Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by texas_ex2000, Jul 22, 2016.
That doesn't matter, JF. Trump is a meanie.
Three guesses where CNN got it...
Wiki claims a few scalps
Interesting article on the media's coverage of this campaign. The New York Times is basically admitting that the normal rules of not taking sides may not apply in this race because of Trump's "uniqueness." I agree that he's bad and that he's unique, but I don't see a reason for the media figures who are supposed to be unbiased to cross the line from reporter to advocate. In fact, I think it's dangerous. The media doesn't have to be unfair to Trump for him to lose. All it has to do is let him open his mouth.
"In fact, I think it's dangerous."
This. It is extremely dangerous in my view. You couple this with the "rigging" of the primary for HRC and the republican establishment abandoning the vote (like it or not) of Trump and you have a democracy in jeopardy.
We all agree that these are two of the worst nominees in American history. The next three months will get uglier, more partisan and I think will include more bombshells about HRC, the state department and the DNC.
Assange wants chaos. I think he has the capability to affect the outcome of this election and create a constitutional crisis in the process.
Rep party leaders (past and present) have created a monumental cluster**** that will cost them for years to come.
First the ultra-conservative wing turns on moderates in Congress creating a big rift. Trump enters and rallies a previously voiceless segment of anti-establishment types.
All this fractured the party into 3 camps. Since Trump's side won, the other two refuse to accept defeat and unify for the greater good of stopping ultra-radical Lib reign.
They ignore the glaring truth that even divided into segments with varying degrees of conservative principles, the common interests of the groups are infinitely larger than any agreement with the new ultra-Lib agenda.
Which is mind-boggling as the party who wins the Presidency will have country-defining consequences that reach far beyond the executive branch.
How could an Establishment Rep shun Trump knowing his published choices for Supreme Court are ideal for them, and Clinton's choices will be their worst nightmare?
The list goes on and on why each segment should swallow their pride and unite. But like children the pity party continues and they're dead set on paving the way for the most anti-American, unconstitutional administration in our nation's history.
So how does this hurt the party in 2020? Remember the anti-establishment segment who was sabotaged by fellow party members...wait until an ultra-conservative like Cruz or an establishment moderate wins the nomination and begs for their support.
Good luck, payback is a b**ch and jilted people have long memories. You're the one who raised our taxes, made us pay a fortune for health care, refused our kids choice of schools, allowed absurd social laws to pass and defeat challenges, brought in more crime illegally, protected the PC culture nightmare, etc, etc.
I consider myself mostly moderate with anti-establishment demands of fair play and removing corruption. Not a Trump lover, but support his agenda over the alternative.
I can't wait to hear pleas in 2019 when the very ones who helped HC cripple our country and harm my quality of life for 3 years are now asking for my support to save them.
Any Rep candidate who turned his/her back on the people's choice to represent the party and help secure the WH can kick rocks.
Maybe I'll be the aloof moron searching for a no-path independent candidate to support and indirectly help the Rep nominee lose the election. I was provided a great example.
'Never Trump' translates to one thing now...Only Hillary. No forgiving that betrayal.
Because staying in the club is the most important thing of all. HRC gives them a better shot at staying in said club.
Nobody ever gets everybody, but the overwhelming majority of conservatives and conservative-leaning moderates will back Trump. Nevertheless, Trump would do better if he actually made a serious attempt to unify the party. Publicly taking a piss on Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, and a myriad of other Republican officials doesn't help.
The problem is that for those who actually won't vote for Trump, the interests aren't common. Similarly to the Democrats, the GOP is a coalition of interests. If you're a large business interest that's generally getting by in the current regulatory environment, you likely don't want the apple cart disrupted on issues of immigration and trade. Accordingly, you're interests aren't common with Trump supporters' interests. If Hillary was talking about a colossal tax hike, that might be enough to outweigh Trump's agenda, but she isn't. They're expecting her to govern as a moderate Democrat (like Bill did), not as a raging Marxist.
Ditto for people who are staunch neocons on foreign policy. Remember that a lot of ex-Democrats became Republicans in the '70s and '80s because of foreign policy - people like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Irving Kristol. For example, why the hell would William Kristol vote for Trump over Hillary Clinton? His connection to the GOP is almost entirely about foreign policy. Hillary is certainly not going to be ideal for him, but she's more hawkish than Obama was and at least generally favors the post-WWII order. As for Trump, foreign policy is the area where his buffoonery is most blatant. If you're a guy like Kristol, you're not going to get anywhere near that.
It's because they largely don't care about social issues. They care about business issues, which is one of the areas where Democrats will compromise on judicial nominees, particularly when Republicans control the Senate. A Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court will reliably vote to screw religious conservatives, but he or she isn't likely to cause major disruptions on business issues, which are mostly decided by state court judges anyway.
The point is that most Republicans who aren't going to back Trump aren't doing so just because they're bitter. They have reasons.
With massive Rep business interests revolving around oil & fossil fuel energy, their business interests are better served by the ultra-Lib agenda?
Dems are hell bent on restricting this industry and pushing towards renewable energy. They've been battling these companies for the last several years.
They're all-in on pushing environmental initiatives so much so that they attempted to charge companies with crimes for allegedly falsifying their effect on the climate.
Trump's policies are as fossil fuel friendly as it gets.
We won't even get into the 20% reduction in corporate taxes and a one-time low tax to move money back to the states.
Now if you want to make the argument that Hillary is for sale to the highest bidder I can see some validity there.
But her hands are tied when it comes to fossil fuels and corporate taxes in comparison to Trump. Both which are hugely tied to Rep business interests.
A few things to keep in mind. First, the business community isn't going to view her agenda as "ultra-lib." They have experience with her and with Bill and know they want to play ball, not destroy large business interests. Furthermore, business interests that are big enough to matter in national politics are global in scope. They're used to doing business and figuring out ways to make money in countries where the environmental regulatory scheme is dramatically more onerous than anything most Americans could imagine.
For example, here in Europe Exxon drills for oil in the North Sea, refines it in places like France and Belgium, and then gets slammed with a €.75 per liter (about $3.25 per gallon) tax that's used to fund public transportation, which is designed to force down the demand for Exxon's primary product. And all along the way, EU bureaucrats who make the EPA look like the Boys Scouts are nitpicking every part of the equation with regulations, and Exxon is having to pay some of the highest labor costs and deal with the biggest, baddest unions in the world. Next to that scheme, HRC just doesn't look very scary, and even in that scheme, Exxon makes a fortune.
The point is that within reason, the regulatory climate and even corporate taxes aren't what scares mega-business interests. They have ways to deal with that. What scares them is unpredictability and instability.
Second, even if businesses would like to see the tax and regulatory side of Trump's agenda enacted, they know how important it is to be the side of the winner. The Clintons like to play ball, but everybody also knows that they retaliate against businesses that take the wrong side. (See the tobacco industry during the '90s.) They know they'll pay a price if they choose the losing side. And if you're an objective-minded business, do you take your chances on a guy who's only a little more serious than Thong Man, or do you bet on the person who's winning in the polls and generally acts like an adult? They're going with the adult, even with her faults.
Big shock. Businesses tend to give money to politicians who will support their agenda. Just ask the insurance lobby why they give so much money to Greg Abbott. Oh wait, he bad mouths Obama so it's OK.
CNN has really come out of the closet on this election
Here is a 10m compilation -- they like cutting off folks
Can you spot the differing standards?
This one was kinda funny
Thank goodness we have CNN factcheckers
CNN has sunk to unimaginable lows in journalism. I respect MSNBC more because they are not trying to hide their bias. CNN is only interested in Clinton being elected. I wonder if WikiLeaks is going to expose criminal activity and they hope for a Clinton pardon?
Duck, here comes the resident liberal to defend CNN because I am a Obama hater...
Can you tell from BBC headline that the girl actually left England to join ISIS?
I noticed you had to go outside of the Presidential race to give an example of big companies "to support their agenda." Wouldn't an example of Trump being bought off be better for your point being made? Because we are talking about Trump vs the bought "for their agenda" Hillary.
CNN has lost it's mind lately. I wonder at what point would they back track and wonder that this country is going in the wrong direction? Maybe in real life something happen like on an episode of House of Cards where an informant is leaving at 4am in the morning to testify against a Presidential candidate to the FBI. Then someone hired a hit man to shoot the informant in the back of the head execution style to prevent from testifying. Oh wait.......that just happened. Maybe have a video of an informant being held down while Hillary slashed his throat would do it? I'm betting CNN would not cover it. Again, CNN has lost their friggin mind and want Hillary to win at all cost.
Honestly, that's why a lot of people are voting for Trump. Reporting that Trump "can't be bought" because of his already-immense wealth. But you can't win them all. There's always going to be people who vote for their side. It sure seems that he was one doing a lot of the "buying" in the 70s-80s, but if Hillary can get off free from Whitewater, then meh.
I hope you've contacted the MPDC to share your findings. And to think... detectives were probably just wandering around aimlessly following empty leads until WhatDoesItMean.com shared their new info.
Of course I did. It's hard to show that Trump has a record of being bought when he doesn't have a record of any kind.
Well I'm sure the deaths and the timing of those deaths are all just a big coincidence.
Do you think he could be bought if he were President. Not talking small favors and such. I'm talking about to the extreme that Hillary does.
I think he will help those who helped him. Furthermore, I think he will engage in self-dealing in various ways - directing government contracts and money to Trump-affiliated businesses, etc.
No, it appears a sweet little English school girl just disappeared when she was 16! Not that she went to Syria to be a baby factory.
Sounds to me like you are Never Never Trump. At least many of the Never Trump people are basing their opposition to Trump on his liberal record. But regardless of the condition of the country after 3 years of HRC, you will still withhold your support for someone who will try to fix the mess that is coming?
Yesterday, people were putting up threads on Reddit with video from the Milwaukee riot (or resistance movement, if you prefer). The ones with black people yelling, "kill the white people", lasted until the mods found them and then they were immediately taken down. I'll bet if the situation had been reversed, they'd still be up there.
Trump is commissioning his own "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey". He's asked his supporters to go take it so he can show the media how biased they are.
This is a circus through and through. Manafort should be embarrassed for being associated with this campaign.
Per the USA Today...
With all that said, CNN has take a hard left in this election cycle. Clearly they've learned that no money is made in the middle. Roger Ailes lasting legacy was destroying the middle of the media.