EPTOh did he? How'd he do against Trump in their first presidential debate? And why did he pick Tim Kaine as his runningmate?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5342
| 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. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43810 Posts
Oh did he? How'd he do against Trump in their first presidential debate? And why did he pick Tim Kaine as his runningmate? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43810 Posts
On October 05 2016 12:54 Titan107 wrote: I don't know how trustworthy that can be when Trump is winning OH / IA by a good margin. Also, in current balloting in Florida, he is ahead as well. I look forward to seeing your Breitbart and Fox polls being taken more seriously than 538. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On October 05 2016 12:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Oh did he? How'd he do against Trump in their first presidential debate? And why did he pick Tim Kaine as his runningmate? He's obviously saying that it was rigged, refering to Lulu Fries'dat report (among others). Attack him on that if you want to attack him, this post is rather useless. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9489 Posts
On October 05 2016 13:10 LegalLord wrote: Kaine made Hillary look like a decent debater by comparison. I can't help but feel that Hillary chose him precisely because he is just that unremarkable, to make herself look better. http://www.theonion.com/infographic/who-tim-kaine-53348 | ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
On October 05 2016 11:34 Plansix wrote: Wanting to make them illegal is the same as punishing women for having abortions... This is the strangest part of that whole controversy to me. I had no idea that apparently the common Republican position is that they want to make abortion illegal but NOT punish people who break that law. That makes no sense at all. Edit: Sadist, I think you're saying the exact same thing, which is not that you think women SHOULD be punished for having abortions, but that were a abortion outlawed enacting such laws without punishing offenders would be nonsensical. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Very funny read. On October 05 2016 14:40 CatharsisUT wrote: This is the strangest part of that whole controversy to me. I had no idea that apparently the common Republican position is that they want to make abortion illegal but NOT punish people who break that law. That makes no sense at all. Edit: Sadist, I think you're saying the exact same thing, which is not that you think women SHOULD be punished for having abortions, but that were a abortion outlawed enacting such laws without punishing offenders would be nonsensical. That's where things get murky for the big-time pro-life advocates. If it were theoretically made illegal, why is breaking the law permissible in this special case? And if you believe it ends a human life, that abortionists are essentially murderers, isn't the woman seeking an abortion at least an accessory to murder? But no, in their words, there's one murderer and two victims. It's all essentially moot on the punishment side since even before Roe vs Wade, there was nothing even close to jail/fines/community service or even a slap on the wrist. | ||
|
Netscape9
United States139 Posts
The Onion is owned by Univision, a major donor to Hillary. And would you look at that, the article 'satirical' paints him in a fairly positive light... | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9489 Posts
On October 05 2016 15:38 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/783481522615644160 what does that mean?? | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On October 05 2016 15:42 WolfintheSheep wrote: Wait, honest question...is Titan107 a RealityIsKing alt? Doubt it Wasn't RealityIsKing someone who always wrote like this? Or am I mistaking him for someone else? | ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
Edit And whatever plus Pence might of wrought from this is just going to be drug right back down with trump having access to his twitter during the debate. His handlers really need to get on him agien | ||
|
riotjune
United States3392 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
He lost by two and a half million votes, but who cares about facts in this election? | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9022 Posts
Trump Used Foundation Funds for 2016 Run, Filings Suggest [...] But RCP’s review of IRS filings by the Trump foundation turned up a fresh conflict: a 2013 donation of $10,000 to The Family Leader, a 501(c)(4) established to “develop, advocate and support legislative agenda at the state level.” Unlike a 501(c)(3), or a nonprofit organization, a 501(c)(4) can effect policy and engage in limited political activity, and thus is subject to greater restrictions on contributions from charities. If the Trump foundation sent its money to The Family Leader and not its affiliated nonprofit, it did not properly note it in the filing and might have failed to earmark the money for charitable purposes, a violation of IRS rules. If the money was sent to the Family Leader Foundation, it was not recorded as such. “There’s a mistake somewhere,” said Fei. “It might be a really substantive mistake, or it could just be a reporting error or sloppiness. But improper reporting is still a violation of tax law. That’s something the IRS would look at.” The donation also appears to have been geared toward boosting Trump’s political prospects, raising the specter of another possible violation for self-dealing. In the same year that Trump’s foundation made that $10,000 contribution, The Family Leader featured Trump as a marquee speaker for the first time at its influential leadership summit in Iowa. The announcement raised eyebrows: Craig Robinson, editor of the Iowa Republican blog, wrote that Trump was “an odd fit for a social conservative confab,” while the Family Leader was roundly criticized by other Iowa conservatives for including Trump in the program. [...] But Trump’s greatest early political exposure might have come from Citizens United, a conservative political group whose president, David Bossie, met with Trump in 2011 about a potential presidential bid and remained a close ally. More recently, Bossie took leave from his group last month to join Trump’s campaign as deputy campaign manager. In April 2014, when Citizens United hosted a “cattle call” of would-be Republican candidates for president in New Hampshire, Trump was there. In January 2015, at Citizens United’s Freedom Summit in Iowa, Trump was again on the program. And at the group’s South Carolina summit in May 2015, Trump also took to the stage. The high-profile events were held in three key battleground states. And it was no fluke: Bossie had insisted Trump be included in one of the group’s events “because he was a good friend to Citizens United,” said a source with knowledge of the discussions. It might have helped that, in 2014, Trump’s foundation donated $100,000 to the Citizens United Foundation, by far its single largest donation to any group that year. RCP reached Bossie by phone Monday and offered him an opportunity to respond; Bossie said he would call back but did not and subsequently could not be reached for comment. [...] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/trump_used_foundation_funds_for_2016_run_filings_suggest.html oopsie | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7184 Posts
On October 05 2016 14:40 CatharsisUT wrote: This is the strangest part of that whole controversy to me. I had no idea that apparently the common Republican position is that they want to make abortion illegal but NOT punish people who break that law. That makes no sense at all. Edit: Sadist, I think you're saying the exact same thing, which is not that you think women SHOULD be punished for having abortions, but that were a abortion outlawed enacting such laws without punishing offenders would be nonsensical. This is exactly what I am saying. The pro lifers know it doesnt help their cause so they were pissed when he brought it up. Im just irritated that people made it out like it was some huge derp in logic by Trump when it wasnt. Reproductive rights and the woman's role regarding the fetus is murky as hell anyway (fetal alcohol syndrome, smoking while pregnant, etc) but I think the whole punishment if its a crime thing should be very cut and dry. | ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
On October 05 2016 14:40 CatharsisUT wrote: This is the strangest part of that whole controversy to me. I had no idea that apparently the common Republican position is that they want to make abortion illegal but NOT punish people who break that law. That makes no sense at all. Edit: Sadist, I think you're saying the exact same thing, which is not that you think women SHOULD be punished for having abortions, but that were a abortion outlawed enacting such laws without punishing offenders would be nonsensical. They can make it illegal to provide an abortion, but not to have one. Punishing the doctors if a woman was to have one, not the woman. | ||
| ||
