thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,094
Oh ya? Well...emails!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V
- Thread starter acbytesla
- Start date
- Status
Oh ya? Well...emails!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,783
Trump asked the African American community "What do you have to lose?"
They all know the answer: their right to vote, to sit in the front of a bus, their freedom....
They all know the answer: their right to vote, to sit in the front of a bus, their freedom....
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
That's actually his appeal-to-blacks slogan. He's tried it on "working class", in general, but he's returned to it when addressing blacks, over and over.
Answer: Everything. (It's been said by dozens, but this is a writer I like.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/greene-black-people-lose-vote-trump-article-1.2766133
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Trump's Greatest Hits
Watching the millennials at his High Point rally, I couldn't help drawing a parallel to another scene in another arena....
1971 Frank Zappa at the Montreal Forum. He was the opening act for Curtis Mayfield but a large section of stoners had come to see Zappa. (I was there for both.)
I was with a few friends who were musicians, and he was noodling with stuff that would come out on 200 Motels... some really intriguing work. We were loving it but one guy kept screaming out "Rock and Roll!", to which someone else would shout, "Suzy Creamcheese!".... and the stoners would all cheer. After about four times of this, during one of Frank's quasi-orchestral bits, he hand-waved the band to stop and went to a standing mic and said, "Yeah, you're gonna get you're *********** rock and roll but you're gonna have to listen to this **** first."
High Point was like the stoners. They were there and broke out in raucous cheers when he got onto "Oh, we're gonna build that wall. Believe it. And the Mexicans are gonna pay. " Screeeeeeee! He's doing "Build the Wall", let's start chanting for "Crooked Hillary". Oooh, no, get him to do the "Crimewave Lie".
They're probably legitimate Trump supporters, but they're not really there. They don't hear. He could be proposing a revision in the tax code that would make the Mies folks insane and they'll still be screaming, "Suzy Creamcheese! Play Suzy Creamcheese!"
Watching the millennials at his High Point rally, I couldn't help drawing a parallel to another scene in another arena....
1971 Frank Zappa at the Montreal Forum. He was the opening act for Curtis Mayfield but a large section of stoners had come to see Zappa. (I was there for both.)
I was with a few friends who were musicians, and he was noodling with stuff that would come out on 200 Motels... some really intriguing work. We were loving it but one guy kept screaming out "Rock and Roll!", to which someone else would shout, "Suzy Creamcheese!".... and the stoners would all cheer. After about four times of this, during one of Frank's quasi-orchestral bits, he hand-waved the band to stop and went to a standing mic and said, "Yeah, you're gonna get you're *********** rock and roll but you're gonna have to listen to this **** first."
High Point was like the stoners. They were there and broke out in raucous cheers when he got onto "Oh, we're gonna build that wall. Believe it. And the Mexicans are gonna pay. " Screeeeeeee! He's doing "Build the Wall", let's start chanting for "Crooked Hillary". Oooh, no, get him to do the "Crimewave Lie".
They're probably legitimate Trump supporters, but they're not really there. They don't hear. He could be proposing a revision in the tax code that would make the Mies folks insane and they'll still be screaming, "Suzy Creamcheese! Play Suzy Creamcheese!"
SezMe
post-pre-born
You are in no position to make such a "guarantee" and by using that word in the context of the rest of the post, you considerably damage your credibility.
SezMe
post-pre-born
logger, before Heller the individual right was greatly restricted. Those four "libs" you whine about were observing stare decisis, which means "to stand by a decision". A concept that every Supreme Court nominee is asked about in Senate confirmation hearing and all swear fealty to it. Too bad those conservative judges engaged in legislating from the bench, a concept you claim to support but ignore as long as the activist judges are on your side.
ETA: acbytesla has been making this argument already. I hope it bears repeating.
Last edited:
SezMe
post-pre-born
Strawman. The issue is not "should the president be allowed to say something, it is rather whether the president should be prudent in his declarations regarding legal matters. The answer is yes.
In an interview (no link) about being the president, Obama said that one thing that was difficult was that he had to be circumspect about everything he said including what specific words he used. It applied to foreign affairs, the economy, etc. A prudent president (including an ******* candidate) would mind his statements.
ETA: I see that Minoosh has been making this point.
Last edited:
SezMe
post-pre-born
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I read the same interview (or one like it) and Obama said that he had also said things that, unintentionally, affected the stock market. That an innocent statement can be taken as he (Obama) signaling some policy change.
That would be my biggest fear with a Trump presidency, that he would hurt the economy. I base that on articles I've read in economic journals. That many investors fear a Trump presidency would trigger an economic downturn as investors hold back to see what will happen. (Trump has no track record as an elected official. It's possible to speculate on what he might do but impossible to know.) There are also fears he might trigger a global trade war, perhaps deliberately. That could have disastrous consequences for everyone on the planet.
That would be my biggest fear with a Trump presidency, that he would hurt the economy. I base that on articles I've read in economic journals. That many investors fear a Trump presidency would trigger an economic downturn as investors hold back to see what will happen. (Trump has no track record as an elected official. It's possible to speculate on what he might do but impossible to know.) There are also fears he might trigger a global trade war, perhaps deliberately. That could have disastrous consequences for everyone on the planet.
SezMe
post-pre-born
I think that reflects a geographic situation similar to many other states. For example, California is blue along the coast but bright red inland. In Maine, the coastal cities are blue while inland he-man individualism reigns supreme. Told to me by a Maine resident.
I understand that aspect. (I grew up in CA and live in WA.) I didn't realize that Maine wasn't winner-take-all, hence polls per district.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
I'm just trying to find the right words to get my question answered. You used prudent. Does the president have to be more prudent than public statements made by the FBI and prosecutors?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Allegedly.
And if you don't get one make clear that you tried.
And, of course, a defence lawyer is free to make hay with it.
Armitage72
Penultimate Amazing
They weren't the African American community then, they were American property, so that doesn't count. And Jim Crow was a wacky cartoon character, right? I think that's where I know that name.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
And a third one has them tied. Nope, not a typo. It's a statewide tie. Within the state there are two congressional districts, one favors Clinton, the other Trump, and they cancel each other out. But they split up their electoral votes by some formula. I think the statewide winner gets a certain number and then the winner of each congressional district gets a certain number.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Long live Donald Trump and his Parexit!!
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,051
Nebraska does something similar. What they do I think is award electoral votes by the district and the 2 left over by which candidate wins statewide. Nebraska does the same. All other states is winner takes all the votes.
Last edited:
This is an illustriative post as to why hillary is going to lose.
None of these things could possibly happen in this country today.
In DC and very few other areas. Saying DC's law set the standard is a bit absurd. Clearly much of this hadn't been ruled on. I just mentioned it to show what will happen if Trump doesn't win.
- Status