Presidential Race 2016

[Dave2512]

Just saw him say that the goal for democrats will be to defeat Trump, looks like it was from his "victory" speech Tue. 

The democratic race isn't the mess the right is making it out to be. Before it was just Trump conservative media was looking past Bernie pitting candidate X against Hillary. Now they changed the narrative to democrats will face a messy convention and the party will fracture. It's just a waiting game Hillary has it locked up. 

[Lihu]

Bernie endorsing Hillary is political security. The Green Party divided the Democratic Party as did Ross Perot with Bush Sr.

They're still politicians.

Guessing if Trump lost the nomination, he would not have endorsed anyone. He's not "one of them".

[Dave2512]

Trump is whatever he feels like being. The only thing he repeats consistently is we're gonna build a wall and MX is paying for it, he will make America great again and he gonna make sooo many great deals...Just you wait and see. 

 

Oops forgot got to add so and so is a pig and woman card. 

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

Trump is whatever he feels like being. The only thing he repeats consistently is we're gonna build a wall and MX is paying for it, he will make America great again and he gonna make sooo many great deals...Just you wait and see. 

 

Oops forgot got to add so and so is a pig and woman card. 

I have no idea what this means, my English language skills are such that I am completely ignorant to its meaning?

Oh, I get it:

Quote

It’s outrageous to hear a man prone to calling women “dogs” and “fat pigs” question the feminist credentials of the first woman to seriously compete for president. Yet Hillary’s responsibility for her role in supporters’ ****-shaming her husband’s accusers is a relevant question, regardless of who’s asking.

Yeah, she certainly can't use the "she's good for women" card in the general election. Hillary is in no better ground to tell people to vote for her because she supports women's rights after bashing so many aspiring career women who she called "sluts" because her husband coerced them into having sex.

[Lihu]

Correction, and not surprising. . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

Quote

Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rodgers. Rodgers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit.^[4] Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had "forced himself on her."^[4] Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.^[3]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430081/she-threatened-me-juanita-broaddrick-hillarys-role-covering-bill-clinton

From a non-conservative source: http://time.com/4177436/hillary-clinton-juanita-broaddrick/

And from Fox:

 

[Elmer]

This guy has been and continues to be a clown. He is going to damage the republican party, which it may take years to recover from, if ever.
And while he denies this alter ego, he had already admitted to using it during court testimony!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

And dont forget about the company he keeps, or employes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/13/donald-trumps-butler-problem/?tid=a_inl

 

[Ernest Jones]

13 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

It's not ... Until dumbasses in North Carolina masquerading as leaders start enacting laws about it.  The Federal Government might have no choice but to step in.

I believe they already have. Hasn't the DOJ come down on them?

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Elmer said:

This guy has been and continues to be a clown. He is going to damage the republican party, which it may take years to recover from, if ever.
And while he denies this alter ego, he had already admitted to using it during court testimony!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

And dont forget about the company he keeps, or employes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/13/donald-trumps-butler-problem/?tid=a_inl

 

No worse than Rev White and Bill Ayers who were associates of Obama

[saevel25]

Just now, newtogolf said:

No worse than Rev White and Bill Ayers who were associates of Obama

So?

[Elmer]

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

No worse than Rev White and Bill Ayers who were associates of Obama

And Yet Obama caught a lot of flack for those association. So much so that the likes of Hannity built a career on screaming about it.
And due to his associations with White & Ayers people did not vote for Obama

However while you admit that the association is "no worse" than those of Obama's you will still vote for Trump, whose associates are clearly just as bad?

So your guys bad associates are of no concern compared to someone else's bad associates?

[newtogolf]

41 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So?

 

30 minutes ago, Elmer said:

And Yet Obama caught a lot of flack for those association. So much so that the likes of Hannity built a career on screaming about it.
And due to his associations with White & Ayers people did not vote for Obama

However while you admit that the association is "no worse" than those of Obama's you will still vote for Trump, whose associates are clearly just as bad?

So your guys bad associates are of no concern compared to someone else's bad associates?

So every candidate has associates that hurt their campaign or reputation, let's not pretend Trump is the only one.  Hillary and Bill have their fair share of them too.  

[Braivo]

24 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

 

So every candidate has associates that hurt their campaign or reputation, let's not pretend Trump is the only one.  Hillary and Bill have their fair share of them too.  

Bill is one.

[bplewis24]

 

17 hours ago, newtogolf said:

At this point all citizens have equal rights, I don't consider which bathroom a transgender uses to be something our federal government needs to get involved with.  We are talking about today and the future, so no need to keep going back to the past for examples.  

But, we do have to go back to the past (and the current) for examples, because it illustrates why the blanket statement (all citizens have equal rights) is a theoretical and abstract concept that is still untrue in many ways in application or practicality.  Our recent and distant past is littered with examples of people who were supposedly protected by the constitution but disenfranchised by their state, local government or authorities.  

I, too, don't think bathrooms are a huge issue.  I think it's a silly issue.  But apparently it's serious enough for some states to start legislating about it, so it's going to be a political discussion topic.

6 hours ago, Braivo said:

Back on topic. 

Where does the Democrat race stand? Does Bernie have any realistic chance to take down HRC?

No, nothing realistic.  Hillary has all but locked it up.  He has pushed her a pretty good deal to the left as she has effectively co-oped his platform of the past several decades, so there's that.

5 hours ago, jamo said:

But what does that actually solve? It's not like they check ID when you walk into a bathroom.

To me, laws mandating what bathroom people use are fruitless, pointless, and based entirely on discrimination, not safety. They don't do ID or genital checks when you enter a bathroom, so a biological male who identifies as a woman shouldn't see resistance in a woman's bathroom no matter what the laws are. And anyone dead set on assaulting a child is going to enter whatever bathroom makes that the easiest. Isn't that the argument with guns - that criminals don't care what the laws are anyway?

Not only all of those things you mentioned, but laws about bathroom usage are antithetical to the platform of limited government an individual freedoms from the party supposedly representing those ideals.  Of course, they're couching the legislation in the "safety" and "protecting our children" issue, but obviously that's just another use of their wedge issues.  And it's wasteful, from the party of fiscal responsibility.  How do you enforce these types of laws without throwing a lot of money at it, for no benefit?

I'm struggling to reply below Ernest's quote below, so I'll add it in here:

The DOJ asked them to stop enforcing the law, and NC sued the Feds to ask them to butt out of it (said they are misinterpreting the law), and the DOJ has counter-sued.

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

I believe they already have. Hasn't the DOJ come down on them?

Edited May 13, 2016 by bplewis24

[Elmer]

18 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

 

So every candidate has associates that hurt their campaign or reputation, let's not pretend Trump is the only one.  Hillary and Bill have their fair share of them too.  

But if you condone Trump's sordid associations you don't get to hold Hillary's against her!

This is somewhat my feeling on Trump calling Bill out for his affairs. Trump, who is on his 3rd marriage and has been known to be a philanderer is not the right person to call Hillary out for her stance on Bill's women.
What has Ivana said about Marla???

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, Elmer said:

But if you condone Trump's sordid associations you don't get to hold Hillary's against her!

This is somewhat my feeling on Trump calling Bill out for his affairs. Trump, who is on his 3rd marriage and has been known to be a philanderer is not the right person to call Hillary out for her stance on Bill's women.
What has Ivana said about Marla???

I didn't say I condone anything.  I can't stand Obama but I don't agree with anything that Trumps EX butler said.  

Trump is calling out Bill because Hillary has constantly played the "woman card" and made statements against Trumps position on women.  

Reality is we are all willing to look past our candidates short comings because we agree more with their politics.  You choose to ignore Hillary's mishandling of Benghazi, her misuse of her personal email server and her and Bills foundation which is under investigation.  

[Dave2512]

It's not what Trump says it's how he says it. Frankly nothing should be off limits if it's relevant but he takes it to the gutter and slings it out with a gob of playground bully. His campaign managers say he's going to shift gears but it hasn't happened. Trump says he'll be sooo presidential when required but we haven't seen it. People shouldn't fear his inexperience they should fear his mouth. It's one thing to call Cruz a liar and say nasty things about his wife or whatever but that's not going to play well on the international stage. His campaign heads say he's an equal opportunity offender. Do we really want a POTUS that needs a muzzle?

 

[rehmwa]

38 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Trump, who is on his 3rd marriage and has been known to be a philanderer is not the right person to call Hillary out for her stance on Bill's women.

I'd agree that Trump is hypocritical to call out Bill for philandering. 

As far as calling out Hillary on her actions concerning Bill's philandering - I'm not sure if Trump has threatened to ruin the lives of any men that Ivana raped

[Dave2512]

Rape? Pretty sure that was never on the table.