So, what is Trump going to do about student loan debt and education as president? Is he going to make it so it can be written off in bankruptcy ... deductible from taxable income ... make it harder to get student loans ... make education cheaper so the middle-class can afford it without loans ... etc?
How will Trump make it easier for me to take my bad debt and get rid of it so I can start making billions like he did?
EI - I'm pretty sure the answer is "none of the above" - you know, Donny's all about "personalresponsibility" and "making it on your own, without help" -- just like he did.
Oh, wait - right - Donny's daddy paid his way through the finest schools and then gave him millions to get started in real estate.
An attorney who oversaw Donald Trump's income tax returns in the mid-1990s said the Republican presidential candidate had little interest in the tax code — contrasting with the billionaire's claim that he understood taxes "better than anyone" who had run for the White House.
"As far as I know, and that only goes through late '96, he didn't understand the code," said Jack Mitnick, a former tax adviser for Trump, in an interview with NBC's TODAY. "Nor would he have had the time and the patience to learn the provisions. That's a lifetime of experience."
But ... but ... but ... Donald, you said you are an expert on the tax code and you are the only person who can fix it. You wouldn't be lying to us, would you?
Oh yeah, babs, as if anyone thought Trump was sitting around in his bathrobe with his calculator out doing his taxes. It doesn't matter if Trump himself is doing his taxes or his accountants. The point is businesses take advantage of the tax code because it is total bureaucratic junk and needs a major overhaul. You think Hillary Clinton realizes that? Me thinks not.
pretty sure hillary has an accountant file taxes too. seems she knows just as much as trump.
if you really believe trump is trying to fix the tax loopholes he takes advantage of, can you point to anything he's ever done to support that? has he been lobbying to raise taxes on the rich like warren buffet? or did this all start with his run for president?
For the last 30 years, Democrats have wanted to raise the top rates by 3%; Republicans have wanted to lower the top rates 3% when the real problem is the whole 3,000 pages of the tax code is garbage and needs to be reformed. You should be able to file your taxes on a postcard. Republicans have traditionally recognized the problem. Have they been able to do anything about it? Generally no, outside of isolated bipartisan efforts like Simpson-Bowles that failed because they lacked political leadership (cough, cough, Obama). I really have no idea if Trump can bring it home, but at least he recognizes the problem. Hillary, no.
Well, to quote The Atlantic magazine, which today - for only the third time in its history - endorsed a presidential candidate (Clinton) because Trump is "a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar" .
There is nothing whatsoever in his background to suggest that even if The Donald "recognizes the problem" he has any real desire, much less the ability, to do anything about it. His mouth just spouts out whatever he thinks his core constituents want to hear without the slightest notion of what it will take to get such reform legislation through the Congress (and all the special interests). He'll lose interest after a week if it doesn't get accomplished by then.
Obama is not a legislature won and done. He didn't get a vote. Simpson bowles and the other tax/budget plans at the time were all shot down because boehner couldn't keep the tea partiers in line in the house and McConnel in the Senate wanted to see the country fail because he somehow thought he would be able to blame Obama and his party would benefit.
If your belief that Republicans are trying to simplify the tax code and Democrats are trying to complicate it is true, then your Republicans are pretty big failures aren't they? I mean horribly so. Like, they are so horribly had at their jobs that they really should be trying to find a different occupation. That's kind of like your belief that Republicans are the party of small government, which is ridiculous.
babs, the Atlantic endorsement was disappointing. I subscribe to the Atlantic and consider it one of the very few sources of good, unbiased research and reporting. Why did the Atlantic choose to endorse Clinton? I think a large percentage of Americans, particularly in the media, are afraid of change. The majority of these people I believe subscribe to a form of bourgeois liberalism. Basically as long as you can watch your 401k tick higher, bombs are dropped silently thousands of miles away, and we can mouth platitudes about equity and inclusion without, god forbid, living next door to someone who looks different from you or has different beliefs (cough, cough, Westchester), then things are great! Keep the status quo. Not at all saying Donald Trump has the answers. In many ways he may exacerbate the problems, but at least he's not intentionally ignoring the problems (or someone who was directly involved with creating them). I'll be honest - I'm apprehensive of a Trump presidency, but I know exactly what I will get from a Clinton presidency, and I don't want it.
wadw: "I'm apprehensive of a Trump presidency, but I know exactly what I will get from a Clinton presidency, and I don't want it."
Point taken -- but, you also know exactly what you'll get from a Trump presidency and, if you're thinking clearly, you know it will be an unmitigated disaster and extremely harmful to the country .... which is precisely the conclusion reached by The Atlantic.
Hilary clearly has weaknesses, but those weakness are not likely to put the survival of the Republic at risk. Change can be good, but when the risk / return ratio inherent in the Trump candidacy is beyond all reasonable bounds then one must embrace a more "conservative" approach, if only for self preservation.
In the end, I think a substantial majority of voting citizens will reach that same conclusion and repudiate Trump and his wacky campaign.
the atlantic explained why they made their decision. only the third time in history they've endorsed a presidential candidate right, going back to abe lincoln?
babs, you are basically saying you support the status quo. Words like "survival of the Republic" are totally overstated propaganda. "Self preservation" - another way of saying you support the status quo. Vote your conscience, but not simply out of fear of change. That's the argument that you've set up. Say, "I fucking love Hillary Clinton," but don't vote for her because you "don't want Trump's hand on the nuclear codes. " You're a sucker if that's how you vote.
i guess the way i see it is Clinton is status quo - expect minor changes, but basically more of the same. I'm not sure she's ever really been "good" at any of her previous jobs, but I expect that she will be surrounded by generally competent people, and will probably have a major scandal of some sort.
Trump - wildcard. I'm not worried at all about the taxes thing, to say that structuring a business to avoid them is immoral doesn't make sense to me. I would prefer that he not foment racial divisions, not sure how to justify some of the crazy things he's said. Basically you have to assume that he doesn't really believe what he says and that he really isn't crazy or crazy like a fox.
The main thing that I like about trump is that he's not beholden to anyone. Clinton couldn't be more a part of the democratic/wall street establishment.
I don't like pence at all, too close to social conservatives. I don't know a lot about tim kaine, but i think i like him more than clinton. Trump and clinton are both pushing 70, so vp picks should be more important than they seem to be.
I personally plan on voting for Johnson. Since I live in michigan, I'm not hopeful that it will matter much
The Atlantic: "Only when a candidate is so obviously dangerous, or so obviously unqualified for the job, does The Atlantic decide to weigh in."
won -- I don't want Trump's hand on the nuclear codes or anywhere near domestic or international policy -- if that makes me a "sucker" then so be it.
I am prepared to vote against a reckless, unhinged mind even if I'm not all that fond of the alternative. If you don't recognize the reckless, unhinged characteristics in the candidate you support, then the whole question of who's the real sucker is up for grabs.
The "status quo" is infinitely better than the instability and divisiveness Trump is likely to instigate.
Earlier we had an interesting discussion about the "morality" aspects of Trump putting various of his businesses into bankruptcy. Today, there's a very interesting and informative article that details Trump's self-dealing prior to putting Trump Casino & Hotel Resorts into bankruptcy - this article was published on MSNBC (a Wall Street news channel, and therefore, by definition, not part of the "liberal media")
An excerpt: "The company itself was a dumpster fire, losing money every year Trump served as chair. But he managed to personally pocket $44 million in salary and bonuses. Even more egregiously, he offloaded personal debts onto the corporate balance sheet and had the public company purchase services ranging from bottled water to plane flights from Trump's privately held enterprises."
"Trump was, in essence, paying himself a high salary for the trouble of running a company whose main purpose was to take enormous bad debts off Trump's personal balance sheet and shift them over to the company [which he eventually pushed into bankruptcy]."
Trump: “This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago,” Trump said in a statement. “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close. I apologize if anybody was offended.”
I've read this statement online several times now and can't stop wondering "How is it possible he thinks that makes this situation better?" So ... it's Bill's fault, is it?
Trump is such a lame, pathetic excuse of a human being.
also ties him to bill clinton. so a vote for hillary, kind of a vote for bill. a vote for trump, kind of a vote for bill. either way, we know who'll they'll turn to for advice. don't you wish we could at least have the option of a bush legacy?
chelsea clinton 2020! if she doesn't pick elizabeth warren for her vp though, i'm voting republican.
Lol. As if anyone is shocked that trump is cruder in private than public. Sorry women, but this is pretty much the norm of how (most) men talk when your not around. Not me, but like. 90% from my observations.... I also believe him about Bill saying worse...Not defending him or his behavior at all...but can we please refrain from the fake shock...Its Don Juan trump for gods sake....not Ghandi saying that blacks are inferior or something...
Also, while we all partake in kardashian/brangelina gossip and identity politics ww3 has probably begun in Syria...bees are going extinct...and neither trump or Hillary will do anything to stop it....true story. #webefucked
It's funny as hell watching pathetic conservative trolls (see ^ above) all over the internet spluttering and deflecting about how this isn't relevant and how Bill was much worse and how Hillary murders people she doesn't like and how this election is really about much bigger issues - issues that really matter.
I don't support either of these scum bags...you have polite fascist vs rude fascist imo. Yeah one is more experienced at being a fascist...the other is a lousy RE developer....who has publicly said things not so far from this....whats the news here? Trump is even ruder in private than on stage? What a fucking surprise. Does that really take a big leap of logic to assume? I would be shocked if he was on a bus discussing quantum mechanics, constitutional law, or even governmental policies...but screwing women? That really surprises you?
I've heard skinny jean hipster liberal dudes...the ones that women refer to as "so sweet"...say shit worse than this as soon as the coast is clear...and then instantly transform back into a male version of Rachel Maddow the moment a women enters the room. Don't kill the messenger...just speaking truth...you'd be surprised how crude the average male mind is...This shit does not shock me a bit...especially from a trump/male that obviously craves power...
It's funny as hell watching pathetic dems supporting a neo-fascist war monger because the oligarchy at hand gave them no other option... and then pretending that we really live in a democracy...lol...cute
jla-x: Well, technically we're a republic, not a democracy. If you're interested in the distinction you can look it up on wikipedia.
Still, we have the candidates we have after many millions of votes were cast in a long primary process. In the end the voters will elect either a Republican or a Democrat as President.
If you are unable to make a distinction between which of those two candidates is "worse" for the country and which candidate is "better" for the country then you simply aren't paying attention or you're allowing ideology to overwhelm the practical realities of this election.
One of the candidates will be an utter disaster - the other is unlikely to do anything rash or stupid and generally will perpetuate the status quo, at least until the next election when we'll have another shot at this.
This is the choice we have - it may not be a pleasant choice, but we have to decide. Let's try not to screw it up any worse than it already is.
Obviously trump is worse...but just maybe a trump presidency will be so bad it will wake this country up. Hillary will undoubtedly maintain the status quo...which I think is completely unsustainable. I can't vote for either.
I must be a backwards fuck, but even when I spend a lot of time around other men, we're talking shit about the Cowboys, or chatting about Luke Cage. We're not running down women. In fact of you're spending that much time around men, and don't have interactions with women, you're probably a fucking serial killer, or 15 year old kid.
I spend very little time hanging out with other guys voluntarily...As a youth yes, but in my older age I generally despise hanging out with more than 2 people at a time...I hate bro chats...sports...small talk...etc...I've observed this behavior though many times over in casual social settings, parties, work, media, etc...
"To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level."
jla-x, I'll state it again, you encounter some curious shit. I hang out with guys, in my BJJ class, when the 6 or so women don't make it to class, and we're still talking shit about the Cowboys and Luke Cage.
Now, I'm no prince, I've looked at my share of porn, but one can't extrapolate looking at porn, with physical assault.
I've been around some dumb people I guess lol....I'm Also probably exaggerating a bit..Just making a point that this new tape shouldn't be of any surprise coming from trump. He is obviously not president material. It's a fucking joke that we are even wasting time entertaining the idea that this shit bag could possibly be the commander of the USA. Scary really that he's come this far... I can't stand Hillary for her boringness, yet she's probably the most qualified person to maintain the status quo....Here's an architectural example...Its like Richard bat shit Balkans vs Gensler...Incompetence vs boringness....
it's upsetting that jla commonly experiences this kind of "banter" among his peer group. just for perspective, here is a link showing how other conservatives have reacted:
Calling Trump a sick piece of shit would be an insult to cholera-laden effluent. It isn't shocking that he said any of this, but it continues to shock me that large numbers of apparently well-educated people support this guy. If the men in your social circle routinely talk about women the way Trump does, your social circle sucks and you need to find a better one.
While you all and the biased media are gleefully dithering over Trump's comments from 10 years ago, wikileaks puts out actually relevant information about Hillary's Wall Street speeches and reveals her two-faced economic policy, but I know you don't care.
Not exactly. Hillary is much more polished and intelligent. Doesn't mean she isn't corrupt and misguided in her overall political philosophies. I'm also 100% sure the destabilization of the Middle East will go down in history as the biggest foreign policy disaster of all time. Obama exacerbated bushes failed military adventures...and I'm certain both of these clowns will make do the same. Clinton may actually be worse in that respect. We are now getting into a really dangerous proxy war with Russia. It's a situation that could literally become apocalyptic in a very short time. Imo, yes both will be disastrous. Hillary imo will be more dangerous because She will be a better sheep herder...trump because he's more unpredictable and erratic.
Crude sexual predator, running for President - forgiven by the religious right.
Crude sexual predator, not running for President - not forgiven by the religious right, but still dragged into any discussion about his wife, who has never been remotely tied to any sexual scandal.
I beginning to think that, just possibly, the religious right has WAY more interest in politics than it does religion.
Come on folks, either it's forgivable or it's not -- you can't have it both ways.
Thump the Trump
either way, don't be a debt-slave...
So, what is Trump going to do about student loan debt and education as president? Is he going to make it so it can be written off in bankruptcy ... deductible from taxable income ... make it harder to get student loans ... make education cheaper so the middle-class can afford it without loans ... etc?
How will Trump make it easier for me to take my bad debt and get rid of it so I can start making billions like he did?
EI - I'm pretty sure the answer is "none of the above" - you know, Donny's all about "personal responsibility" and "making it on your own, without help" -- just like he did.
Oh, wait - right - Donny's daddy paid his way through the finest schools and then gave him millions to get started in real estate.
http://www.studentloanborrowerassistance.org/bankruptcy/
An attorney who oversaw Donald Trump's income tax returns in the mid-1990s said the Republican presidential candidate had little interest in the tax code — contrasting with the billionaire's claim that he understood taxes "better than anyone" who had run for the White House.
"As far as I know, and that only goes through late '96, he didn't understand the code," said Jack Mitnick, a former tax adviser for Trump, in an interview with NBC's TODAY. "Nor would he have had the time and the patience to learn the provisions. That's a lifetime of experience."
But ... but ... but ... Donald, you said you are an expert on the tax code and you are the only person who can fix it. You wouldn't be lying to us, would you?
Oh yeah, babs, as if anyone thought Trump was sitting around in his bathrobe with his calculator out doing his taxes. It doesn't matter if Trump himself is doing his taxes or his accountants. The point is businesses take advantage of the tax code because it is total bureaucratic junk and needs a major overhaul. You think Hillary Clinton realizes that? Me thinks not.
pretty sure hillary has an accountant file taxes too. seems she knows just as much as trump.
if you really believe trump is trying to fix the tax loopholes he takes advantage of, can you point to anything he's ever done to support that? has he been lobbying to raise taxes on the rich like warren buffet? or did this all start with his run for president?
For the last 30 years, Democrats have wanted to raise the top rates by 3%; Republicans have wanted to lower the top rates 3% when the real problem is the whole 3,000 pages of the tax code is garbage and needs to be reformed. You should be able to file your taxes on a postcard. Republicans have traditionally recognized the problem. Have they been able to do anything about it? Generally no, outside of isolated bipartisan efforts like Simpson-Bowles that failed because they lacked political leadership (cough, cough, Obama). I really have no idea if Trump can bring it home, but at least he recognizes the problem. Hillary, no.
Well, to quote The Atlantic magazine, which today - for only the third time in its history - endorsed a presidential candidate (Clinton) because Trump is "a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar" .
There is nothing whatsoever in his background to suggest that even if The Donald "recognizes the problem" he has any real desire, much less the ability, to do anything about it. His mouth just spouts out whatever he thinks his core constituents want to hear without the slightest notion of what it will take to get such reform legislation through the Congress (and all the special interests). He'll lose interest after a week if it doesn't get accomplished by then.
Obama is not a legislature won and done. He didn't get a vote. Simpson bowles and the other tax/budget plans at the time were all shot down because boehner couldn't keep the tea partiers in line in the house and McConnel in the Senate wanted to see the country fail because he somehow thought he would be able to blame Obama and his party would benefit.
If your belief that Republicans are trying to simplify the tax code and Democrats are trying to complicate it is true, then your Republicans are pretty big failures aren't they? I mean horribly so. Like, they are so horribly had at their jobs that they really should be trying to find a different occupation. That's kind of like your belief that Republicans are the party of small government, which is ridiculous.
babs, the Atlantic endorsement was disappointing. I subscribe to the Atlantic and consider it one of the very few sources of good, unbiased research and reporting. Why did the Atlantic choose to endorse Clinton? I think a large percentage of Americans, particularly in the media, are afraid of change. The majority of these people I believe subscribe to a form of bourgeois liberalism. Basically as long as you can watch your 401k tick higher, bombs are dropped silently thousands of miles away, and we can mouth platitudes about equity and inclusion without, god forbid, living next door to someone who looks different from you or has different beliefs (cough, cough, Westchester), then things are great! Keep the status quo. Not at all saying Donald Trump has the answers. In many ways he may exacerbate the problems, but at least he's not intentionally ignoring the problems (or someone who was directly involved with creating them). I'll be honest - I'm apprehensive of a Trump presidency, but I know exactly what I will get from a Clinton presidency, and I don't want it.
wadw: "I'm apprehensive of a Trump presidency, but I know exactly what I will get from a Clinton presidency, and I don't want it."
Point taken -- but, you also know exactly what you'll get from a Trump presidency and, if you're thinking clearly, you know it will be an unmitigated disaster and extremely harmful to the country .... which is precisely the conclusion reached by The Atlantic.
Hilary clearly has weaknesses, but those weakness are not likely to put the survival of the Republic at risk. Change can be good, but when the risk / return ratio inherent in the Trump candidacy is beyond all reasonable bounds then one must embrace a more "conservative" approach, if only for self preservation.
In the end, I think a substantial majority of voting citizens will reach that same conclusion and repudiate Trump and his wacky campaign.
the atlantic explained why they made their decision. only the third time in history they've endorsed a presidential candidate right, going back to abe lincoln?
babs, you are basically saying you support the status quo. Words like "survival of the Republic" are totally overstated propaganda. "Self preservation" - another way of saying you support the status quo. Vote your conscience, but not simply out of fear of change. That's the argument that you've set up. Say, "I fucking love Hillary Clinton," but don't vote for her because you "don't want Trump's hand on the nuclear codes. " You're a sucker if that's how you vote.
i guess the way i see it is Clinton is status quo - expect minor changes, but basically more of the same. I'm not sure she's ever really been "good" at any of her previous jobs, but I expect that she will be surrounded by generally competent people, and will probably have a major scandal of some sort.
Trump - wildcard. I'm not worried at all about the taxes thing, to say that structuring a business to avoid them is immoral doesn't make sense to me. I would prefer that he not foment racial divisions, not sure how to justify some of the crazy things he's said. Basically you have to assume that he doesn't really believe what he says and that he really isn't crazy or crazy like a fox.
The main thing that I like about trump is that he's not beholden to anyone. Clinton couldn't be more a part of the democratic/wall street establishment.
I don't like pence at all, too close to social conservatives. I don't know a lot about tim kaine, but i think i like him more than clinton. Trump and clinton are both pushing 70, so vp picks should be more important than they seem to be.
I personally plan on voting for Johnson. Since I live in michigan, I'm not hopeful that it will matter much
The Atlantic: "Only when a candidate is so obviously dangerous, or so obviously unqualified for the job, does The Atlantic decide to weigh in."
won -- I don't want Trump's hand on the nuclear codes or anywhere near domestic or international policy -- if that makes me a "sucker" then so be it.
I am prepared to vote against a reckless, unhinged mind even if I'm not all that fond of the alternative. If you don't recognize the reckless, unhinged characteristics in the candidate you support, then the whole question of who's the real sucker is up for grabs.
The "status quo" is infinitely better than the instability and divisiveness Trump is likely to instigate.
Earlier we had an interesting discussion about the "morality" aspects of Trump putting various of his businesses into bankruptcy. Today, there's a very interesting and informative article that details Trump's self-dealing prior to putting Trump Casino & Hotel Resorts into bankruptcy - this article was published on MSNBC (a Wall Street news channel, and therefore, by definition, not part of the "liberal media")
An excerpt: "The company itself was a dumpster fire, losing money every year Trump served as chair. But he managed to personally pocket $44 million in salary and bonuses. Even more egregiously, he offloaded personal debts onto the corporate balance sheet and had the public company purchase services ranging from bottled water to plane flights from Trump's privately held enterprises."
"Trump was, in essence, paying himself a high salary for the trouble of running a company whose main purpose was to take enormous bad debts off Trump's personal balance sheet and shift them over to the company [which he eventually pushed into bankruptcy]."
You can read the entire article here: The story of Donald Trump's Atlantic City comeback is even worse than his collapse http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/06/the-story-of-donald-trumps-atlantic-city-comeback-is-even-worse-than-his-collapse-commentary.html
The "Art of the Deal" indeed !!!!!
there isn't a 'moral' aspect if you make money at it.... then it's 'economic.'
Donald Trump said he will not bring up Bill Clinton's infidelity during their second showdown on Sunday.
"I want to win this election on my policies for the future." he said.
"And when you’re a star they let you do it,” he says. “You can do anything. Grab them by the p****,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
Do you suppose this is what he means by "my policies for the future" ?
Trump: “This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago,” Trump said in a statement. “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close. I apologize if anybody was offended.”
I've read this statement online several times now and can't stop wondering "How is it possible he thinks that makes this situation better?" So ... it's Bill's fault, is it?
Trump is such a lame, pathetic excuse of a human being.
also ties him to bill clinton. so a vote for hillary, kind of a vote for bill. a vote for trump, kind of a vote for bill. either way, we know who'll they'll turn to for advice. don't you wish we could at least have the option of a bush legacy?
chelsea clinton 2020! if she doesn't pick elizabeth warren for her vp though, i'm voting republican.
Lol. As if anyone is shocked that trump is cruder in private than public. Sorry women, but this is pretty much the norm of how (most) men talk when your not around. Not me, but like. 90% from my observations.... I also believe him about Bill saying worse...Not defending him or his behavior at all...but can we please refrain from the fake shock...Its Don Juan trump for gods sake....not Ghandi saying that blacks are inferior or something...
Also, while we all partake in kardashian/brangelina gossip and identity politics ww3 has probably begun in Syria...bees are going extinct...and neither trump or Hillary will do anything to stop it....true story. #webefucked
It's funny as hell watching pathetic conservative trolls (see ^ above) all over the internet spluttering and deflecting about how this isn't relevant and how Bill was much worse and how Hillary murders people she doesn't like and how this election is really about much bigger issues - issues that really matter.
Damn this is entertaining!
I don't support either of these scum bags...you have polite fascist vs rude fascist imo. Yeah one is more experienced at being a fascist...the other is a lousy RE developer....who has publicly said things not so far from this....whats the news here? Trump is even ruder in private than on stage? What a fucking surprise. Does that really take a big leap of logic to assume? I would be shocked if he was on a bus discussing quantum mechanics, constitutional law, or even governmental policies...but screwing women? That really surprises you?
I've heard skinny jean hipster liberal dudes...the ones that women refer to as "so sweet"...say shit worse than this as soon as the coast is clear...and then instantly transform back into a male version of Rachel Maddow the moment a women enters the room. Don't kill the messenger...just speaking truth...you'd be surprised how crude the average male mind is...This shit does not shock me a bit...especially from a trump/male that obviously craves power...
It's funny as hell watching pathetic dems supporting a neo-fascist war monger because the oligarchy at hand gave them no other option... and then pretending that we really live in a democracy...lol...cute
Again, I'm not condoning this behavior, I'm just not one bit surprised, especially from him.
jla-x: Well, technically we're a republic, not a democracy. If you're interested in the distinction you can look it up on wikipedia.
Still, we have the candidates we have after many millions of votes were cast in a long primary process. In the end the voters will elect either a Republican or a Democrat as President.
If you are unable to make a distinction between which of those two candidates is "worse" for the country and which candidate is "better" for the country then you simply aren't paying attention or you're allowing ideology to overwhelm the practical realities of this election.
One of the candidates will be an utter disaster - the other is unlikely to do anything rash or stupid and generally will perpetuate the status quo, at least until the next election when we'll have another shot at this.
This is the choice we have - it may not be a pleasant choice, but we have to decide. Let's try not to screw it up any worse than it already is.
Obviously trump is worse...but just maybe a trump presidency will be so bad it will wake this country up. Hillary will undoubtedly maintain the status quo...which I think is completely unsustainable. I can't vote for either.
I spend very little time hanging out with other guys voluntarily...As a youth yes, but in my older age I generally despise hanging out with more than 2 people at a time...I hate bro chats...sports...small talk...etc...I've observed this behavior though many times over in casual social settings, parties, work, media, etc...
Maybe my claim is a little exaggerated but pigs like that are a fairly common breed
Hold on there spanky:
Representative Democracy
"To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level."
jla-x, I'll state it again, you encounter some curious shit. I hang out with guys, in my BJJ class, when the 6 or so women don't make it to class, and we're still talking shit about the Cowboys and Luke Cage.
Now, I'm no prince, I've looked at my share of porn, but one can't extrapolate looking at porn, with physical assault.
I've been around some dumb people I guess lol....I'm Also probably exaggerating a bit..Just making a point that this new tape shouldn't be of any surprise coming from trump. He is obviously not president material. It's a fucking joke that we are even wasting time entertaining the idea that this shit bag could possibly be the commander of the USA. Scary really that he's come this far... I can't stand Hillary for her boringness, yet she's probably the most qualified person to maintain the status quo....Here's an architectural example...Its like Richard bat shit Balkans vs Gensler...Incompetence vs boringness....
babs thank you for the good work you're doing on this thread. I can't bear to read much of it, but you're making great sense.
#pussygrabsback
it's upsetting that jla commonly experiences this kind of "banter" among his peer group. just for perspective, here is a link showing how other conservatives have reacted:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/republicans-list-trump-disavowal-groping-tape
it's not normal to support this kind of behavior, or to view it as acceptable.
Calling Trump a sick piece of shit would be an insult to cholera-laden effluent. It isn't shocking that he said any of this, but it continues to shock me that large numbers of apparently well-educated people support this guy. If the men in your social circle routinely talk about women the way Trump does, your social circle sucks and you need to find a better one.
While you all and the biased media are gleefully dithering over Trump's comments from 10 years ago, wikileaks puts out actually relevant information about Hillary's Wall Street speeches and reveals her two-faced economic policy, but I know you don't care.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/john-podesta-emails-hacked/index.html
And I'm sure there is more to come.
Yes, both candidates are exactly comparable. Bless your little hearts.
Not exactly. Hillary is much more polished and intelligent. Doesn't mean she isn't corrupt and misguided in her overall political philosophies. I'm also 100% sure the destabilization of the Middle East will go down in history as the biggest foreign policy disaster of all time. Obama exacerbated bushes failed military adventures...and I'm certain both of these clowns will make do the same. Clinton may actually be worse in that respect. We are now getting into a really dangerous proxy war with Russia. It's a situation that could literally become apocalyptic in a very short time. Imo, yes both will be disastrous. Hillary imo will be more dangerous because She will be a better sheep herder...trump because he's more unpredictable and erratic.
won and done, i'm sorry, what did you write, i was too busy crying with laughter, and i'm still blinded by the stupid.
I beginning to think that, just possibly, the religious right has WAY more interest in politics than it does religion.
Come on folks, either it's forgivable or it's not -- you can't have it both ways.
You can laugh for the next four years as Hillary Clinton ships American jobs overseas.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.