Vote for President

[ProfMD]

I think this whole Trump 2nd Ammendment thing is being blown out of proportion. Doesn't change the fact that to me he would make not only the worst, but the most dangerous President in history. His refusal to listen to others, rely on facts, or even separate reality from his own fiction is a serious problem. Clinton would likely be the worst President in history also, but I greater confidence in her ability to avoid WW3.

Clinton is such a terrible candidate that this was really the Republican party's election until they nominated a complete doofus. In the immortal words of The Donald: "Sad."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I think this whole Trump 2nd Ammendment thing is being blown out of proportion. Doesn't change the fact that to me he would make not only the worst, but the most dangerous President in history. His refusal to listen to others, rely on facts, or even separate reality from his own fiction is a serious problem. Clinton would likely be the worst President in history also, but I greater confidence in her ability to avoid WW3.

Clinton is such a terrible candidate that this was really the Republican party's election until they nominated a complete doofus. In the immortal words of The Donald: "Sad."

It truly boggles my mind how these are the two final candidates in the election.

 

[scudrunner]

 

[pgg]

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party really do want to incrementally regulate privately owned firearms out of existence in this country. They own California and they've been doing it there for the last 30 years. It's disingenuous to pretend they don't want the rest of the nation to follow the California model on a federal level. They play dumb about the final goal, and try to paint opponents as just crazy delusional nuts. They are smart, and they are masters of rhetoric. They are the anti-Trump in the sense that every word is carefully chosen.

They know how to boil a frog, and a Clinton win will turn the heat from simmer to medium.

That said, Donald Trump is not someone I want advocating for our rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. He's the "you're not helping" meme in the flesh. He's the kind of gun owner you see unpacking his stuff at a public range and you decide it's time to leave before he sends a negligent discharge in your direction. The judges he'd appoint would be better than Clinton's, probably. But having him as president is too high a price to pay.

I feel sick thinking about how monumentally awful the result of this election is going to be, no matter who wins.

 

[Ignatius J]

My words (and wishes), I would truly encourage everyone to watch a Trump rally in it's entirety. Don't just read about the .01% of it vomited up on CNN's home screen. Watch it without any commentary or footnotes. Just watch and hear it out.

I know about his shortcomings. I know he is a narcissist. I know he lies. And when it comes down to it, he probably has some psychopathic traits. I've made my take on the Clintons clear as to why I look past that in my vote.

But watch a Trump rally and you will see a guy that is portrayed in such a skewed way. He has a ton of common sense talking points and he hits upon everything that needs to be hit upon. At the least, you can get an appreciation for his actual message and not what the MSM tries to bend it to.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8285/nine-minutes-cnn-cutting-guests-who-dare-critcize-chase-stephens

 

[leviathan]

He has a lot of vague talking points but he doesn't give any concrete examples of how he's going to achieve anything.

Since you're the only one defending Trump, I'd like to know what you think the worst-case scenario for what would happen to the US if Trump assumes power, versus the worst-case scenario for Clinton. You have lots of vague non-substantiated accusations against Clinton, but even if they're all true, how do you feel those create a threat to your national security, at least more of a threat than Trump? Or do you at least agree with us that Trump is a significantly greater danger and a threat to the US?

 

[doctalaughs]

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party really do want to incrementally regulate privately owned firearms out of existence in this country. They own California and they've been doing it there for the last 30 years. It's disingenuous to pretend they don't want the rest of the nation to follow the California model on a federal level. They play dumb about the final goal, and try to paint opponents as just crazy delusional nuts. They are smart, and they are masters of rhetoric. They are the anti-Trump in the sense that every word is carefully chosen.

They know how to boil a frog, and a Clinton win will turn the heat from simmer to medium.

That said, Donald Trump is not someone I want advocating for our rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. He's the "you're not helping" meme in the flesh. He's the kind of gun owner you see unpacking his stuff at a public range and you decide it's time to leave before he sends a negligent discharge in your direction. The judges he'd appoint would be better than Clinton's, probably. But having him as president is too high a price to pay.

I feel sick thinking about how monumentally awful the result of this election is going to be, no matter who wins.

We all vote on the issues we care about. I agree with you but I just don't care enough about 2nd amendment rights to sway my vote.

And I also agree the price is too high to pay for a Trump presidency. "Negligent discharge" is a good analogy I think if translated to a world stage.

I do care about taxes and that's the only thing that kills me about the democrats and Clinton in particular. Although reading more about her tax proposals I'm not sure it would really effect most doctors a lot:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes/index.html


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Pooh & Annie]

You could play this video in front of him and he would say "no, I NEVER said that."
Then, of course, he would attack the media for reporting it.

 

[deepstate2016]

My words (and wishes), I would truly encourage everyone to watch a Trump rally in it's entirety. Don't just read about the .01% of it vomited up on CNN's home screen. Watch it without any commentary or footnotes. Just watch and hear it out.

I know about his shortcomings. I know he is a narcissist. I know he lies. And when it comes down to it, he probably has some psychopathic traits. I've made my take on the Clintons clear as to why I look past that in my vote.

But watch a Trump rally and you will see a guy that is portrayed in such a skewed way. He has a ton of common sense talking points and he hits upon everything that needs to be hit upon. At the least, you can get an appreciation for his actual message and not what the MSM tries to bend




I have listened, read transcripts. He is long on rhetoric, short on facts. Dude he is a demagogue through and through. He says what you want to hear. He gives escort you answers. You have been horrible seduced. You are never going to hear any of us say how Mrs Clinton makes us FEEL. you will hear us say we recognize she is more qualified for the office.
How about you read the speech fact check it then come back and tell us how awesome he is.

 

[deepstate2016]

Another letter to the RNC saying "incompetent, divisive, reckless" yup he is a winner.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

My words (and wishes), I would truly encourage everyone to watch a Trump rally in it's entirety. Don't just read about the .01% of it vomited up on CNN's home screen. Watch it without any commentary or footnotes. Just watch and hear it out.

I know about his shortcomings. I know he is a narcissist. I know he lies. And when it comes down to it, he probably has some psychopathic traits. I've made my take on the Clintons clear as to why I look past that in my vote.

But watch a Trump rally and you will see a guy that is portrayed in such a skewed way. He has a ton of common sense talking points and he hits upon everything that needs to be hit upon. At the least, you can get an appreciation for his actual message and not what the MSM tries to bend it to.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8285/nine-minutes-cnn-cutting-guests-who-dare-critcize-chase-stephens

Yes, I watch a LOT of his speeches.

What are the plans he has for enacting his "common sense" principles? Do they involve "renegotiating" bad deals? Bringing labor back to the US? Maybe building and repairing a s$&tload of things while drastically cutting tax rates?

He is a man who truly believes he can get things done.

Of course, he also believes Obama's mother bore a son in Kenya with designs on faking American citizenship (under the name 'Barrack Hussein' which was an interesting move on her part), in order to infiltrate American government and undermine our security.

But nonetheless, common sense, yes.

 

[deleted162650]

I need a Meteor 2016 sticker to go with my Gridlock 2016 sticker.

Saw one last week that said:

They All Suck 2016

 

[Mr_Sheepington]

The only way I would vote for Hillary is if her opponent is Trump. Hoping Bernie Sanders can pull out a miracle

I know this is super old but why would you, as a physician, want a socialist? you do know that socialized medicine is going to be absolutely killer for ALL medicine related salaries, and overall just detrimental to the quality of healthcare.... even if it is "free" (with the uses of increased taxes making it basically not anyways).

 

[Ignatius J]

Yes, I watch a LOT of his speeches.

What are the plans he has for enacting his "common sense" principles? Do they involve "renegotiating" bad deals? Bringing labor back to the US? Maybe building and repairing a s$&tload of things while drastically cutting tax rates?

He is a man who truly believes he can get things done.

Of course, he also believes Obama's mother bore a son in Kenya with designs on faking American citizenship (under the name 'Barrack Hussein' which was an interesting move on her part), in order to infiltrate American government and undermine our security.

But nonetheless, common sense, yes.

I don't believe you do. I think he generally addresses and acknowledges concerns of ordinary Americans. His plans make about as much sense as Hillary's. Spoiler alert: there won't be a carbon tax she claims.

 

[deepstate2016]

I don't believe you do. I think he generally addresses and acknowledges concerns of ordinary Americans. His plans make about as much sense as Hillary's. Spoiler alert: there won't be a carbon tax she claims.

Are you serious? His plans make sense?!! A wall a physical wall across the border between the United States and mexico, deporting 11 MILLION people. This makes sense? You are cracked! ROFL

 

[gotname]

I don't believe you do. I think he generally addresses and acknowledges concerns of ordinary Americans. H

He says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. He is not alone. Most, if not all politicians do that.

However, he is not competent as far as being able to address our (the US as President) concerns because
1. Facts elude him
2. He can't seem to decide what he actually thinks
3. He magnifies concerns further by implying what is "actually happening" (see #1) and what he possibly thinks (see #2) therefore creating even more concern
and ultimately, he only offers vague solutions which may fall under #1 and/or #2.

Hillary is not an appealing option at all but Trump is just not an option.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...p-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

 

[chessknt]

I still stand by my dementia theory--it explains everything he does. If you don't buy that then he had a frontal lobe stroke. This is exactly what it would look like if I gave a narcissistic Alzheimer patient with a MOCA of 23 unlimited money and a microphone. I demand a MOCA score obtained on television otherwise he should be terrified of the 25th amendment.

The funny thing is if he acted like this as your parent you would be concerned, but for some reason because he won the primary election it is just assumed that his mental health is intact when it clearly isnt.

 

[Ignatius J]

He says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. He is not alone. Most, if not all politicians do that.

However, he is not competent as far as being able to address our (the US as President) concerns because
1. Facts elude him
2. He can't seem to decide what he actually thinks
3. He magnifies concerns further by implying what is "actually happening" (see #1) and what he possibly thinks (see #2) therefore creating even more concern
and ultimately, he only offers vague solutions which may fall under #1 and/or #2.

Hillary is not an appealing option at all but Trump is just not an option.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...p-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

This is false in my opinion. Trump has shown that he understands the problems facing this country. Hillary has not. Pandering to movements that want slave reparations and talking about giving out free college education shows a blatant misunderstanding of our nation's true problems. Let's face it- Hillary rolled out of bed one morning and decided the industrial Midwest was gutted and NAFTA and TPP were not ideal (her freaking husband passed NAFTA).

She doesn't have a clue. Not about fixing problems. But just addressing them.

Did I mention that she is morally bankrupt?

 

[Mr_Sheepington]

Are you serious? His plans make sense?!! A wall a physical wall across the border between the United States and mexico, deporting 11 MILLION people. This makes sense? You are cracked! ROFL

what you just said really makes a lot of sense. Yes, deport the illegals. What else are we to do with them? They didn't respect the first law of the country, so they get to go back and try again. And all these people are not just Mexicans. While the wall might not be an end all be all solution, its a step in the right direction. And since we are spending 2 billion more on border security per year than the 10 billion it would cost (if we even pay for it), its really a pretty sensible and more tangible solution rather than just upping the amount of patrols, especially if its a deep and high wall.

 

[Ignatius J]

Be careful, guys! Trump may start a trade war by imposing those nasty tariffs. Meanwhile, from Clinton:

"When countries break the rules, we won't hesitate to impose targeted tariffs," she told the crowd at a manufacturing plant in Warren, Michigan. She said China and other countries have "gamed the system for too long."

In addition to tariffs, she promised to ramp up the U.S. team that monitors trade.

"I'm going to ramp up enforcement by appointing a new chief trade prosecutor, tripling the number of enforcement officers," she said.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/index.html

 

[Machinery]

I still stand by my dementia theory--it explains everything he does. If you don't buy that then he had a frontal lobe stroke. This is exactly what it would look like if I gave a narcissistic Alzheimer patient with a MOCA of 23 unlimited money and a microphone. I demand a MOCA score obtained on television otherwise he should be terrified of the 25th amendment.

The funny thing is if he acted like this as your parent you would be concerned, but for some reason because he won the primary election it is just assumed that his mental health is intact when it clearly isnt.

Interesting

 

[Pooh & Annie]

what you just said really makes a lot of sense. Yes, deport the illegals. What else are we to do with them? They didn't respect the first law of the country, so they get to go back and try again. And all these people are not just Mexicans. While the wall might not be an end all be all solution, its a step in the right direction. And since we are spending 2 billion more on border security per year than the 10 billion it would cost (if we even pay for it), its really a pretty sensible and more tangible solution rather than just upping the amount of patrols, especially if its a deep and high wall.

11 million people. With the efficiency of a government agency. Maybe that'll run, what, 100-150 billion conservatively? Because, undocumented migrant workers, day laborers, and maids are the big problem we need to face as a great nation? Because our produce is too cheap and we'd like it to be more expensive? Why exactly do we want to bust the budget to end something that we benefit from? While appearing like a police state focused against poor brown people to the rest of the world?

I think if we're going to throw around hundreds of billions, let's use it on something helpful. Maybe even the roads, bridges and airports that both candidates say they favor.

If you think undocumented people are a big problem than we should get them documents and figure out a smart way to benefit from their labor in a mutual exchange. All this stuff about "great deals" and we can't figure out how to exchange some cheap foreign labor for beneficial trade/tariff agreements?

 

[deepstate2016]

what you just said really makes a lot of sense. Yes, deport the illegals. What else are we to do with them? They didn't respect the first law of the country, so they get to go back and try again. And all these people are not just Mexicans. While the wall might not be an end all be all solution, its a step in the right direction. And since we are spending 2 billion more on border security per year than the 10 billion it would cost (if we even pay for it), its really a pretty sensible and more tangible solution rather than just upping the amount of patrols, especially if its a deep and high wall.

Oookaaaayyyyyy, I see the spin offs from this elude you so let's try them out shall we?
1. Deporting 11 million people end masse will cost a fortune
2. The cost to our civil liberties would be huge, sorry yuge, how do you find them? You stop everyone and ask for papers. You raid homes at night. You just get the American people used to groups of people being rounded up and taken away. Sound familiar?
3. The wall is an engineering impossibility, so no it would be wayyyyyyy more then 10 billion dollars.
4. The geo political ramifications are again yuge. It has been us policy since the first days of the republic to maintain our dominance over north America. We can do it nice or hard. Guess which one costs more and is less certain? Guess which one building a wall falls into?

The fact that these basic points need to be spelled out to you demonstrates that your intellectual depth on this issues is ohhhhhh, I don't know , a mm.

 

[Ignatius J]

11 million people. With the efficiency of a government agency. Maybe that'll run, what, 100-150 billion conservatively? Because, undocumented migrant workers, day laborers, and maids are the big problem we need to face as a great nation? Because our produce is too cheap and we'd like it to be more expensive? Why exactly do we want to bust the budget to end something that we benefit from? While appearing like a police state focused against poor brown people to the rest of the world?

I think if we're going to throw around hundreds of billions, let's use it on something helpful. Maybe even the roads, bridges and airports that both candidates say they favor.

If you think undocumented people are a big problem than we should get them documents and figure out a smart way to benefit from their labor in a mutual exchange. All this stuff about "great deals" and we can't figure out how to exchange some cheap foreign labor for beneficial trade/tariff agreements?

Just curiously, what state do you live in? I always find it humorous when a person up in New England or somewhere lectures about border security when they don't live in a state that feels and sees the effects. If you live in a border state, I apologize, but seriously, if you don't you probably don't know a porous border from the hole in your ass.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

My words (and wishes), I would truly encourage everyone to watch a Trump rally in it's entirety. Don't just read about the .01% of it vomited up on CNN's home screen. Watch it without any commentary or footnotes. Just watch and hear it out.

I know about his shortcomings. I know he is a narcissist. I know he lies. And when it comes down to it, he probably has some psychopathic traits. I've made my take on the Clintons clear as to why I look past that in my vote.

But watch a Trump rally and you will see a guy that is portrayed in such a skewed way. He has a ton of common sense talking points and he hits upon everything that needs to be hit upon. At the least, you can get an appreciation for his actual message and not what the MSM tries to bend it to.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8285/nine-minutes-cnn-cutting-guests-who-dare-critcize-chase-stephens

Just curiously, what state do you live in? I always find it humorous when a person up in New England or somewhere lectures about border security when they don't live in a state that feels and sees the effects. If you live in a border state, I apologize, but seriously, if you don't you probably don't know a porous border from the hole in your ass.

I'd like to believe everyone (left and right) want a secure border and people follow the laws of the land. That being said, my objection to Trump's "build a wall" proposal or his plan to deport all illegals is that it's not feasible. It seem be common sense to some, but I think it is short sighted.

Never mind the economic implications that have been talked about, because those could probably easily be argued by both sides for their benefit, but let's be generous that Trump wins two terms. That's 2922 days (365 x 8 + 2 leap year days) to deport 11 million people (assuming we don't get any more). That's 3765 people a day, 7 days a week, for 8 years. Even if we had a giant master-roster of the name and location of every undocumented person, you'd need an incredible force to do that. But since we don't live in Minority Report land, might just have to increase taxes for the massive undertaking.

And let's be generous that Mexico pays 10 or 20 billion for the way. I'm not an engineer but I'm skeptical that amount of money will cover it. But we need an FDR New Deal type task force to build such a wall. Sounds like more infrastructure to me.

Again, I don't think the want for better border patrol/security and controlling the undocumented persons problem is illogical, but there is nothing about his stuff that is common sense or feasible.

Those are 2 of his most highlighted/media driven proposals, but I guarantee there are many other "common sense talking points" that aren't common sense. I'm skeptical he "hits upon everything that needs to be hit upon."

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Just curiously, what state do you live in? I always find it humorous when a person up in New England or somewhere lectures about border security when they don't live in a state that feels and sees the effects. If you live in a border state, I apologize, but seriously, if you don't you probably don't know a porous border from the hole in your ass.

Not New England, yes northern. Top 10 state for undocumented. (I worked with a lot of them before med school. Fishing industry). Big agriculture state which benefits from cheap labor. I lived in Tucson. Crossed the border (legally) several times.

I think we should crack down on people who hire illegals. Make it too costly a risk. Then the demand drops (although Mexican immigration is already falling. South American immigration was up but is now dropping too). Do NOT spend hundreds of billions finding, collecting, and deporting 11 million people. Absolute, 100% waste of BIG money.

Yes, secure the border. Border agents in general are pretty vocal about getting better and more technology like drones, not walls. Not to mention the litigation the country would go through seizing private land. But I'd absolutely be willing to spend more on what the border and customs people say they need.

But yes I think the silent eye winking between us and Mexico which keeps the borders porous is dangerous. I would like to see border control expanded.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Wow, this man has no understanding of the English language.

First he says Obama was the founder of ISIS and most chocked it up to typical Trump rhetoric and hyperbole.
Then he gets called on it in an interview: Hugh Hewitt tried to clarify if Trump meant "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace." But, he says "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS."
Then today in a tweet: "Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?"

I have no idea how to interpret any of words. Is he serious today? Will the same words be serious or joking tomorrow?

 

[Ignatius J]

Not New England, yes northern. Top 10 state for undocumented. (I worked with a lot of them before med school. Fishing industry). Big agriculture state which benefits from cheap labor. I lived in Tucson. Crossed the border (legally) several times.

I think we should crack down on people who hire illegals. Make it too costly a risk. Then the demand drops (although Mexican immigration is already falling. South American immigration was up but is now dropping too). Do NOT spend hundreds of billions finding, collecting, and deporting 11 million people. Absolute, 100% waste of BIG money.

Yes, secure the border. Border agents in general are pretty vocal about getting better and more technology like drones, not walls. Not to mention the litigation the country would go through seizing private land. But I'd absolutely be willing to spend more on what the border and customs people say they need.

But yes I think the silent eye winking between us and Mexico which keeps the borders porous is dangerous. I would like to see border control expanded.

What is Hillary's plan for securing the border?

There are two facets to this. One is what you do with the illegals here and the other is how you keep people from illegally coming here.

We can disagree on the first one, and honestly, I find deporting millions of immigrants as way too arduous of a task.

It is the second one that frustrates me to no end. Controlling the border pertains to the future. Trump has recognized the problem. Hillary refuses to, and that is why the border patrol union has blasted her. She has literally NO PLAN to make the border harder to cross. ZERO.

How does that not concern anyone?

 

[Ignatius J]

Wow, this man has no understanding of the English language.

First he says Obama was the founder of ISIS and most chocked it up to typical Trump rhetoric and hyperbole.
Then he gets called on it in an interview: Hugh Hewitt tried to clarify if Trump meant "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace." But, he says "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS."
Then today in a tweet: "Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?"

I have no idea how to interpret any of words. Is he serious today? Will the same words be serious or joking tomorrow?

I think understanding him requires someone to be a normal human being. We all know the point he was trying to make. Just like when Hillary said that Trump was "ISIS' best recruiter" we all know what she meant. But oops, not a lot of follow up and headlines when Hillary said that!

Please quit solely reading CNN and Politico click bait and weigh the validity of their points. This is yet another silly point.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

I think understanding him requires someone to be a normal human being. We all know the point he was trying to make. Just like when Hillary said that Trump was "ISIS' best recruiter" we all know what she meant. But oops, not a lot of follow up and headlines when Hillary said that!

Please quit solely reading CNN and Politico click bait and weigh the validity of their points. This is yet another silly point.

I always thought I was a normal enough human being, guess not cause I can't read his mind. Don't be an a$$. When he says he means it, then he really means it literally, then he's sarcastic, it takes a mind reader to follow him, not a 'normal human being'.
The point he was trying to make initially wasn't the point he was trying to make a few days later, when he was suddenly sarcastic.

Wanting to understand a potential POTUS (or any grown adult) when they speak is not a silly point. I want the same thing of HRC, but she doesn't change her words on a daily basis. I know . . . I know . . . emails, Benghazi, emails, emails, uranium, I got it.

Yes, Hillary spoke in hyperbole with the ISIS best recruiter at the time, except now she's been half-way validated. I thought Trump spoke in hyperbole at first, but then he doubled down and meant it literally but then he was sarcastic. She didn't double down on it and then claim to be sarcastic a day later. Try again buddy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-hillary-clintons-claim-isis-using-vi/

Read the last paragraph from their article:

UPDATE, Jan. 5, 2016: About two weeks after Clinton’s comment, various news outlets reported that the terrorist group Al Shabaab had released a recruitment video that featured clips of Trump speaking shortly after the Dec. 2 terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., about his proposal for a temporary but "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S." As we noted in greater depth here, we aren’t changing our rating, because we rate statements based on evidence that was public at the time the statement was made. Before she made her comment, Clinton had no way of knowing about the Al Shabaab video. SITE Intelligence Group, which found the video, said it was distributed on Twitter on Dec. 31. In addition, Al Shabbab is not affiliated with ISIS.

 

[Ignatius J]

I always thought I was a normal enough human being, guess not cause I can't read his mind. Don't be an a$$. When he says he means it, then he really means it literally, then he's sarcastic, it takes a mind reader to follow him, not a 'normal human being'.
The point he was trying to make initially wasn't the point he was trying to make a few days later, when he was suddenly sarcastic.

Wanting to understand a potential POTUS (or any grown adult) when they speak is not a silly point. I want the same thing of HRC, but she doesn't change her words on a daily basis. I know . . . I know . . . emails, Benghazi, emails, emails, uranium, I got it.

Yes, Hillary spoke in hyperbole with the ISIS best recruiter at the time, except now she's been half-way validated. I thought Trump spoke in hyperbole at first, but then he doubled down and meant it literally but then he was sarcastic. She didn't double down on it and then claim to be sarcastic a day later. Try again buddy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-hillary-clintons-claim-isis-using-vi/

Read the last paragraph from their article:

UPDATE, Jan. 5, 2016: About two weeks after Clinton’s comment, various news outlets reported that the terrorist group Al Shabaab had released a recruitment video that featured clips of Trump speaking shortly after the Dec. 2 terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., about his proposal for a temporary but "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S." As we noted in greater depth here, we aren’t changing our rating, because we rate statements based on evidence that was public at the time the statement was made. Before she made her comment, Clinton had no way of knowing about the Al Shabaab video. SITE Intelligence Group, which found the video, said it was distributed on Twitter on Dec. 31. In addition, Al Shabbab is not affiliated with ISIS.

Oh, the old "he was in a video" argument. (Btw even Politifact said her statement was false).

What do you say about this then?

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/isi...ill-clinton-and-barack-obama-not-donald-trump

Btw, I love that the media and you have to spell out for us the meaning of his statements that are common sense to most people. Thanks, guys.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Oh, the old "he was in a video" argument. (Btw even Politifact said her statement was false).

What do you say about this then?

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/isi...ill-clinton-and-barack-obama-not-donald-trump

Btw, I love that the media and you have to spell out for us the meaning of his statements that are common sense to most people. Thanks, guys.

You have a difficult time reading anything not related to anti-Hillary, don't you?
I said she spoke in hyperbole, which I thought his initial comment was. Why do I feel like I am repeating what I just wrote?
I copied a section with references linked that showed she was wrong but "half-way vindicated" (my wording) because his words was used after the fact for Al Shabbab.
He said his comment, then said he really meant it, then said he didn't mean it and was sarcastic. The media reported his words. I put his words above. No one spelled out anything to me, except him.
Understanding his first meaning was common sense that he meant it in hyperbole, but then he meant it literally that Obama was a founder, until he didn't mean it - thus making any understanding of him not common sense.

What part of his statement was common sense to most people?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

What is Hillary's plan for securing the border?

There are two facets to this. One is what you do with the illegals here and the other is how you keep people from illegally coming here.

We can disagree on the first one, and honestly, I find deporting millions of immigrants as way too arduous of a task.

It is the second one that frustrates me to no end. Controlling the border pertains to the future. Trump has recognized the problem. Hillary refuses to, and that is why the border patrol union has blasted her. She has literally NO PLAN to make the border harder to cross. ZERO.

How does that not concern anyone?

Where are you researching this stuff?

She's taken criticism for supporting Marco Rubio's bill expanding border enforcement and stopping obstruction to criminal deportations. No she hasn't talked about taking executive action, but congress should make that decision. Although, of course, they won't.

People aren't terribly concerned because there are much bigger problems to deal with.

The biggest concern people have, and the most imminent threat, is that of a childish, willingly ignorant president who's understanding of foreign and domestic issues are based on "facts" made up from sound bites he's heard and the stereotypes only dumb people want to waste time and money on. If people crossing the border were actually "rapists and murderers" we would have addressed it years ago.

Secure it? Yes. Number one concern? Not even close. And that's about where HRC stands, like most of us.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

You have a difficult time reading anything not related to anti-Hillary, don't you?
I said she spoke in hyperbole, which I thought his initial comment was. Why do I feel like I am repeating what I just wrote?
I copied a section with references linked that showed she was wrong but "half-way vindicated" (my wording) because his words was used after the fact for Al Shabbab.
He said his comment, then said he really meant it, then said he didn't mean it and was sarcastic. The media reported his words. I put his words above. No one spelled out anything to me, except him.
Understanding his first meaning was common sense that he meant it in hyperbole, but then he meant it literally that Obama was a founder, until he didn't mean it - thus making any understanding of him not common sense.

What part of his statement was common sense to most people?

Did you see the Hugh Hewett interview? He tried VERY hard to clarify what Trump meant, saying yes there was a vacuum left after American troops exited Iraq, the disaster in Libya etc... All contributed to ISIS, which was actually formed several years before Obama was in office.

Trump wasn't having it. "No, that's not what I meant at all. He founded ISIS."

Which to me begs the question, should somebody hurry up and kill Obama? A president who founded the most dangerous, murderous terrorist organization currently in existence? And Hillary Clinton? Their MVP? Both who ISIS "are now honoring" according to Trump?

F$&@ing idiot. And his idiot enablers like Giulliani.

We should start a list of what we just heard that we were told we didn't just hear.

 

[Ignatius J]

You have a difficult time reading anything not related to anti-Hillary, don't you?
I said she spoke in hyperbole, which I thought his initial comment was. Why do I feel like I am repeating what I just wrote?
I copied a section with references linked that showed she was wrong but "half-way vindicated" (my wording) because his words was used after the fact for Al Shabbab.
He said his comment, then said he really meant it, then said he didn't mean it and was sarcastic. The media reported his words. I put his words above. No one spelled out anything to me, except him.
Understanding his first meaning was common sense that he meant it in hyperbole, but then he meant it literally that Obama was a founder, until he didn't mean it - thus making any understanding of him not common sense.

What part of his statement was common sense to most people?

So you really think he meant Obama found ISIS? Maybe it is because the potato anchor asked him a silly question and Trump gave him a silly answer?

I think any reasonably social person can understand the conversation and for the life of me would rip my hair out if I went to dinner with someone who sat there and couldn't grasp an iota of hyperbole or sarcasm.

Thanks, MSM. You are the socially awkward friend whose calls I screen.

 

[Ignatius J]

Did you see the Hugh Hewett interview? He tried VERY hard to clarify what Trump meant, saying yes there was a vacuum left after American troops exited Iraq, the disaster in Libya etc... All contributed to ISIS, which was actually formed several years before Obama was in office.

Trump wasn't having it. "No, that's not what I meant at all. He founded ISIS."

Which to me begs the question, should somebody hurry up and kill Obama? A president who founded the most dangerous, murderous terrorist organization currently in existence? And Hillary Clinton? Their MVP? Both who ISIS "are now honoring" according to Trump?

F$&@ing idiot. And his idiot enablers like Giulliani.

We should start a list of what we just heard that we were told we didn't just hear.

Giuliani is a good man who has successfully prosecuted about 90% of his cases and actually upholds the law. He has forgotten more about law in the last 5 minutes than you will know in your lifetime. He is licking his chops to get at Clinton. What prosecutor with half a brain isn't? Maybe the ones who don't want to end up dead, but that's another point.

As far as you chasing his comments down the rabbit hole, have fun. It's a freaking joke that these preoccupy you but Cheryl Mills being in the state department and a liaison for the CF doesn't. Absolutely can't wrap my head around this. It's like you want to take a slug of Propofol anytime Clinton's corruption comes up.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

So you really think he meant Obama found ISIS? Maybe it is because the potato anchor asked him a silly question and Trump gave him a silly answer?

I think any reasonably social person can understand the conversation and for the life of me would rip my hair out if I went to dinner with someone who sat there and couldn't grasp an iota of hyperbole or sarcasm.

Thanks, MSM. You are the socially awkward friend whose calls I screen.

Do I think he meant Obama founded ISIS. I seem to keep making the mistake of trusting his words. Silly me.
I don't know how I do make this more clear. So I'll type it again:

The first time, I assumed he spoke in hyperbole. I assumed he meant such that he blamed Obama for unrest and problems in the middle east leading to their rise. I think 'founded' is a poor choice of words, but that's a given with Trump.

But when you make a ridiculous statement and you are running for POTUS, its reasonable to be interviewed and asked about said ridiculous statements. So he was asked about i,t and he said "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do." Sounds quite literal. So I, along with most others that think words have meaning, (especially once you are asked to clarify and you answer as he did) took him at his words. Seems like he dug his heels in and firmly believed Obama founded ISIS. And he seemed to mean founded in a definition that most 'normal people' agree upon.

Then he said he was sarcastic. After there was a frenzy about his amazingly stupid statement, which he said he meant what he said, did he say he was sarcastic.

What more do you want me to say? Please don't make me type it out a fourth time. Was this line of reasoning so difficult to understand?

 

[Ignatius J]

Do I think he meant Obama founded ISIS. I seem to keep making the mistake of trusting his words. Silly me.
I don't know how I do make this more clear. So I'll type it again:

The first time, I assumed he spoke in hyperbole. I assumed he meant such that he blamed Obama for unrest and problems in the middle east leading to their rise. I think 'founded' is a poor choice of words, but that's a given with Trump.

But when you make a ridiculous statement and you are running for POTUS, its reasonable to be interviewed and asked about said ridiculous statements. So he was asked about i,t and he said "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do." Sounds quite literal. So I, along with most others that think words have meaning, (especially once you are asked to clarify and you answer as he did) took him at his words. Seems like he dug his heels in and firmly believed Obama founded ISIS. And he seemed to mean founded in a definition that most 'normal people' agree upon.

Then he said he was sarcastic. After there was a frenzy about his amazingly stupid statement, which he said he meant what he said, did he say he was sarcastic.

What more do you want me to say? Please don't make me type it out a fourth time. Was this line of reasoning so difficult to understand?

It is. Did you employ this line of reasoning when Hillary doubled down on Trump being the lead recruiter in ISIS, and in fact actually lied about the circumstances?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-isis-recruiting/

You probably did not. I know you did not, actually.

 

[doctalaughs]

It is. Did you employ this line of reasoning when Hillary doubled down on Trump being the lead recruiter in ISIS, and in fact actually lied about the circumstances?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-isis-recruiting/

You probably did not. I know you did not, actually.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeast/al-shabaab-video-trump/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-featured-in-new-jihadist-recruitment-video/

When you link a video of Obama meeting secretly with Al-Bagdhadi to found ISIS we'll consider the propaganda statements equal.

Of course Trump doesn't believe that Obama literally founded ISIS (he's not schizophrenic or delusional as far as I know). But if such outlandish hyperbole comes out of his mouth then he has to pay the consequences. If he says Obama is actually an alien bent on world conquest no one is going to believe him but we have a right to think he's a bombastic ass.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Ignatius J]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeast/al-shabaab-video-trump/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-featured-in-new-jihadist-recruitment-video/

When you link a video of Obama meeting secretly with Al-Bagdhadi to found ISIS we'll consider the propaganda statements equal.

Of course Trump doesn't believe that Obama literally founded ISIS (he's not schizophrenic or delusional as far as I know). But if such outlandish hyperbole comes out of his mouth then he has to pay the consequences. If he says Obama is actually an alien bent on world conquest no one is going to believe him but we have a right to think he's a bombastic ass.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Just to be clear, you think Trump deserves to be punished merely because he used hyperbole? This is the standard you have set? Wow. Mind blown.

 

[doctalaughs]

Just to be clear, you think Trump deserves to be punished merely because he used hyperbole? This is the standard you have set? Wow. Mind blown.

There are different levels of hyperbole or "sarcasm" as he puts it (even though seems like an incorrect use of the word).

Clinton claiming that Trump is helping ISIS recruit may be slight hyperbole (I'd say 3/10 given they are using him in recruiting videos but he isn't actually trying to help them).

Trump claiming that Obama is the "founder" of ISIS is more like 7/10 since it's clearly ridiculous by anyone's definition of the word.

If a presidential candidate said "if I'm elected I will nuke every city in every country that harbors terrorists"... well I guess they could claim it was hyperbole or sarcasm but even you would admit they should be punished.

See the differences?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Mr_Sheepington]

Oookaaaayyyyyy, I see the spin offs from this elude you so let's try them out shall we?
1. Deporting 11 million people end masse will cost a fortune
2. The cost to our civil liberties would be huge, sorry yuge, how do you find them? You stop everyone and ask for papers. You raid homes at night. You just get the American people used to groups of people being rounded up and taken away. Sound familiar?
3. The wall is an engineering impossibility, so no it would be wayyyyyyy more then 10 billion dollars.
4. The geo political ramifications are again yuge. It has been us policy since the first days of the republic to maintain our dominance over north America. We can do it nice or hard. Guess which one costs more and is less certain? Guess which one building a wall falls into?

The fact that these basic points need to be spelled out to you demonstrates that your intellectual depth on this issues is ohhhhhh, I don't know , a mm.

getting all worked up are we. its cute when someone gets mad on an internet forum so they get all ad-hominem. Plus, it shows that you are getting defensive, which means you know you are in the wrong. for your first point, you merely say "cost a fortune", well in the terms of the governments allocation of enormous funds, it would have to be in the context of the amount we are working with for it to be a true "fortune", so good work on not even knowing what your talking about.

And 2nd point, those 11 million are the ones that we know FOR SURE are here. In other words, "raids" would not be necessary, we go where we know they are. And then you draw a similarity to the KKK? you are just being a troll.

And here is where you really screw up on the 3rd point. Are you a *****? an engineering impossibility? Well you better hope you make it in medicine because you would for sure make a piss-poor engineer if you don't even think its a possibility. You are telling me the great wall of china, which is even longer than what our wall would be, is an impossibility as well? Well go take a look for yourself chief, its there. And it worked for its purpose, the nomads couldn't attack from that area. And no, you are again just saying it would cost more, without even looking anything up. Troll.

4th point, WHAT COUNTRY IN EXISTENCE EVER'S GOAL HAS NOT BEEN TO BE DOMINANT???? what country thinks "oh we are too strong, we should be a little more weak". I really think you are just a troll. Please vacate.

Deduction, Troll.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Crazy stuff indeed!

Interesting how one persons facts are another persons insanely ignorant interpretation, no matter who you support (I do wish we could agree that accusing and convicting someone of crimes in the media is stupid and dangerous, whether "sarcastic", made up, or otherwise. Maybe as people with an intellectual curiosity, it doesn't matter so much to us. But there are literally MILLIONS of people in this country that believe INSANE conspiracies and lies. They do NOT need to be provoked with dangerous false allegations against other Americans).

Fortunately for us Trump haters, it looks like most of the country is starting to get it. I ain't calling this one by a LONG shot, but lifelong republicans are starting to get sick of his antics, and his primary glory is clearly not carrying over to the general electorate. Notice he's said nothing about the poles, and in fact said "I'd be fine" if he loses, indicating he sees an end of the road ahead.

Even after, we can already see him and his folks laying the foundation for months to years of post-election whining, maybe even lawsuits. He's accused the media, the RNC, the DNC, the Obama administration, and HRC of somehow controlling the outcome (how many times has he claimed things are "rigged"?). Unlikely he'll admit he's a loser like he calls Romney. Because he's a child.

There will be a time about a year from now when I think the entire country will be going "please go away already a$$hole". He's got a taste of the big time and he doesn't want to fade into the background.

Hopefully we eventually get back to a point where nut jobs on either side are shamed and defeated before reaching prominence and we don't go through this headache again.

 

[gotname]

This is false in my opinion. Trump has shown that he understands the problems facing this country.

He has shown that his solutions range from vague to WTF.

So you really think he meant Obama found ISIS? Maybe it is because the potato anchor asked him a silly question and Trump gave him a silly answer?

I think any reasonably social person can understand the conversation and for the life of me would rip my hair out if I went to dinner with someone who sat there and couldn't grasp an iota of hyperbole or sarcasm.

That scenario...conversation at dinner with someone for you is akin to Trump having dinner with all of us. He is running for President. He speaks to the nation - the world. He HAS to be clear as to what he says and what he means because it does matter. We should not have to attempt to redefine words because what he said was not what he meant even though he meant what he said.

In this instance, he was almost spoonfed a relatively reasonable explanation yet he still insisted that he meant what he said. Although many of us know that his statement is ridiculous, his persistance that he meant "founder" implies just that. Founder. Literally. The problem is not lack of comprehension on our part.

Many people can recognize sarcasm, hyperbole etc. but it's difficult when the person is stating that that was not their intention or if they've demostrated that they are so nuts that they may actually mean whatever they said. The lines are blurred between Sarcasm Trump, Hyperbole Trump, Regular Trump and all other Trumps. Seriously/jokingly etc., this is someone who too often makes obnoxious remarks and clings to them as if they are not...until he doesn't. Meanwhile, we have to decipher what he meant and what he means now versus what he said and what he is saying. That is not someone that should have the responsibilities and power of POTUS.

 

[Mr_Sheepington]

11 million people. With the efficiency of a government agency. Maybe that'll run, what, 100-150 billion conservatively? Because, undocumented migrant workers, day laborers, and maids are the big problem we need to face as a great nation? Because our produce is too cheap and we'd like it to be more expensive? Why exactly do we want to bust the budget to end something that we benefit from? While appearing like a police state focused against poor brown people to the rest of the world?

I think if we're going to throw around hundreds of billions, let's use it on something helpful. Maybe even the roads, bridges and airports that both candidates say they favor.

If you think undocumented people are a big problem than we should get them documents and figure out a smart way to benefit from their labor in a mutual exchange. All this stuff about "great deals" and we can't figure out how to exchange some cheap foreign labor for beneficial trade/tariff agreements?

it's true it could end up costing a lot more, but it's one of the things we have control over taking care of. Unfortunately at this point the big banks causing the recessions are the real problem imo but they seem to be in bed with everyone of any importance in governmental agencies so that is not going to be gone anytime soon.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

getting all worked up are we. its cute when someone gets mad on an internet forum so they get all ad-hominem. Plus, it shows that you are getting defensive, which means you know you are in the wrong. for your first point, you merely say "cost a fortune", well in the terms of the governments allocation of enormous funds, it would have to be in the context of the amount we are working with for it to be a true "fortune", so good work on not even knowing what your talking about.

And 2nd point, those 11 million are the ones that we know FOR SURE are here. In other words, "raids" would not be necessary, we go where we know they are. And then you draw a similarity to the KKK? you are just being a troll.

And here is where you really screw up on the 3rd point. Are you a *****? an engineering impossibility? Well you better hope you make it in medicine because you would for sure make a piss-poor engineer if you don't even think its a possibility. You are telling me the great wall of china, which is even longer than what our wall would be, is an impossibility as well? Well go take a look for yourself chief, its there. And it worked for its purpose, the nomads couldn't attack from that area. And no, you are again just saying it would cost more, without even looking anything up. Troll.

4th point, WHAT COUNTRY IN EXISTENCE EVER'S GOAL HAS NOT BEEN TO BE DOMINANT???? what country thinks "oh we are too strong, we should be a little more weak". I really think you are just a troll. Please vacate.

Deduction, Troll.

You are right. It is "cute when someone gets mad on an internet forum" such as typing in all caps. Assuming you are not trolling, I think you are still arguing for the sake of arguing.

Understand that I might be putting words in @deepstate2016 's mouth, I think s/he was referring to Germany 1930s to 1940s. You know, when the government raided homes and rounded up people. The KKK wasn't a government entity. Not sure how you drew that connection.

And the Great Wall of China was an overwhelming failure at it's purpose. It was a series of interconnected watch towers that took hundreds of years to accomplish (and thousands of deaths that were just built over). The wall did not keep out invaders. It didn't ultimately keep out the Mongols. It couldn't be fulled staffed. The wall was a political message of China's border and power, though the invaders that came through/over at multiple times in history didn't respect that message. Guess what, people build tunnels too. We could come into 21st century and push technology that the border patrol agents want, instead of a FDR New Deal type/shovel ready project like this wall.

There is a difference between being dominant and being antagonistic on the global stage. Building such a wall would have unintended consequences to our diplomatic stance with Mexico and the rest of Latin America. I don't believe that not building a wall fails to exert our dominance/strength.

 

[deepstate2016]

getting all worked up are we. its cute when someone gets mad on an internet forum so they get all ad-hominem. Plus, it shows that you are getting defensive, which means you know you are in the wrong. for your first point, you merely say "cost a fortune", well in the terms of the governments allocation of enormous funds, it would have to be in the context of the amount we are working with for it to be a true "fortune", so good work on not even knowing what your talking about.

And 2nd point, those 11 million are the ones that we know FOR SURE are here. In other words, "raids" would not be necessary, we go where we know they are. And then you draw a similarity to the KKK? you are just being a troll.

And here is where you really screw up on the 3rd point. Are you a *****? an engineering impossibility? Well you better hope you make it in medicine because you would for sure make a piss-poor engineer if you don't even think its a possibility. You are telling me the great wall of china, which is even longer than what our wall would be, is an impossibility as well? Well go take a look for yourself chief, its there. And it worked for its purpose, the nomads couldn't attack from that area. And no, you are again just saying it would cost more, without even looking anything up. Troll.

4th point, WHAT COUNTRY IN EXISTENCE EVER'S GOAL HAS NOT BEEN TO BE DOMINANT???? what country thinks "oh we are too strong, we should be a little more weak". I really think you are just a troll. Please vacate.

Deduction, Troll.

Well if defensiveness is the sign of someone insecure you got it in spades buddy.

1. A fortune over 15 to 25 billion at current costs of fencing the border. Then about 750 million a year to maintain it. That does not include the cost of manning it a wall with no guards is completely ineffective. This does not include cost to acquire land from private owners. That is a lot of money. Or as some could reasonably say a fortune.

2. The 11 million is an estimate, and even if we knew that was the exact amount we do not know where they are. News flash the government does not keep track of where every person is in the country, and do you really think everyone is going to sit still to be deported?

3. The great wall of China was built over several hinderetd years and is several belts of defenses built bring many different dynasties. Most of it is not the wall you think of.

4. The point of our dominance is there are two ways of doing it soft or hard. Soft we get people to do what we want with minimum effort because it has a benefit to them. Hard like russian domination over eastern Europe. Expensive unloved and not effective over the long term.

I am sorry if your feelings were hurt when I pointed out what a dumbness you are and I am sure your feelings will be hurt again when your analysis is exposed as well pretty second d grade.

 

[deepstate2016]

it's true it could end up costing a lot more, but it's one of the things we have control over taking care of. Unfortunately at this point the big banks causing the recessions are the real problem imo but they seem to be in bed with everyone of any importance in governmental agencies so that is not going to be gone anytime soon.

Ok big banks causing recessions, now tell us about hard money the Rothschild family and oh......the illuminati.

 

[deepstate2016]

I think understanding him requires someone to be a normal human being. We all know the point he was trying to make. Just like when Hillary said that Trump was "ISIS' best recruiter" we all know what she meant. But oops, not a lot of follow up and headlines when Hillary said that!

Please quit solely reading CNN and Politico click bait and weigh the validity of their points. This is yet another silly point.

Wow is there no limit to your effort to explain him away. In the interview he was given multiple opportunities to explain it as an expression or put it a more subtle way. He did not instead he stated that Isis praised president Obama and said the president created Isis. You do not have to read into it. It is exactly what he said. Everything after that is him explaining away what he said.

 

[deepstate2016]

You are right. It is "cute when someone gets mad on an internet forum" such as typing in all caps. Assuming you are not trolling, I think you are still arguing for the sake of arguing.

Understand that I might be putting words in @deepstate2016 's mouth, I think s/he was referring to Germany 1930s to 1940s. You know, when the government raided homes and rounded up people. The KKK wasn't a government entity. Not sure how you drew that connection.

And the Great Wall of China was an overwhelming failure at it's purpose. It was a series of interconnected watch towers that took hundreds of years to accomplish (and thousands of deaths that were just built over). The wall did not keep out invaders. It didn't ultimately keep out the Mongols. It couldn't be fulled staffed. The wall was a political message of China's border and power, though the invaders that came through/over at multiple times in history didn't respect that message. Guess what, people build tunnels too. We could come into 21st century and push technology that the border patrol agents want, instead of a FDR New Deal type/shovel ready project like this wall.

There is a difference between being dominant and being antagonistic on the global stage. Building such a wall would have unintended consequences to our diplomatic stance with Mexico and the rest of Latin America. I don't believe that not building a wall fails to exert our dominance/strength.

SS, KGB, MVD, Revolutionary Guards, take your pick from any authoritarian government.