2016 Presidential Campaign
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
There will be no perfect president, just like there was no perfect king. . That's why you hope to have a decent Republic, and no guarantee of that either.
there is nothing to see here.
#DNCLeak2
By Kate on November 7, 2016 12:19 AM | 6 Comments
Et tu, Jake Tapper?
And Politico.
And WaPo: WikiLeaks Show Washington Post Writer Asked DNC For Anti-Trump Research
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time..."
#DNCLeak2
By Kate on November 7, 2016 12:19 AM | 6 Comments
Et tu, Jake Tapper?
And Politico.
And WaPo: WikiLeaks Show Washington Post Writer Asked DNC For Anti-Trump Research
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time..."
So, tax, you being all knowledgeable and stuff, how bout filling us in on the structural relationship between the AG and the FBI director? Is the director a "great officer" under the Constitituion? How is she/he selected? Who has the power to remove the director, and what's the procedure? What's the chain of command, and is the AG in the director's direct line of authority?
The retard and the ambulance chaser eagerly await the pearls of wisdom and knowledge that proceed from your vast experience and expertise.
Obama is just wrecking Trump now :lol:
Barack Obama taunts Donald Trump after aides reportedly revoke the candidate's Twitter privileges
Best President Ever
Barack Obama taunts Donald Trump after aides reportedly revoke the candidate's Twitter privileges
Best President Ever
Here's my proposed legislation:
1. WHEREAS the Congress finds that the mental health of the public is a compelling government interest that justifies certain small, temporary restrictions on First Amendment rights,
2. It shall be a felony of the second degree for any outlet of the media with revenues over $10,000 per year, or any director, officer, or employee thereof, to mention, discuss, or report on a Presidential election for a period of 48 hours commencing one hour after the closing of the last polling place in the United States.
1. WHEREAS the Congress finds that the mental health of the public is a compelling government interest that justifies certain small, temporary restrictions on First Amendment rights,
2. It shall be a felony of the second degree for any outlet of the media with revenues over $10,000 per year, or any director, officer, or employee thereof, to mention, discuss, or report on a Presidential election for a period of 48 hours commencing one hour after the closing of the last polling place in the United States.
Clinton looks poised to lock it up
Trump dashes across the country as she seeks solidify the swing states after the FBI cloud lifts.
Read more: Election 2016: Hillary Clinton looks poised to lock it up - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Trump dashes across the country as she seeks solidify the swing states after the FBI cloud lifts.
Read more: Election 2016: Hillary Clinton looks poised to lock it up - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
I think that US presidential elections are always exciting. Much more than Canadian ones. Americans are more forthright with their opinions. Emotions run higher down south. It's very entertaining.
But I feel this way because I'm outside looking in.
Canadian elections are silly. In big cities around the country, each Canadian political party has warehouses full of unicorns, butterflies, smiley faces and candy floss.
The nasty part of Canadian politics only occurs occasionally, when one politician gets "overwrought" in a debate. And our debates certainly don't have the fire that the US ones do. This was as close as it got to fisticuffs. The year was 1988. Brian and John have words.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYjRmM7RDY
So thanks to the US for the election. But like all good things, maybe you could shorten it a tad. It gets stale if it runs too long. Sorta like Christmas shows and ads. They've started running on radio and TV up here.
But I feel this way because I'm outside looking in.
Canadian elections are silly. In big cities around the country, each Canadian political party has warehouses full of unicorns, butterflies, smiley faces and candy floss.
The nasty part of Canadian politics only occurs occasionally, when one politician gets "overwrought" in a debate. And our debates certainly don't have the fire that the US ones do. This was as close as it got to fisticuffs. The year was 1988. Brian and John have words.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYjRmM7RDY
So thanks to the US for the election. But like all good things, maybe you could shorten it a tad. It gets stale if it runs too long. Sorta like Christmas shows and ads. They've started running on radio and TV up here.
Is it normal that the media are so confident that they are already talking about what she needs to do first after she wins? :lol:
Yes, Folks. It's President Hillary. | Huffington Post
First, making Washington great again. Hillary is thorough, thick-skinned and relentless. She has lasted multiple grueling campaigns, running against a charismatic young black man, a grumpy old white man and a colourful septuagenarian adolescent. She has withstood long hours — at law firms, on airplanes and on Capitol Hill, including an eleven-hour grilling about Benghazi. Her skin has been tempered by taking the heat for doing radical things such as (initially) not taking her husband’s last name, admitting that staying at home baking cookies is not her thing and not leaving her husband even after his last name became radioactive. Sure, she made up a story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire; but this is a woman who has been dodging political bombardment for most of her adult life.
Hillary will forge coalitions with the unlikeliest of allies, in a way that her predecessor could not. She has a record of working across the bitter political divide with cranky colleagues in Congress. Her mission will initially be helped by the fact that Democrats have a strong chance of winning the Senate, and even many Republicans will be relieved they have to deal with her rather than the alternative.
Yes, Folks. It's President Hillary. | Huffington Post
First, making Washington great again. Hillary is thorough, thick-skinned and relentless. She has lasted multiple grueling campaigns, running against a charismatic young black man, a grumpy old white man and a colourful septuagenarian adolescent. She has withstood long hours — at law firms, on airplanes and on Capitol Hill, including an eleven-hour grilling about Benghazi. Her skin has been tempered by taking the heat for doing radical things such as (initially) not taking her husband’s last name, admitting that staying at home baking cookies is not her thing and not leaving her husband even after his last name became radioactive. Sure, she made up a story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire; but this is a woman who has been dodging political bombardment for most of her adult life.
Hillary will forge coalitions with the unlikeliest of allies, in a way that her predecessor could not. She has a record of working across the bitter political divide with cranky colleagues in Congress. Her mission will initially be helped by the fact that Democrats have a strong chance of winning the Senate, and even many Republicans will be relieved they have to deal with her rather than the alternative.
Yep. Allow me to demonstrate:
That was a big day in U.S. History, probably ranks up there with J.F.K. assassination and 9/11!
Them circle flies ideologues are buzzing today
A$$holes will be A$$holes or put politely they are what they are.
Kelly McParland: Wish Americans luck, they’re going to need it
Canadians will have reason to be grateful Tuesday, when Americans finally go to the polls to choose their next president. Not only will another interminably lengthy U.S. election be over, but they can quietly celebrate the fact that it’s not up to them to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
In truth, neither of the two candidates deserves the highest political office in the world’s most powerful country. It has been noted more than once that Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is so unappealing that Trump, her Republican rival, may be the only person she’s capable of defeating. Yet, with just a few days to go, it’s still not certain she will manage even that.
That Clinton is a candidate of low standards and dubious ethics goes without question. Her history of questionable activities stretches back to the first appearance of Bill and Hillary Clinton on the national stage 25 years ago, and before that into their years in Arkansas.
There is no need to pore over them yet again, but Clinton’s inability throughout her presidential run to explain away her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state encapsulates much of what makes her so unappealing. It was not just “a mistake,” as she has acknowledged, but a startling example of poor judgment for someone of her experience and standing. Clearly, Clinton felt she could play by her own rules, was determined to keep her actions secret, even within the government, and behaved recklessly and carelessly, just as the Federal Bureau of Investigation charged.
The Clinton camp has reacted with rage at the most recent email revelations, claiming the FBI had no place raising such a potentially explosive issue so late in the campaign, while insisting nothing incriminating will be found in the latest cache. Yet it underlines so much that is unsavoury about Clinton: How on earth could 650,000 of her State Department emails find their way to the laptop of a disgraced former congressmen, best known for his habit of sending photos of his private parts to underage girls? What plausible explanation could possibly be offered?
It is impossible to know how Clinton will turn out as president, should she win. Her views on many issues shift so easily, depending on the prevailing political winds, that she may not know herself was they are. She was a firm supporter of free trade until pressure from left-wing Democrats turned her against it. She supported the Iraq War until she opposed it. She portrays herself as a tribune of the people, but accepts millions of dollars from Wall Street and prefers vacationing with billionaires and celebrities. Her years of experience in Washington might suggest she has the background to negotiate its Byzantine byways, but what great achievement does she have for all her years in government that would justify that belief?
Still, she’s not Trump, and that alone may be enough to make her the lesser of two very bad choices. Trump may be the first presidential candidate in history with no discernible redeeming features. He has not only established himself as a divisive, ignorant, crass, ill-prepared and uncaring candidate, but also as an unattractive human being: conceited, disdainful, supercilious, condescending and devoted solely to his own aggrandizement. He is a greedy person who sees wealth as proof of superiority, no matter how questionable the means by which it was obtained.
He stiffs employees, skips out on his taxes, exploits the less fortunate, wiggles out of debts and owes a lot of his success to big doses of money from his father. He treats women, minorities, the handicapped, veterans, immigrants and Muslims with contempt. He has no policies that could be identified as such, other than his pledge to “make America great again” via vague plans that would barely pass the credibility test of a bar-room argument.
Clinton tells lies. Lots of lies. The difference with Trump is that, while one suspects Clinton recognizes her lies and tells them anyway, he lies so constantly and unsparingly that he appears not even to know he’s lying. The concept of truth is alien to his nature.
It is not the place of a Canadian publication to instruct Americans on how to vote, and that’s a relief, because it would be impossible to urge support for either Trump or Clinton on their merits. The best scenario would be to cancel the election and start over again, with two new candidates. Unfortunately that’s impossible, much as many Americans might wish it.
As Canadians, all we can do is thank our good fortune that we’ve never faced such an unpalatable choice, and wish our neighbours luck. They’re going to need it.
Kelly McParland: Wish Americans luck, they’re going to need it | National Post
Canadians will have reason to be grateful Tuesday, when Americans finally go to the polls to choose their next president. Not only will another interminably lengthy U.S. election be over, but they can quietly celebrate the fact that it’s not up to them to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
In truth, neither of the two candidates deserves the highest political office in the world’s most powerful country. It has been noted more than once that Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is so unappealing that Trump, her Republican rival, may be the only person she’s capable of defeating. Yet, with just a few days to go, it’s still not certain she will manage even that.
That Clinton is a candidate of low standards and dubious ethics goes without question. Her history of questionable activities stretches back to the first appearance of Bill and Hillary Clinton on the national stage 25 years ago, and before that into their years in Arkansas.
There is no need to pore over them yet again, but Clinton’s inability throughout her presidential run to explain away her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state encapsulates much of what makes her so unappealing. It was not just “a mistake,” as she has acknowledged, but a startling example of poor judgment for someone of her experience and standing. Clearly, Clinton felt she could play by her own rules, was determined to keep her actions secret, even within the government, and behaved recklessly and carelessly, just as the Federal Bureau of Investigation charged.
The Clinton camp has reacted with rage at the most recent email revelations, claiming the FBI had no place raising such a potentially explosive issue so late in the campaign, while insisting nothing incriminating will be found in the latest cache. Yet it underlines so much that is unsavoury about Clinton: How on earth could 650,000 of her State Department emails find their way to the laptop of a disgraced former congressmen, best known for his habit of sending photos of his private parts to underage girls? What plausible explanation could possibly be offered?
It is impossible to know how Clinton will turn out as president, should she win. Her views on many issues shift so easily, depending on the prevailing political winds, that she may not know herself was they are. She was a firm supporter of free trade until pressure from left-wing Democrats turned her against it. She supported the Iraq War until she opposed it. She portrays herself as a tribune of the people, but accepts millions of dollars from Wall Street and prefers vacationing with billionaires and celebrities. Her years of experience in Washington might suggest she has the background to negotiate its Byzantine byways, but what great achievement does she have for all her years in government that would justify that belief?
Still, she’s not Trump, and that alone may be enough to make her the lesser of two very bad choices. Trump may be the first presidential candidate in history with no discernible redeeming features. He has not only established himself as a divisive, ignorant, crass, ill-prepared and uncaring candidate, but also as an unattractive human being: conceited, disdainful, supercilious, condescending and devoted solely to his own aggrandizement. He is a greedy person who sees wealth as proof of superiority, no matter how questionable the means by which it was obtained.
He stiffs employees, skips out on his taxes, exploits the less fortunate, wiggles out of debts and owes a lot of his success to big doses of money from his father. He treats women, minorities, the handicapped, veterans, immigrants and Muslims with contempt. He has no policies that could be identified as such, other than his pledge to “make America great again” via vague plans that would barely pass the credibility test of a bar-room argument.
Clinton tells lies. Lots of lies. The difference with Trump is that, while one suspects Clinton recognizes her lies and tells them anyway, he lies so constantly and unsparingly that he appears not even to know he’s lying. The concept of truth is alien to his nature.
It is not the place of a Canadian publication to instruct Americans on how to vote, and that’s a relief, because it would be impossible to urge support for either Trump or Clinton on their merits. The best scenario would be to cancel the election and start over again, with two new candidates. Unfortunately that’s impossible, much as many Americans might wish it.
As Canadians, all we can do is thank our good fortune that we’ve never faced such an unpalatable choice, and wish our neighbours luck. They’re going to need it.
Kelly McParland: Wish Americans luck, they’re going to need it | National Post
That's the best summary of Trump I've seen, and exactly why I'm behind him 100%!
THAT I agree with. What I don't know and probably most other people don't know either is what are facts and what is perception. I'm not a fan of Hillary because I don't feel she can be trusted. I'm not a fan of Trump because at times his mouth engages before his brain and that is not conducive to being Presidential. I do like Trump because he says what's on his mind & that and my last statement are at odds. I suppose we have to accept some of what we hear in the news, but at the same time remembering "One swallow does not a summer make" (or an alcoholic)
It will be close and fun to watch!
Do you swallow?THAT I agree with. What I don't know and probably most other people don't know either is what are facts and what is perception. I'm not a fan of Hillary because I don't feel she can be trusted. I'm not a fan of Trump because at times his mouth engages before his brain and that is not conducive to being Presidential. I do like Trump because he says what's on his mind & that and my last statement are at odds. I suppose we have to accept some of what we hear in the news, but at the same time remembering "One swallow does not a summer make" (or an alcoholic)