US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5547
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
| ||
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
| ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
Some Trump Supporters Demand #RepealThe19th Some Trump supporters have taken to Twitter to demand a repeal of the 19th amendment — which in 1920 gave U.S. women the right to vote — after national polling indicated an extreme gender gap among presidential support. On Tuesday FiveThirtyEight.com statistician Nate Silver published models of what the electoral map would look like if only men and then women voted. Based on a demographic breakdown of recent national polls, Silver found if only women voted Clinton would claim 458 electoral votes to Trump's 80 votes. Conversely, if only men were able to vote Trump would claim 350 electoral votes versus Clinton's 188. The hashtag, #RepealThe19th, began trending shortly after Silver's post, with both men and women lashing out at Hillary Clinton and attacking feminism. http://www.nbcnews.com/card/trump-supporters-demand-repealthe19th-n665406?cid=sm_fb | ||
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:41 farvacola wrote: There is no indication that Hillary's campaign has anything to do with these women coming out of the woodwork. And among the Hillary voters I know, reluctant folks included, no one thinks Bill innocent relative to his tawdry past. However, most recognize that his prior acts weigh differently on the race than Drumpf's do given that the latter is an actual candidate. You dont get it though, Hillary shamed and silenced those women ! She pretends to be for women but really she hates them and just sees them as tools to satisfy Bills predatory habits so she can become president. Something, something she lies... | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
God damn that was amazing. | ||
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:37 Little-Chimp wrote: Not a trump voter, but really surprised at how many people are taking these girls suddenly coming out of the woodwork at face value while eye rolling at the Bill Clinton accusations. Be real, Hilary is just getting down to trumps level in the pig shit wars Can you give me an explanation why we shouldn't take the accusations seriously? | ||
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:49 hunts wrote: well this is interesting. http://www.nbcnews.com/card/trump-supporters-demand-repealthe19th-n665406?cid=sm_fb This started trending right alongside a number of women from my hometown coming out as Trump supporters. The disconnect was and continues to be bewildering yet oddly satisfying. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:49 Rebs wrote: You dont get it though, Hillary shamed and silenced those women ! She pretends to be for women but really she hates them and just sees them as tools to satisfy Bills predatory habits so she can become president. Something, something she lies... That's still orders of magnitude less problematic than the actual sexual assault acts. I'm all for both of the Clintons being held responsible for their actions, but that 100% does not mean the two situations cancel each other out or that somehow Clinton needs to be held responsible first and without further concrete evidence (keeping in mind that there have been extensive investigations over this already, not that I think the victims would get a fair shake of such a thing, but there's still more digging that's happened there vs newly surfacing claims). Here's a nice path forward for example... * Trump drops out because of the monster that he is. * Someone competent (i.e not the Trump campaign or Trumplites) does more digging and research into the Clinton pass and news media continues to cover and raise the volume of what Hillary has done in this respect and/or how she defends Bill's actions. * If the right dirt comes out or the anti-public opinion is loud enough then Clinton gets dealt with. | ||
![]()
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:41 farvacola wrote: There is no indication that Hillary's campaign has anything to do with these women coming out of the woodwork. And among the Hillary voters I know, reluctant folks included, no one thinks Bill innocent relative to his tawdry past. However, most recognize that his prior acts weigh differently on the race than Trump's do given that the latter is an actual candidate. I would not be that surprise if the Clinton team had those girl in the pocket since a while, having agree for a time to speek about it. It is a win-win situation to wait l, the democrats gets help Hillary in her presidential race the most and those girl have chance to get back a Trump at the time it hurt him the most. If they would have go to the court 10 years ago against a billionaire probably nothing would have happen. The presidential race gave them an opportunity (and also maybe a sense of duty) to speak up against him. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:08 Mohdoo wrote: Does anyone think it is possible Trump is showing early signs of some sort of psychological degradation? Extremely mild dementia or something? I am expecting something of that nature to come out in the next couple years. It doesn't even feel like he's trying to be president anymore. I'm not seeing any signs of such. While there are some armchair psychology assessments which I could provide if you're interested, they're inaccurate and quite unreliable without thoroughly interviewing the subject, and at any rate, they don't point to dementia. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
I think this is the speech. Listening now. she starts at about 25mins | ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I really hope Michelle Obama runs for Senate and after a few terms runs for the White House. Seriously, between how popular she is and how surprisingly popular Obama is at this point, she'd have a damn good chance if she ran as president. She would just need to give it a couple cycles to distance herself from her husband's term and maybe serve in the Senate or something. | ||
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On October 14 2016 02:10 Trainrunnef wrote: I wonder if trump will go after Michelle directly... There are still women voting for Republican candidates. He won't stop until the last one stays home. | ||
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:56 Logo wrote: That's still orders of magnitude less problematic than the actual sexual assault acts. I'm all for both of the Clintons being held responsible for their actions, but that 100% does not mean the two situations cancel each other out or that somehow Clinton needs to be held responsible first and without further concrete evidence (keeping in mind that there have been extensive investigations over this already, not that I think the victims would get a fair shake of such a thing, but there's still more digging that's happened there vs newly surfacing claims). Here's a nice path forward for example... * Drumpf drops out because of the monster that he is. * Someone competent (i.e not the Drumpf campaign or Trumplites) does more digging and research into the Clinton pass and news media continues to cover and raise the volume of what Hillary has done in this respect and/or how she defends Bill's actions. * If the right dirt comes out or the anti-public opinion is loud enough then Clinton gets dealt with. uhhh I was being sarcastic.. sorry for shitpost. | ||
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 14 2016 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote: Seriously, between how popular she is and how surprisingly popular Obama is at this point, she'd have a damn good chance if she ran as president. No more dynasties ![]() Also we do really know how well versed she would be in policy positions outside of some of the initiatives she's tackled as first lady? I would default to assume she's pretty well versed given her position, but it's not exactly something people focus on when talking about the first lady. | ||
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Sorry it's hard to tell, other people say that without sarcasm. | ||
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
| ||