of course the ending line. The absurdity where I'm supposed to give some sort of specific time frame to acknowledge your position. As if his views are the reason he's up in the polls in the first place. It's a complete non-starter.
But I forgot, I'm debating the person who is convinced Sanders has a real shot and that Hillary is scared of him. lol. Every time you try to "analyze" people on the right, it ends up being wrong. This time is no different.
How do you suppose he drove those negative ratings down?
So you're just going to stick with denial, that's cool.
Meanwhile Sanders will be holding the largest online organizing meeting in history, but please go on lol.
You can't give a time because you'll still be saying he doesn't represent the party if he wins the nomination.
The data and the people who work on these things agree with me, so yeah. I'm going to say your baseless claim is BS until proven otherwise.
Are those the same ones that said Romney would win the general and the other polls/experts were wrong or is there a new crop you're looking at?
Face it, you have nothing but your own beliefs to back up your thoughts about Trump and Republicans.
And since you apparently aren't interested in reading the articles I link to, I see no reason to continue.
You go on living in GH World where all the racist Republicans make it Trump, who will face the saint, his Holiness, Bernard Sanders.
Meanwhile....
Lorenzo Davis is a retired Chicago police commander who took a job at the Independent Police Review Authority, the agency that investigates police brutality. Davis says he was fired because he determined that several officers who shot and even killed civilians were not justified in doing so.
"They've exonerated police officers. They've said that the police officers' actions were correct," Davis said.
Davis could not be specific about the cases that still have not been resolved, but he says his team of investigators for IPRA found as many as six incidents where the cop was not justified in shooting the civilian victim. But Davis, also a former CPD detective, says his boss at IPRA told him to change his finding and determine that each shooting was justified.
"They told me to change it," Davis said. "Change it. And if I did not change it, I was insubordinate and I would be disciplined."
Nearly 400 civilians have been shot and killed by Chicago police gunfire since 2007, and IPRA has found only one case to be "not justified".
Er what the fuck? I thought she was arrested for "kicking the officer". Where the fuck was the kick??
Edit - unless I misread and the "kick" was just tacked on as part of the arrest, for which I still don't know what for.
From what I could gather from the bits I watched (couldn't get through all of it before work), he cuffed her when they were off screen, and then there's some audio about her saying "you're gonna break my wrist". I presume there was some sort of scuffle, because a few minutes later when the officer is on screen talking to his back up, he seems to have had his hand hurt (by the cuffs?) and he says she kicked him. (somewhere around ~10-~15 in the video, iirc)
What I also found interesting was that another back up officer said "good thing it's on tape", but the video we have is only marginally useful and clearly edited.
Expect nothing less from the the amazing US police force, who will receive legal protection and public faith a solider in a warzone. And people wonder why departments are so reluctant to release number on uses of force and prisoner injuries.
This poll, whose results were announced at the start of 2014, was conducted by Win/Gallup and questioned nearly 66,000 people in 68 countries.
As you can see in the map above, most countries — even allies like Australia — chose America as the greatest threat to world peace.
All told, 24 percent of worldwide respondents chose America as the greatest threat to world peace. Coming in second, with a whopping 8 percent, was Pakistan.
Of course, that wasn’t the only question posed in the poll. Respondents were also asked, given the opportunity, which country they’d want to live in.
They chose Pakistan America! Interesting dichotomy, right?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KU9U1x4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/93gHG7g.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/peace-map.jpg)
9601
1450
223
130
EPT
