EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4631
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Meg Whitman, a Hewlett Packard executive and Republican fund-raiser, said Tuesday that she would support Hillary Clinton for president and give a “substantial” contribution to her campaign in order to stop Donald J. Trump, whom she berated as a threat to American democracy. “I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her, and I will donate to her campaign and try to raise money for her,” Ms. Whitman said in a telephone interview. She revealed that Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, had reached out to her in a phone call about a month ago, one of the first indications that Mrs. Clinton is aggressively courting Republican leaders. While acknowledging she diverged from Mrs. Clinton on many policy issues, Ms. Whitman said it was time for Republicans “to put country first before party.” Source | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 03 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote: It helps that a former super-PAC for Hillary creator will be working closely with the campaign and the DNC to funnel those big donations without the pesky individual candidate limits. . Particularly when Hillary is outspending Trump (often described as the worst candidate in modern history) 15-1, and is still basically within the margin of error. Clinton is currently within the margin of error of Trump as much as Obama was in the margin of error of Romney in 2012. That is, she's not (currently at least). Unless your margin of error is purely that of individual polls of random size (which is a silly non-brightline), rather than an aggregate. Otherwise you're saying there's a >5% chance Clinton is actually behind Trump which is not possible within systematic bias across all recent polls. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
So Trump hires racist homophobic conspiracy theorist who can't delete their racist, homophobic tweets. | ||
|
Deleted User 261926
960 Posts
On August 03 2016 09:53 ticklishmusic wrote: Trump has set the record for worst week for a national political candidate. I full expect him to break it next week. Amazingly enough, ties to ISIS don't produce a worse week for Trump's opponent. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 03 2016 11:52 Karpfen wrote: Amazingly enough ties to ISIS don't produce a worse week for Trump's opponent. Ted Cruz has ties to ISIS??? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
...well, maybe not singlehandedly. I can't forget that the Republican base wanted Trump. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 03 2016 12:00 acker wrote: What can Paul Ryan and McCain even do at this point? drink, hold each other, cry | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
All that media slander and people still give him the utmost support. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9175 Posts
On August 03 2016 12:14 MasterCynical wrote: All that media slander and people still give him the utmost support. Slander implies that people are make this shit up, but every single stupid thing he's said has been either on camera or on his twitter account. So how's criticizing that slander? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 03 2016 09:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: How does Donald Trump not know that Putin has invaded Ukraine? Alright, so here's the deal. Officially, Russia wasn't sending troops to Ukraine. Obviously that's not true - no country with as much at stake as Russia in the Ukraine crisis will go without sending at least some contingency force to ensure that things go well. As of late 2015 the role is that of an advisory/support role, similar to that of CIA attempts to train rebel forces. We'll find out the full truth in probably 20-50 years. Realistically it's probably a minor force that wasn't fighting the war, but that made sure that the rebels (and pro-Russian volunteers) were up to par to fight their own fight. After Minsk I the breakaway regions developed a force that strongly resembles a standing army and I really don't think they did that alone. However, that's pretty standard government intervention and I'm not sure that that's what you could call a straight invasion. In the US, the prevailing story is the one told by the Ukrainian government: the Ukrainian army was on the brink of victory, taking city after city, and the only reason they lost is because Russia sent a full invasion force to beat them back. That story is patently false (if Russia had actually done that then every Western country would have placed a full embargo on Russia as opposed to the limited sanctions in place right now), but it's the one spread by the US media during the height of the conflict. In reality, it was a pretty boneheaded effort by the Ukrainian government that overextended its military and lost it a lot of soldiers in return for temporary progress. The Ukrainian army was rather poorly provisioned and was defeated because it was weak and poorly managed. Pretty feasible for a nation whose weapons are all Soviet era and therefore no less than 30 years old. So if you take the Ukrainian story, what Trump says sounds absolutely ridiculous. If you take the official Russian story it sounds reasonable enough, though rather charitable even by that standard. He shouldn't have said it, but perhaps that was his line of thought. | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
On August 03 2016 12:22 Dan HH wrote: Slander implies that people are make this shit up, but every single stupid thing he's said has been either on camera or on his twitter account. So how's criticizing that slander? They leave out crucial and key details of stories to portray him a negative light, as well as overemphasize the negative details. Maybe slander is not the right word, but it's very dishonest imo. http://www.untruthaboutdonaldtrump.com/ | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Most recent photo taken of the GOP + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/012/073/7686178464_fdc8ea66c7.jpg){kind=icon} | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45320 Posts
Here: http://imgur.com/gallery/xDHOS | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 03 2016 12:39 LegalLord wrote: If Trump splinters the Republican party and forces it to reform into something reasonable then I will consider his campaign to be a net positive for the nation. Are suggesting that Trump might actually be the most progressive politician of 2016? Think about it--the one thing Trump knows is everything he runs eventually becomes a failure--so by becoming the pseudo leader of the GOP, he can only promise to it what has happened to the vast majority of his excursions. He might be the first, Meta-Politician. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 03 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Have you guys seen Donald and Hobbes? Completely hilarious and totally on point. Here: http://imgur.com/gallery/xDHOS Those are pretty good. Got a good laugh out of me for sure. | ||
| ||
