Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

For the evangelical "leaders" who backed him, this is the latest humiliation, confirming that they lack a moral center or any discernible standards. They now support a man urging fellow Americans to go watch a sex tape.

For Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan, his self-made predicament gets worse. Is he really going to tell us this man is fit to be president?

[André]

Les jeux sont faits as they say in (Trump) casino parlance. At this point everything has been said ad nauseam and nothing, no reasonable or unreasonable argument will change voter's minds. Unless a major, catastrophic gaffe or revelation is made in the coming weeks. Of course it could go both ways.

Apparently (according to pollsters) it takes about a week for a debate's aftermath to register its effect on voters. We'll see what that brings. And start to live with it.

[Pat B]

For the evangelical "leaders" who backed him, this is the latest humiliation, confirming that they lack a moral center or any discernible standards. They now support a man urging fellow Americans to go watch a sex tape.

Well, yeah, but he also did this, so call it a wash.

[Karl Henning]

"It was a joke!"

[Parsifal]

To me, the most terrifying thing about Trump remains the level of support he has.

[San Antone]

For Conservatives/Replubicans - Trump, warts and all, is far and away better than turning the Supreme Court and the country over to any liberal Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, for the next four years.  Hence the binary choice is clear.

[drogulus]

     

For Conservatives/Replubicans - Trump, warts and all, is far and away better than turning the Supreme Court and the country over to any liberal Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, for the next four years.  Hence the binary choice is clear.

     But that's not the choice voters face. The choice is Trump or Clinton for President. That's the binary choice, not the Supreme Court as a discrete issue. I will bet that Repubs Before Trump and Conservatives Before Trump won't sell out the precious few beliefs they have left for 30 pieces of SCOTUS fools gold. But, I could be wrong.

[San Antone]

     
     But that's not the choice voters face. The choice is Trump or Clinton for President. That's the binary choice, not the Supreme Court as a discrete issue. I will bet that Repubs Before Trump and Conservatives Before Trump won't sell out the precious few beliefs they have left for 30 pieces of SCOTUS fools gold. But, I could be wrong.

Yes, that is the binary choice I meant.  The deciding issue for Republicans is which of those two candidates do they trust with the Supreme Court.  The choice is obvious. 

[Madiel]

For Conservatives/Replubicans - Trump, warts and all, is far and away better than turning the Supreme Court and the country over to any liberal Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, for the next four years.  Hence the binary choice is clear.

Then they have lost all sense of proportion. That is like being willing to put a toddler in charge of driving a truck because you don't want your ex-wife to have it.

[Madiel]

In any case, it is not true that this is how Conservatives/Republicans feel. An increasing number of such people are declaring that Trump is simply not fit for the office of President. They are saying that a person they don't particularly like but who is qualified is a better option than someone who is hopelessly unqualified.

Your ex-wife might be a bitch, but at least she knows how to drive.

[SimonNZ]

Yes, that is the binary choice I meant.  The deciding issue for Republicans is which of those two candidates do they trust with the Supreme Court.  The choice is obvious.

Is there any reason to believe that Trump's view of Supreme Court appointments would reflect that of the Republican party - that he would even seek or care about their opinion? It seems from out here like his first instinct would be to offer them to his children, and that laws, inasmuch as he cares about them at all, he feels should work only in the service of his personal business interests.

[André]

What's sad is that conservative boomers allergic to change and social progress are ready to take their children and grandchildren as hostages of their political views by packing the Supreme Court with conservative judges.

[Karl Henning]

Then they have lost all sense of proportion. That is like being willing to put a toddler in charge of driving a truck because you don't want your ex-wife to have it.

To trust El Tupé is rank folly.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[snyprrr]

conservative boomers allergic to change and social progress

[/b]

haven't they had 8 years of all that?  Perhaps even... gasp!!... "normal people" have gotten tired of whatever it is that has been bein served herrre...mm? Or, is it that if you don't like what's been bein served for dinner for 8 years, well then, you just muuuust be a... I guess "bigot"?

Your ex-wife might be a bitch, but at least she knows how to drive.

Can I cut-and-paste this beauty and Post it on some choice sites?


I mean, if you consider yourself a Progressive, that statement would get you "Death #37" at the hilarious lesbian blog I frequent. Frankly, if you collated all the terrible remarks in this Thread, I suspect that, other than yours truly, all the other vitriol is from Liberals.

And, take a look, but, at least in this Thread, the ONE... MAIN... and ONLY weapon of choice appears to be belittling a person's brain power. "Oh, they're just stupid. Just stupid and dumb. What a baby." Has there been much more than that here?



You guys are really taking away my joy at all the trauma this Trump seems to inflict upon you. Perhaps, if he wins, then I will regaled with a more doomish tone from you all. You all seem, on the one hand, overly confident, but then in the same breath somewhat terrified and losing it.

All this "oh my God, not Trump" earthquakes and tremors is so perplexing that I can't get any lolz out of your pain. I guess I just wish I could see more of your suffering... now I'M the one suffering!! And it's no fun.

You all need to do a better job of tormenting yourselves with trump. Otherwise I'm just going to have to conclude that you really don't fear trump as much as you say, and that this is all just a big attention whore Thread for everyone to "masturbate themselves to hell" with. See? take a cue from Sean penn and just let the fear flow!!

[snyprrr]

To trust El Tupé is rank folly.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

In your opinion, what is Hill's single greatest achievement as Secretary of State?

Sent from my lower intestine using Force of Will

[Karl Henning]

In your opinion, what is Hill's single greatest achievement as Secretary of State?

Sent from my lower intestine using Force of Will

This is the creator of a thread called Ode to Urinella asking.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Madiel]

Can I cut-and-paste this beauty and Post it on some choice sites?


I mean, if you consider yourself a Progressive, that statement would get you "Death #37" at the hilarious lesbian blog I frequent.

It's amazing how... actually no, it's not amazing. It's to be expected that you can't tell the difference between what I genuinely think, and an analogy designed to penetrate the obstinate "Conservative" mind.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is a bitch, and I don't think a sane, rational person would become so obsessed with their ex-spouse as to think in these terms. But we've got a poster on this thread espousing the "anyone but a Democrat" line to a degree bordering on irrational, and I'm trying to get through to him by pointing out the sheer folly of not caring whether or not the "anyone else" is actually capable of doing the job.

When you're so focused on denying a role to someone that you genuinely don't care who actually GETS the role, something is seriously wrong. This is supposed to be a vote about electing someone, not a vote about preventing someone from being elected because of some form of festering hatred that has been developing over 20 years because she didn't behave the way people wanted her to behave when she was the wife of the President.

The Republicans had at least some decent, qualified candidates. They threw them away. They got rid of the guys who could have actually driven the truck. And now you've got a Republican divide between the ones that say "I don't care, anyone but Hillary" and the ones that say "Dear Lord, we don't like Hillary but she's better than the alternative". That is what I was referring to. That's a truly remarkable state of affairs, and it was entirely generated by the Republican side of politics.

[snyprrr]

It's amazing how... actually no, it's not amazing. It's to be expected that you can't tell the difference between what I genuinely think, and an analogy designed to penetrate the obstinate "Conservative" mind.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is a bitch, and I don't think a sane, rational person would become so obsessed with their ex-spouse as to think in these terms. But we've got a poster on this thread espousing the "anyone but a Democrat" line to a degree bordering on irrational, and I'm trying to get through to him by pointing out the sheer folly of not caring whether or not the "anyone else" is actually capable of doing the job.

When you're so focused on denying a role to someone that you genuinely don't care who actually GETS the role, something is seriously wrong. This is supposed to be a vote about electing someone, not a vote about preventing someone from being elected because of some form of festering hatred that has been developing over 20 years because she didn't behave the way people wanted her to behave when she was the wife of the President.

The Republicans had at least some decent, qualified candidates. They threw them away. They got rid of the guys who could have actually driven the truck. And now you've got a Republican divide between the ones that say "I don't care, anyone but Hillary" and the ones that say "Dear Lord, we don't like Hillary but she's better than the alternative". That is what I was referring to. That's a truly remarkable state of affairs, and it was entirely generated by the Republican side of politics.

... and all of a sudden it dawned on 'snyprrr' to look over to the margin and he saw that 'orfeo' was from... Australia!! "Oh, for fuck's sake!" he exclaimed, palm on forehead. "A vote?" he chortled. "Decent, qualified?" How could our intrepid hero continue on with someone who had so thoroughly bought into the dichotomy? What? There were only two choices? What? How dare anyone outside the fold of this double-headed eagle attempt a coup? Australia?? 'snyprrr' had had enough and went to the local dive bar...

So, when I got to the dive bar, there's a few of the local rednecky lookin boys out there, and they're sort of saying how they think Hill's gonna win, and the one over forty guy with the pock marked face says, "Well, my pappy never thought we'd have a black president (alluding to how 'we're not racist now', and how, soon, you can't accuse us of being sexist, neither!) back to back, and..." I had already walked passed them, but he saw me stop, as if I were debating on whether to join. "Trump... finger on the button..." OK, so they thought Trump was the warmonger.

I looked at them. Yup, these were the people that people thought were Trump supporters. Here were the scared-to-be-called-racist rednecks of yore with their balls gone but mullets intact. You know, I wanted to give these guys something, on GMG's account. Here were guys that all you here would just call "obvious" Republicans, and they were neutered, scared puppies, too scared to vote for He Whom the Bell Tolls, simply because, I suppose, their wives and girlfriends would think they're "mean ole racists" and not give them any hoohah.

So, The Deplorables, yea, they're yours.

btw- you live in Aussie, I live in New Denmark, so here, even the Hell's Angels vote for HillDawg, that's how inculcated it is here, the disease of liberalism.




btw- if I weren't voting for OurLordJesusChrist, I would gladly vote for Trump.

TO BE HONEST THOUGH-

If it were aaaaaaanyone else, and that includes your fine array of worthy contenders... I see precious no difference... Cruz's wife works for DasBanke, heck, even FBI director's BROTHER works for the Clinton Foundation...



I'm sorry, I'm splapbering... it's late, I'm giddy with the tears of the oppressed




FBI Director Comey said TODAY that if you did what Hillary did, you would be arrested. Intent, or not. Does that mean ANYTHING to you?

[snyprrr]

OK, now that Rand Paul has officially entered the race, I think it is safe to start a thread on this topic.  Let's look at the candidates who have filed with the FEC and their chances.


Republicans:
Rand Paul – No chance
Ted Cruz – Slightly more than no chance.  Maybe 0.1% probability.  (1% if I'm feeling ten times as generous.)  But I don't want no Canuck as President.
Mark Everson – No chance
Jack Fellure – No chance


Democrats:
Jeff Boss – No chance
Robby Wells – No chance
Vermin Supreme – My favorite candidate so far.  Alas, he has no chance.


Other:
Terry Jones – No chance
Zoltan Istvan – As much as I would like to have a transhumanist President named Zoltan, he has no chance.


More seriously, but only slightly, the race I'd like to see would be between John Kasich and Martin O'Malley, but that ain't gonna happen.

How long until the 2016 election is labeled either A.) The most important election ever, in a generation, or some other very long measure of time, or B.) A turning point of some sort?

hey, remember 2015?

[Madiel]

Yeah, I'm in Australia.

It's funny. Because Americans never hear much about Australia and don't know anything about Australian politics, they assume that Australians must never hear much about America and don't know anything about American politics.