(10-10-2016 09:39 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  She can't say anything about her record period. All she can do is throw mud at her opponents. She can't even detail her "plan" for the nation.

Trump is the mirror image of Clinton based on that description. Repeat, they are mirror images. I've been spending some time reading Trump's positions. Not very detailed, but there's some meat there. However, his positions on taxes and the economy were not fleshed out to this extent until he was well into the primary season and he needed a way to consolidate the base. He maintains populist positions on trade and immigration. In the end though, I don't believe Trump accomplishes half or even a 3rd of what he has on his site.

Clinton, OTOH, adopted a number of positions that were part of both Sanders' campaign and Obama's record. The college program in particular, where she originally (and rightly) pointed out Bernie's pipe dream of free tuition. To get the Sanders vote, she had to adopt a number of his views - including the college tuition issue. To get the Obama coalition of voters to accept her, she has to defend what Obama has done - including what is becoming a hot potato with Obamacare. Do you expect her to actually keep this positions if she gets elected? I most certainly do not.

That's your dirty little secret to this campaign. Trump historically has been a democrat who was center left in his politics. He couldn't spell "evangelical" until he cozied up to them to get the endorsement of the religious right. Clinton's politics are similar in that she's been a favorite of the Wall Street crowd for some time. I know people will claim that HRC is different than WJC. But recall the Clinton administration was more progressive out of the gate and then moved to the center/right on several issues out of necessity. You don't think HRC hasn't evolved along with her husband? Of course she has. It's the irony that Bernie's supporters would back her. A lot do, but a lot see her for what she is.

IMHO, both are very similar political animals and will govern as such. The ultimate competition will be which is more undesirable - being an out of touch insider or being an arrogant *******?

I think they are both unfit for office. Her for her corruption and gross negligence with gov't secrets. Him for his narcissistic traits and erratic temperament that I think puts him beyond typical egotism and into full blown NPD.

(10-10-2016 08:16 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 01:37 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 11:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

LOL!

That may be one of the very best zingers in election history.

Hillary better win or else she is going to jail.

Let's just step into this alternative reality for a bit: (call it the "House of Cards" reality, if you want)

- politics is a dirty, dirty, DIRTY business
- Clinton is a beast at politics
- so yeah, she's done illegal stuff ... perhaps even "evil" stuff, like on the TV show, to get the job done

- what has Trump done?? Failed at business and cheated people out of money



I'll take the "evil" political machine, over the failed shyster, every day and twice on Sunday.

(10-10-2016 08:16 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 01:37 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 11:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

LOL!

That may be one of the very best zingers in election history.

Lmao.
That's funny. I don't care who you are for.

Welcome to csnbbs where the people here cheer on something as "the best in election history" that every commentator I've read found it to be horrifying and/or the low point for Trump in the debate. That includes Nate Silver. There's a reason up until last night Trump was trying to move away from the "lock her up" line of thought.

john,

I don't think you can reference the outside world here. This place exists within a massive, thick shell.

You just have to go at them, right between the eyes, and challenge them.

100% of all female republican senators no longer supporting Trump after last night, lol.

(10-10-2016 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Welcome to csnbbs where the people here cheer on something as "the best in election history" that every commentator I've read found it to be horrifying and/or the low point for Trump in the debate. That includes Nate Silver. There's a reason up until last night Trump was trying to move away from the "lock her up" line of thought.

Why let commentators advise you what to think anymore than letting anyone here tell you what to think? Problem with media today is it's to easy to only watch that with which you agree and totally disregard that which you disagree. One of the many reason to simply turn off the TV.

(10-10-2016 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Welcome to csnbbs where the people here cheer on something as "the best in election history" that every commentator I've read found it to be horrifying and/or the low point for Trump in the debate. That includes Nate Silver. There's a reason up until last night Trump was trying to move away from the "lock her up" line of thought.

MUUUUUH NATE

(10-10-2016 11:48 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Welcome to csnbbs where the people here cheer on something as "the best in election history" that every commentator I've read found it to be horrifying and/or the low point for Trump in the debate. That includes Nate Silver. There's a reason up until last night Trump was trying to move away from the "lock her up" line of thought.

MUUUUUH NATE

OHHH MUH NATE!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because those commentators are experts in the field and know what they are talking about. When they all agree that was a **** up...it clearly is a **** up.

Also I don't need a commentator to know that someone promoting their political opponents being thrown in jail as soon as they gain govt power is counterproductive to democracy.

(10-10-2016 12:01 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  [quote='GrayBeard' pid='13666016' dateline='1476074976']
Lol...Hillary blamed school bullying on Trump.


Yes, I am watching the debate now.

This is actually true though. You would be surprised how much kids take after their parents.

Quote:It's not because Trump's mind is magically infecting children. It's because kids hear Trump say things like "I'm going to *** **** women" then think that behavior is cool. Then they go do it with other boys who encourage it in an attempt to form childhood friendships. Then all the sudden you have kids talking about how they don't like Muslims.

WHAT???? This increase in bullying has been going on LONG before Trump was in the political spotlight.. (hell, you want someone to blame... BLM is your primary culprit IMO, if you can't go back further.) Hell, Trump wasn't even a major thought for the nomination, as most pundits thought he'd get laughed out of the primaries..

Some teacher just thought it'd be a "cool" thing to say Trump's name in regards to Bullying increases, because they wanted to attach Trump's name to something negative.

(10-10-2016 11:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  100% of all female republican senators no longer supporting Trump after last night, lol.

And while I don't have a problem with them doing that, if they're doing it for their conscience, this goes to show you again, that the big difference between how Republicans and Democrats political powerbrokers and Democratic-water carriers vote.

Anyone remember how many female democratic senators and reps bailed on Clinton when he had his stories make the rounds? Zero.

And why? Because they'd rather see a "D" in positions of power even if that individual was a womanizer. Hell, they were trying to defend Weiner for a while, as well as Grayson.

It makes sense that since wasn't popular with the Beltway Republicans in the first place, they're using this as the 'excuse' (for the lack of a better word) to avoid saying "He's not one of us political insiders".

(10-10-2016 11:50 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

This video will be viewed by more people than watched the debate

Lol. What a country

Also 53-32 via Reuters makes Hillary five-for-five!

(10-09-2016 10:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 10:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 10:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  She's making the argument for Trump with her consequential election.

Trump is the Mule (see the Foundation series by Asimov). She is permanent.

Been a long time since I read that series.

For those who haven't, or who don't remember, the Mule was a mutant. Very powerful. He destroyed a centuries long plan to bring order to the galaxy after a galaxy wide Human empire collapsed, the "Seldon plan." But when he died, everything promptly returned to normal. He was a temporary aberration.

Yes, with Seldon and his crew of mathematicians were able to calculate the future and to manage the plan to make positive outcomes. There was foundation and foundation II. I'll say no more of the series so as to not ruin it for those interested, but 2 remnants are started - each with a different set of skills. Which one will be the "right" one to further the human race after the collapse of the empire?

ETA - If interested in reading the books, look up Isaac Asimov and the Foundation Series.

Bump. No one ever stated what the books were. The books are part of the Foundation Series, written by Isaac Asimov.