Sanders (I can't call candidates by their first name) failed to get the nomination, true.
But he went from 1% in the polls to getting 1000+ delegates and greatly influencing the platform.

Trump succeeded in getting the nomination, but if trends hold, Clinton's going to get at least 350 electoral votes.

(08-12-2016 02:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I forget - who was Jefferson's ghost writer on the Declaration of Independence?

Jefferson's duplicities are well-documented. The man was in many ways great for our nation, but he was certainly far from a saint, especially in his more private habits.

Ben Franklin actually wrote the first draft of the Declaration Of Independence. The Continental Congress did not accept Franklin's version, and so Jefferson rewrote it, but Franklin's was his source. Furthermore, the wording and ideas used in the Declaration of Independence came in large part from the ideas of British Philosopher John Lock. Franklin had his own proclivities and again, while a great man for our nation, was also no saint.

Trump has been more openly faultful (if that is a word). He shatters the illusion we all want to have of our leaders, but he is who he is without pretending not to be. Hiliary does nothing but pretend to be something she is not, and has made an entire career of her charade. As bad as Trump can be at times, what Hiliary is is infinitely worse. It is certainly hard to watch at times, but Trump has been effective to get where he is, and where Bernie failed, Trump has shown he can succeed, a fact that still seems lost on many.

While I understand the desire to want to have someone who is so forthright, if that forthrightness reveals that the person is a complete buffoon, who: (i) makes fun of people with disabilities; (ii) uses a woman's menstrual cycle to try and discredit them; (iii) openly discusses how much he wants to physically hurt people who say things that are unflattering about them; (iv) advocates for harming protesters he disagrees with; (v) sends pictures of himself on a semi-regular basis with his hands circled to someone who once made a comment about how small his hands are; and on and on and on, I don't think the forthrightness is positive at that point.

It's like children. We all know they run around and act crazy sometimes. No one wants to be around the ones that don't know when it's appropriate to be civilized.

Donald Trump, 7/21/15

Quote:"Look, having nuclear -- my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart -- you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world -- it's true! -- but when you're a conservative Republican they try -- oh, do they do a number -- that's why I always start off 'Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune' -- you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged -- but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me -- it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power, and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen, and he was right -- who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners -- now it used to be three, now it's four -- but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger, fellas -- and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years -- but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

(08-17-2016 01:12 PM)grol Wrote:  Donald Trump, 7/21/15

Quote:"Look, having nuclear -- my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart -- you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world -- it's true! -- but when you're a conservative Republican they try -- oh, do they do a number -- that's why I always start off 'Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune' -- you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged -- but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me -- it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power, and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen, and he was right -- who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners -- now it used to be three, now it's four -- but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger, fellas -- and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years -- but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

Doesn't count unless you diagram the sentence. But seriously, if what you are trying to say is that Hiliary is smarter than Donald (and from where he went to school, I'm not at all sure you can say that) that would seem to work as well as saying because Rice students are so much smarter than students from Oklahoma that we should easily defeat them on the football field.

Yes, he is parenthetical to a fault when speaking extemporaneously. Doesn't mean he can't make the best decisions for the country, which is after all, what the job is about.

I believe Trump would appoint more appropriate judges than Hiliary, who would only use a far-left ideological litmus test, which hurts the country. I believe Trump would stand up to our trade partners and say "we're going to demand fair trade instead of this bull, and we won't stand for the currency manipulation anymore either." Hiliary could give a rat's butt about helping Americans--she's been paid off by so many wealthy foreigners that Hiliary is a walking conflict of interest waiting to implode, and that is a risk Americans just cannot take, especially the poorer ones. I believe Trump would find a fairer and more honest way to fix the grave healthcare situation that became much worse for the average American under ACA. Also, Trump would be checked by Congress, who is not completely in love with him, but he would find reasonable compromises. Hiliary would be blocked as bad as or worse than Obama, and that does nothing to help the country.

So he is not the greatest speaker. And Hiliary is Churchill? yeah, right--want to buy some great swampland, too? It's a good deal, trust me.

Speaking of Hiliary's words: they keep changing, don't they:

(08-16-2016 10:00 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Hillary Clinton is doing a LOT of scrambling lately to stay ahead of all of the many investigations into her and Bill Clinton’s crimes, which apparently includes removing a portion of the wording on Hillary’s website which used to say that victims of rape and sexual assault “have the right to be believed”. Hillary’s campaign realizes that when they say that victims of rape and sexual assault “have the right to be believed”, that also means the many women allegedly raped and sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, so that wording had to be removed.

http://usbacklash.org/according-hillary-...-believed/

(08-16-2016 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  I even saw the story linked on AOL, which is tied to Huffington Post.

(08-16-2016 01:33 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Every woman has the right to be believed.....except those hubby Bill assaulted and raped. Yep, she is a fine person married to another fine person.

(08-17-2016 12:22 PM)green Wrote:  http://wonkette.com/605513/lets-talk-abo...broaddrick

I think good men can rape, and be sorry, and not do it again.

To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.
-- wonkette

LIE BACK AND ENJOY IT

(08-17-2016 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So now they admit the truth, but are generating excuses for it. I guess as long as we're all in agreement that he's a scumbag woman harassing and victimizing rapist, and Hillary is his enabler, its a start.

I cannot vote for the scum that is Hiliary (and Bill) Clinton. Hiliary hates women. No matter how bad Trump might be (and I admit he's not great), he is far, far better than Hiliary.

(08-17-2016 01:12 PM)grol Wrote:  Donald Trump, 7/21/15

Quote:"Look, having nuclear -- my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart -- you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world -- it's true! -- but when you're a conservative Republican they try -- oh, do they do a number -- that's why I always start off 'Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune' -- you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged -- but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me -- it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power, and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen, and he was right -- who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners -- now it used to be three, now it's four -- but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger, fellas -- and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years -- but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

Rice connection:

The Bonner Lab's 12 Million Electron-Volt tandem Van de Graaff accelerator, installed in 1961, was made by John Trump's company, High Voltage Engineering Corp. (See November 20, 1959, Thresher, page 1: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...sequence=1)

That accelerator joined a 6-7 MeV Van de Graaff described in this November 9, 1951, Thresher, manufacturer not mentioned: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/65999/thr19511109.pdf?sequence=1.

For those who have a sense of humor about this whole sh!tshow, the website below has some pretty good t shirts.

https://libertymaniacs.com/

I don't even know where to start on that debate.

It's like Trump doesn't realize things he tweets are says are recorded. Here's the one where says global warming is a Chinese conspiracy, which he flat out denied in the debate:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...rming-hoax

Or claiming that he "ended" the birther "controversy" even though he's on record calling it a fake birth certificate, etc for five years after it was released. I mean there's spin, and there's flat out, verifiable lies.

And the "Call Sean Hannity! Call Sean Hannity!" answer, WTF?

Or when he.... OK, I'll stop.

Seriously, Kasich, Jeb!, and Rubio may not have been the best candidates ever, nor is Clinton, but people wouldn't have watched that debate thinking, "Oh my God. A major party nominated this man to be leader of the free world."

Last night felt like that scene in Billy Madison, where the principal told Billy that we were all stupider for having listened to his rambling, incoherent response to the question. Seriously...in order to have it be anything more than a bad reality TV show, the CPD needs to get Gary Johnson on the stage, pronto. If nothing else his presence would serve to reign in all the personal attacks so that the other two would talk about issues.

I think both Trump and Clinton looked awful last night, but expectations for her were abysmally low and she easily beat them. Expectations for Trump were fairly high, and she took advantage by baiting him into giving asinine responses to irrelevant questions.

(Preface: I always vote, even in local elections. I will vote this year, but not for President)

I've had people on both sides tell me that I HAVE to vote this year, because it is such an important election, yadda, yadda, yadda.

My answer to them is: "If this year's election is so crucial, so important, so earth-shattering, why did the two major political parties nominate these dumpster-fires of candidates?"

I am generally conservative, but not extreme. I would normally vote Republican, but cannot in good conscience vote for Trump, and will not.

I could vote for a Democrat who I respected, even if I didn't agree with them on most issues. I would vote for someone like Jimmy Carter. I would've voted for Bernie Sanders because he, for the most part, would've been benign without any congressional backing. Thinking about it, I could probably vote for Joe Biden. I at least think he's well intentioned, and coming from the Senate, he might even be willing to work with the Republicans.

Obviously, part of the blame goes to the public for allowing these two to get through the primaries.

But the Republicans allowed the vote to be split for too long, probably because they didn't envision Trump could win a plurality, which is what got him to the end game.

And the Democratic machine had decided long ago that "it was Hillary's turn" and consciously did everything they could to ensure her nomination. She had such a ridiculous edge in money (shocking, right?) and name recognition.

It really boiled down to name recognition, and the 'reality show' theme. On both sides, it just gets couched in different terms on the Democrats side. Hillary has been in the spotlight forever. She's as familiar to the Dems as "I Love Lucy" and the "Ed Sullivan Show" back in the day.

Couple of things I noticed. [Disclosure - I've voted for a mix of R's & D's in the past 6 presidential races, and will probably vote for Gary Johnson this year.]

1) It sure seemed like Lester Holt had many more negative questions targeted towards Trump vs Clinton. He pressed Trump on his tax return, the birther controversy, his support for the Iraq war, and Clinton's "presidential look". The only time Holt pressed Clinton on any of her trouble spots was after Trump brought up the private email server, and Holt ask her "Do you want to respond to that?". Did anyone else pick up on this?

2) I know all politicians do this, but I was simultaneously impressed and frightened by Trump's ability to deflect questions and turn them around 180 degrees. Here's a relevant example from the transcript. He essentially convinced Lester Holt that he had asked a different question!

Quote:HOLT: Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said she doesn't have, quote, "a presidential look." She's standing here right now. What did you mean by that?

TRUMP: She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina. I said she doesn't have the stamina. And I don't believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.

HOLT: The quote was, "I just don't think she has the presidential look."

TRUMP: You have -- wait a minute. Wait a minute, Lester. You asked me a question. Did you ask me a question?

(09-27-2016 11:23 AM)chrisc Wrote:  Couple of things I noticed. [Disclosure - I've voted for a mix of R's & D's in the past 6 presidential races, and will probably vote for Gary Johnson this year.]

1) It sure seemed like Lester Holt had many more negative questions targeted towards Trump vs Clinton. He pressed Trump on his tax return, the birther controversy, his support for the Iraq war, and Clinton's "presidential look". The only time Holt pressed Clinton on any of her trouble spots was after Trump brought up the private email server, and Holt ask her "Do you want to respond to that?". Did anyone else pick up on this?

2) I know all politicians do this, but I was simultaneously impressed and frightened by Trump's ability to deflect questions and turn them around 180 degrees. Here's a relevant example from the transcript. He essentially convinced Lester Holt that he had asked a different question!

Quote:HOLT: Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said she doesn't have, quote, "a presidential look." She's standing here right now. What did you mean by that?

TRUMP: She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina. I said she doesn't have the stamina. And I don't believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.

HOLT: The quote was, "I just don't think she has the presidential look."

TRUMP: You have -- wait a minute. Wait a minute, Lester. You asked me a question. Did you ask me a question?

From what little I could stomach of the debate, Trump performed poorly. At least IMO.

However the exchange you just posted, sounds like a pretty direct answer, rather than a deflection:

"What did you mean by that?"

"She doesn't have the stamina."

That's a direct answer to the question. It may (or may not) be a fair assessment of her health and physical ability to handle the rigors of a full-time job at her age (or his, I get it). It may not make sense to some, but it gets a point across. People will understand the point he's making, and it's about their perceptions of her.

As I said a couple of posts up, I am not voting for Trump, nor defending his candidacy. But as I read that exchange, that's probably a clearer answer than most that were given by him last night.

(09-27-2016 11:33 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  However the exchange you just posted, sounds like a pretty direct answer, rather than a deflection:

"What did you mean by that?"

"She doesn't have the stamina."

That's a direct answer to the question. It may (or may not) be a fair assessment of her health and physical ability to handle the rigors of a full-time job at her age (or his, I get it). It may not make sense to some, but it gets a point across. People will understand the point he's making, and it's about their perceptions of her.

Ahh, interesting. I didn't hear it that way live, but reading back through the transcript I think that's a good interpretation. He essentially is saying "She looks like she doesn't have the stamina needed to be president". In that case, it is a direct answer.

I focused on the "I said she doesn't have the stamina" part of his response, which I took to mean he was disputing the accuracy of the initial quote, but that's probably not what he was trying to do.

(09-27-2016 12:54 PM)chrisc Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 11:33 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  However the exchange you just posted, sounds like a pretty direct answer, rather than a deflection:

"What did you mean by that?"

"She doesn't have the stamina."

That's a direct answer to the question. It may (or may not) be a fair assessment of her health and physical ability to handle the rigors of a full-time job at her age (or his, I get it). It may not make sense to some, but it gets a point across. People will understand the point he's making, and it's about their perceptions of her.

Ahh, interesting. I didn't hear it that way live, but reading back through the transcript I think that's a good interpretation. He essentially is saying "She looks like she doesn't have the stamina needed to be president". In that case, it is a direct answer.

I focused on the "I said she doesn't have the stamina" part of his response, which I took to mean he was disputing the accuracy of the initial quote, but that's probably not what he was trying to do.

Seriously? You guys are buying the "I meant stamina" excuse?

Regardless of that, can the guy possibly be more clueless? I mean the next day he goes on TV and starts attacking Machado, saying "she was the worst," "she gained a lot of weight, it was terrible". Oh, I'm sure that will convince female voters, Donald. That *is* terrible, she deserved to be called Miss Piggy! And we all know Latinas are only good at housekeeping so "Miss Housekeeping" was a good one! </sarcasm> And today he is still attacking her, trying to claim she has a "sex tape" and is "disgusting". It would be funny if there wasn't a chance this nutjob could be leader of the free world.

Really, the guy gets up in the middle of the night to hate tweet his arch-nemesis, Miss Universe.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/30/13120546/tr...ado-tweets

(09-30-2016 11:46 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Really, the guy gets up in the middle of the night to hate tweet his arch-nemesis, Miss Universe.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/30/13120546/tr...ado-tweets

Well, he was up in the middle of the night, and he did tweet about Miss U., but it is hard to say he got up just to do that.

On the bright side, at least when the 3:00 A.M. call comes, he will br up and ready.

(09-30-2016 01:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  On the bright side, at least when the 3:00 A.M. call comes, he will br up and ready.

If the Trump handlers were smart, they'd take away his phone from him.

(09-30-2016 03:40 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  If the Trump handlers were smart, they'd take away his phone from him.

Too lazy to find it, but someone noticed that the sane and rational tweets came from one type of phone and the unhinged Trump tweets came from another.

(09-30-2016 01:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 11:46 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Really, the guy gets up in the middle of the night to hate tweet his arch-nemesis, Miss Universe.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/30/13120546/tr...ado-tweets

Well, he was up in the middle of the night, and he did tweet about Miss U., but it is hard to say he got up just to do that.

On the bright side, at least when the 3:00 A.M. call comes, he will br up and ready.

In Trump's defense, it was 10am Moscow time.