Trump just got murdered IMO.

[deleted109597]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

... now, what sort of a statement does it make to note Trump's dominating lead among those without a college degree?

In theory, the electoral college is intended to prevent the undereducated from hijacking the Republic.

The same statement the left coast makes by "knowing better" than the rest of the unwashed and not poisoning their precious snowflakes with toxins that cause autism.

Unfortunately, the electoral college also makes plenty of people's votes essentially nonexistant.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The same statement the left coast makes by "knowing better" than the rest of the unwashed and not poisoning their precious snowflakes with toxins that cause autism.

Unfortunately, the electoral college also makes plenty of people's votes essentially nonexistant.

That's also part of Globalism - people who know better. Unfortunately they think they know better in areas like: the kind of car you drive, what appliances you need, how big your should house should be, and myriad other areas where they should stay out.

Hillary is firmly in the meddling mass of Globalists, who want to regulate everything we do.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

.....She's proved the US code doesn't apply to her because the FBI investigated her and recommended not to proceed with charges. Again, unless you can give insight or evidence of that decision being tainted, I am inclined to trust the FBI's judgement......

You probably won't see this on CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS: http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.

Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed emails.

Comey also agreed to have Mills’ laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence.

Comey’s immunized witnesses nonetheless suffered chronic lapses in memory, made unsubstantiated claims of attorney-client privilege upon tougher questioning and at least two gave demonstrably false statements. And yet Comey indulged it all.

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

 

[jl lin]

That's also part of Globalism - people who know better. Unfortunately they think they know better in areas like: the kind of car you drive, what appliances you need, how big your should house should be, and myriad other areas where they should stay out.

Hillary is firmly in the meddling mass of Globalists, who want to regulate everything we do.

Unquestionably true, sadly.

 

[xaelia]

You probably won't see this on CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS: http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

Probably because this isn't a "news" article, it's an editorial with an agenda peppered with quotes from retired FBI officers without any direct knowledge of the investigation.

This characterization of established journalism as a conspiratorial bastion of liberal groupthink is perplexing and, frankly, damaging to a reality-based assessment of issues facing our country. A skeptical and critical approach to news is important, but, in general, you'd rather we believe the Alex Joneses of the world over the heirs to Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather?

 

[jl lin]

You probably won't see this on CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS: http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.

Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed emails.

Comey also agreed to have Mills’ laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence.

Comey’s immunized witnesses nonetheless suffered chronic lapses in memory, made unsubstantiated claims of attorney-client privilege upon tougher questioning and at least two gave demonstrably false statements. And yet Comey indulged it all.

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

The whole things STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN! The level of corruption should be astounding. People don't care about the truth, and PC claims can be made when people do try to speak the truth.

What about 14 boxes of emails, and now there are only 12? What happened to the other 2 boxes and why were they taken????? SMH

 

[deleted109597]

This characterization of established journalism as a conspiratorial bastion of liberal groupthink is perplexing and, frankly, damaging to a reality-based assessment of issues facing our country?

Eh, I'm not sure the mainstream media is based in reality. Of course, neither is the internet. We aren't Russia or China, but we also don't have France24. It's not a stretch to say the media is biased. If it weren't, Foxnews wouldn't be so different in perspective.

 

[xaelia]

Foxnews wouldn't be so different in perspective.

Yep, FoxNews is a great example of flagrant bias.

(ha ha!)

As is MSNBC, and other reactionary left-leaning cable and online outlets.

 

[deleted109597]

Well, yeah. They're only fair and balanced in their byline. And instead of showing an alternate view, they instead become a separate echo chamber.

 

[jl lin]

It's lovely that Clinton Foundation scams are not considered entirely corrupt as it has filled pockets that it really wasn't supposed to. How does a public servant (Clinton) end up w/ > 200 million dollars? You haven't produced anything; you've only been in "public service?" Pay to play!

Meanwhile only 10% of money raised for Haiti went to Haiti? Where did the rest of the millions go? And of that 10% to Haiti, it went o building hotels.

The hypocrisy remains astounding...but yes. As long as people care more about the Kardashians, we're screwed--that and the unquestionable manipulation by the MSM.

I mean seriously, when someone decides that you have to make laws so that people don't get hurt walking while using their cell phones, you see how idiotic people have become--and how enabling of stupidity the gov't is.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Probably because this isn't a "news" article, it's an editorial with an agenda peppered with quotes from retired FBI officers without any direct knowledge of the investigation.

This characterization of established journalism as a conspiratorial bastion of liberal groupthink is perplexing and, frankly, damaging to a reality-based assessment of issues facing our country. A skeptical and critical approach to news is important, but, in general, you'd rather we believe the Alex Joneses of the world over the heirs to Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather?

Yes, it's an opinion article peppered with news, but it's news that really isn't covered (or is glossed over) by the mainstream media.

There is good evidence that the vast majority of who you think is "established journalism" actually IS a conspiratorial bastion of liberal groupthink. Do you remember a few years ago when someone published the ListServe that included many, many members of the "established journalism" class?

How about just looking at how many members of the "established journalism" class are members/donors to Dem causes. Look at the revolving door between them and Democrat administrations.

No, I don't listen to Alex Jones. But did you really just introduce Dan Rather as a bastion of objectivity? I think you just proved my point....

If you don't like how that opinion piece explained it, try Andrew McCarthey from National Review. Here's some more description of how poorly this investigation was done

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...interview-doesnt-add?target=author&tid=900151

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...y-grant-cheryl-mills?target=author&tid=900151

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...heryl-mills-immunity?target=author&tid=900151

 

[theBriefing]

Globalism refers to things like the EU, Kyoto protocols, World Court, WTO, and other organizations that transfer sovereign national power to un-elected bureaucrats who don't represent the people they are making rules for.

This is one defining feature of "globalism." But this type of globalism is led by the U.S. foreign policy, which indeed has toppled democratically elected representatives/presidents of many countries, and particularly in South America. However, this does not apply to the U.S., for we largely control and lead much of the organizations you cited. They do not have control on the U.S. governing system. When people complain of "globalism", they are ordinarily reiterating the talking lines of idiotic right-wing conspiracy theorist such as Alex Jones.

 

[theBriefing]

I know a lot of college-educated people who are socialists and don't understand how economics works. They still feel it's okay to tax the rich to give to the poor, and that this will make a healthy, growing economy. College does not equal intelligence.

Your statement enunciates that it is entirely invalid that higher taxes on the super-rich may help in propping up a country's economy. There is research that supports both lines of thought. So to say that one or the other is entirely valid/invalid is either ignorance or a lack of scientific knowledge in economics. Your general line of thinking shouldn't be based on social theories, but rather scientific findings; This is of particular importance when you are a practicing physician.

 

[jl lin]

I am the only person that thinks there is a sad misunderstanding of how economics works in free markets?

 

[jl lin]

This is one defining feature of "globalism." But this type of globalism is led by the U.S. foreign policy, which indeed has toppled democratically elected representatives/presidents of many countries, and particularly in South America. However, this does not apply to the U.S., for we largely control and lead much of the organizations you cited. They do not have control on the U.S. governing system. When people complain of "globalism", they are ordinarily reiterating the talking lines of idiotic right-wing conspiracy theorist such as Alex Jones.

OMG dude. Only one name right now: George Soros. (A scary dude for more reasons than one.) Get real. This is not fantasy island.

 

[xaelia]

Well, globalization and free-market debates aside, those opposed might as well get used to the idea that HRC will be elected – I don't think his most recent recorded audio will endear him to the undecided female voting bloc.

Good luck defending that, team DJT.

 

[theBriefing]

OMG dude. Only one name right now: George Soros. (A scary dude for more reasons than one.) Get real. This is not fantasy island.

Give me one example in which this man has been able to affect the political landscape of the U.S. And don't tell me his role on a movement such as BLM, because that has nothing to do with "globalism."

 

[Boatswain2PA]

The latest audio has sealed his loss. The mainstream media will play that over and over again until the elections.

He's done.

Briefing: in just a few posts you have shown to be so far left of center that no amount of discussion or evidence could possibly sway you.

 

[theBriefing]

Briefing: in just a few posts you have shown to be so far left of center that no amount of discussion or evidence could possibly sway you.

I am really not. What exactly did I say that proves me left? 🙂

 

[Hamhock]

The latest audio has sealed his loss. The mainstream media will play that over and over again until the elections.

Are you blaming the "mainstream media" here in any way?

HH

 

[deleted109597]

Are you blaming the "mainstream media" here in any way?

HH

Beats me. It's 11 years old. I'm sure if someone had me mic'd all the time I would have said something that would keep me from being president. So would Hillary.
But by making it their talking point, like Kaepernick, or BLM, Kardashian, or anything else that dominates the airwaves even though 80% of the people I interact don't care about, they make it the news.

It's this weeks missing middle class white kid. Nothing else on the news will matter, until something else they decide does.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Are you blaming the "mainstream media" here in any way?

HH

I certainly don't blame them for saying those terrible things.

But reflect back on the primaries. NBC and the other mainstream media fell over themselves as they fawned over "The Donald", giving him enormous amount of free positive publicity. They did that while sitting on this audio. Why do you think they did that? Because the polls showed Hillary would lose BIG to most of the other (much better qualified) republican candidates.

They built Trump up and tore the other Repub candidates down during the primaries, knowing he was a terrible candidate. Now they are doing everything they can to tear HIM down. Of course, he gives them plenty of ammunition.

It's all a moot point now, get used to saying Madam President, single payer health care, restrictions on guns and ammunition, and 2-4 supreme court justices that will absolutely shred the constitution.

We're screwed.

 

[GeneralVeers]

This is the "October Surprise" I have been waiting for. They have been sitting on this for months most likely. I don't think it changes much though. We all know Trump is boorish and prone to unfortunate, sometimes offensive comments. The fact that he's still a superior choice to the ethically-challenged Hillary is telling.

I've been preparing for a Hillary win for 4 years anyway. Romney's "47%" comment has a certain truth to it. The Democrats have a baked-in plurality of the vote. Combined with superior turnout operations make it unlikely for any Republican to ever overcome.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

This is the "October Surprise" I have been waiting for. They have been sitting on this for months most likely. I don't think it changes much though. We all know Trump is boorish and prone to unfortunate, sometimes offensive comments. The fact that he's still a superior choice to the ethically-challenged Hillary is telling.

I've been preparing for a Hillary win for 4 years anyway. Romney's "47%" comment has a certain truth to it. The Democrats have a baked-in plurality of the vote. Combined with superior turnout operations make it unlikely for any Republican to ever overcome.

I was going to wait until after the elections to purchase certain items (with cash of course, and at a show) on the off chance that Hillary & the Leftists did blow it, but I'm pretty sure it'll be a safe investment now.

 

[jl lin]

Give me one example in which this man has been able to affect the political landscape of the U.S. And don't tell me his role on a movement such as BLM, because that has nothing to do with "globalism."

All you have to do is follow his money.

 

[jl lin]

I am not so sure about HRC ftw come November. Trying not to give up on saving US freedom from outright, systematic annihilation.

The audio is another desperate attempt to smear. LOL. HRC has the biggest potty mouth and treated SS and others like utter crap.
Very few men have not engaged in locker room talk at one point or another. You gonna record everyone from the cradle to the grave?
MSM is throwing out one "tempest in a teapot" after another against Trump.

Don't forget the totally fed up masses that are tired of the political elitism and the train wreck that is D.C.

So yea, prepare for the worst but hope for the best...and sorry. The best is not Hillary by a long shot. Don't underestimate the amount of people, both male and female, who, in their minds, see her, as she flies by on her broom, as one of the most corrupt career politicians ever.

 

[doctalaughs]

The gross hyperbole of Trump jumping to hit the nuke button, or him being anti-women, or anti-race are just red-herrings

Care to double down on the anti-women being "hyperbole" after listening to the tape that just came out?

The funny thing is that I agree Clinton is corrupt, a liar and broke laws.

However, Trump is so odious, bigoted, arrogant and unhinged that I'm still going to vote for her.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[theBriefing]

I was going to wait until after the elections to purchase certain items (with cash of course, and at a show) on the off chance that Hillary & the Leftists did blow it, but I'm pretty sure it'll be a safe investment now.

Don't worry; no one is taking your guns away. I think, GeneralVeers, when saying that he was "preparing" for a Clinton win, meant that he was preparing financially, as he may rightly believe that he would be taxed more. I do not think he was "preparing" in the sense of loading up on guns. LOL.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Don't worry; no one is taking your guns away. I think, GeneralVeers, when saying that he was "preparing" for a Clinton win, meant that he was preparing financially, as he may rightly believe that he would be taxed more. I do not think he was "preparing" in the sense of loading up on guns. LOL.

I meant both emotionally and financially. It's been a tough 8 years under Obama for reasons I've already outlined. He's literally cost me 10's of thousands of dollars, plus made my healthcare worse. On the plus side I don't need to sell my stocks yet. If it looks like Trump will win (which he won't), I will have to sell off all my stocks prior to election day, as the market will take a big, irrational drop just like after Brexit. The markets like Hillary (the big companies have already paid her off) and will go up if she wins.

 

[Rendar5]

well, if there were one group that benefits from this it's definitely gun and ammo manufacterer's. the paranoia that guns will be taken away will only add to sales lol

 

[WilcoWorld]

Beats me. It's 11 years old. I'm sure if someone had me mic'd all the time I would have said something that would keep me from being president. So would Hillary.
But by making it their talking point, like Kaepernick, or BLM, Kardashian, or anything else that dominates the airwaves even though 80% of the people I interact don't care about, they make it the news.

It's this weeks missing middle class white kid. Nothing else on the news will matter, until something else they decide does.

I am not so sure about HRC ftw come November. Trying not to give up on saving US freedom from outright, systematic annihilation.

The audio is another desperate attempt to smear. LOL. HRC has the biggest potty mouth and treated SS and others like utter crap.
Very few men have not engaged in locker room talk at one point or another. You gonna record everyone from the cradle to the grave?
MSM is throwing out one "tempest in a teapot" after another against Trump.

Don't forget the totally fed up masses that are tired of the political elitism and the train wreck that is D.C.

So yea, prepare for the worst but hope for the best...and sorry. The best is not Hillary by a long shot. Don't underestimate the amount of people, both male and female, who, in their minds, see her, as she flies by on her broom, as one of the most corrupt career politicians ever.

I can't let these statements go without comment.

I'll admit that I often say things in private that I would keep to myself or state more carefully in public, but the quote in question here is of a special kind. You could have mic'd me for my last 38 years and you'd never find me joking about using my status to get away with sexual assault.

I am friends with some pretty foul mouthed dudes, and good people just don't endorse sexual assault - even in jest.

 

[deleted109597]

I can't let these statements go without comment.

I'll admit that I often say things in private that I would keep to myself or state more carefully in public, but the quote in question here is of a special kind. You could have mic'd me for my last 38 years and you'd never find me joking about using my status to get away with sexual assault.

I am friends with some pretty foul mouthed dudes, and in my experience psychologically healthy people just don't say things like that.

So, you're ok with the wife of the man who used his status to actually commit sexual assault? Just so we are clear here.

 

[WilcoWorld]

So, you're ok with the wife of the man who used his status to actually commit sexual assault? Just so we are clear here.

I do not hold women responsible for their husband's sexual indiscresions.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

I can't let these statements go without comment.

I'll admit that I often say things in private that I would keep to myself or state more carefully in public, but the quote in question here is of a special kind. You could have mic'd me for my last 38 years and you'd never find me joking about using my status to get away with sexual assault.

I am friends with some pretty foul mouthed dudes, and in my experience psychologically healthy people just don't say things like that.

Completely agree. Because his first defense of 'locker room banter' would have been a tiny bit plausible if he was just out, you know, in a locker room, or out to dinner, or just hanging out with friends. Except he was mic'd in between tapings for a TV show. He wasn't new to TV in 2005. He's just a special kind of stupid/narcissist that doesn't seem to care about any group of individuals, except for white males. I think that's the one group he hasn't called out and offended specifically.

So, you're ok with the wife of the man who used his status to actually commit sexual assault? Just so we are clear here.

Oh you got me. 2 wrongs do make a right! I know my mother was wrong for years.

And remember Bill isn't running for POTUS. I know, he and his wife have the same last name. It is confusing. But people look at her face, use her first name or initials to generally avoid the confusion. You can give it a try.

Yes, Clinton made speaking missteps when she lashed out the specific women who accused Bill. But please tell me if someone accused your wife/husband of sexual advances/misconduct/intercourse (which ever noun you choose) that you wouldn't have choice words for them.

 

[deleted109597]

It's not two wrongs.
Remember, Hillary is on record as saying she wants to ruin the lives of those who were "accusing" her husband. I've yet to hear her call him out publicly for his actual problem, but has no problem yelling at Trump for words. I've also yet to hear her apologize to any of them after she was proven wrong.
Yes, they're disgusting words. But they're also not sticks or stones. Let's keep a clear perspective.
Actions speak louder than words.

Trump isn't my candidate either, so let's be honest. It's really funny watching people use all the mental gymnastics they can to paint one candidate as the devil and the other as a saint.

 

[WilcoWorld]

It's not two wrongs.
Remember, Hillary is on record as saying she wants to ruin the lives of those who were "accusing" her husband. I've yet to hear her call him out publicly for his actual problem, but has no problem yelling at Trump for words. I've also yet to hear her apologize to any of them after she was proven wrong.
Yes, they're disgusting words. But they're also not sticks or stones. Let's keep a clear perspective.
Actions speak louder than words.

Trump isn't my candidate either, so let's be honest. It's really funny watching people use all the mental gymnastics they can to paint one candidate as the devil and the other as a saint.

Not sure if it's me that you're calling me a gymnast. I would never call HRC a saint.

I felt compelled to comment today, because I think that people who excuse the comment in question by blowing it off as locker room humor are normalizing a deeply concerning behavior that our society should not tolerate. I like some pretty crass jokes, but if one of my buddies said something like that, I'd hope to have the presence of mind to call him out on it.

 

[Perrotfish]

It's not two wrongs.
Remember, Hillary is on record as saying she wants to ruin the lives of those who were "accusing" her husband. I've yet to hear her call him out publicly for his actual problem, but has no problem yelling at Trump for words. I've also yet to hear her apologize to any of them after she was proven wrong.
Yes, they're disgusting words. But they're also not sticks or stones. Let's keep a clear perspective.

His words are a confession of a previous sexual assault. He is saying that he repeatedly groped an unwilling, married woman and strongly implied that he did it several other times with other women. That's why these words are causing Republicans to revoke their endorsements while his previous words (calling women pigs and dogs) didn't. The crudeness of it doesn't help, but the key thing is that he is now admitting that he not only thinks its fine to just grab unwilling women, but that he's actually done it in the (recent) past. This is really,really bad.

 

[jl lin]

Care to double down on the anti-women being "hyperbole" after listening to the tape that just came out?

The funny thing is that I agree Clinton is corrupt, a liar and broke laws.

However, Trump is so odious, bigoted, arrogant and unhinged that I'm still going to vote for her.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Trump's alpha male image is nothing new. If I had a dollar for every male, even some females, that have acted sexually boorish w/ me, the straight-laced Christian girl and woman, I'd be pretty darn rich right now. People do this. Bill Clinton acted on it. Hillary defended him and ran down the woman he took advantage of and more, and sought to destroy these women, KNOWING THE TRUTH re: Bill.

This is a huge political game. We will see how he fairs, but last I checked, I haven't seen where Jesus or anyone equivalent with him has ever run for political office. Most know of the pressure among other guys to talk this kind of crap. Shoot, I have even seen it, repeatedly, over the years here on SDN. People can even be raised a certain way, and amongst the boys and such, they smile and comment and go along with this kind of male, boorish behavior. Decades ago, even many women to brag about this kind of stuff re: their sexual exploits; but today, women and equality, they brag about who the banged and how they banged them, etc. The tables have turned, and though it isn't as widespread in talk w/ women, women do this now more than ever--especially w/ small groups or friends here and there. Men are just apt or pressured to be more braggadocios about such things. How many men really would like to have been recorded for such statements? LOL, no. They wouldn't.

Trump never painted himself as some saint. Not once. People have known this since. This is a political war and bombs will go off, but hopefully there are enough people to see past this nonsense and look at the alternative, which undermines our freedoms across the board and her continuous stream of political corruption over decades--and just as bad, her globalist attack on American freedom.

The established Repubs calling for him to step out of the race know that that is not going to happen. Ballots have been cast. They are just politically trying to cover their own butts, and there are too many of these Repubs who are globalists themselves, so, I expect nothing different from them.

At this point, I smile at anyone that says they KNOW for sure how this election is going to go.

I am hoping people see her infantry greater evils and egregious acts, and what she represents. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. That's really the best that we can do at this point.

It's a lot of noise. Pay more attention to the weather channel. MSM is shameful in how their downplay her terrible antics, but they don't care. They are in bed w/ the globalists, and they have proven their bias for such a long time now, sadly we can expect nothing balanced from them.

 

[jl lin]

I do not hold women responsible for their husband's sexual indiscresions.

But Hillary Clinton did, and she then ran them down and did evil things to shut them up and oppress them further for political expediency.

Such a great world of hypocrisy. Never underestimate the extend of corruption in D.C. Never underestimate how far they will go.

 

[jw3600]

So, you're ok with the wife of the man who used his status to actually commit sexual assault? Just so we are clear here.

Are you talking about Monica or is there some other topic you're alluding to?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Don't worry; no one is taking your guns away. I think, GeneralVeers, when saying that he was "preparing" for a Clinton win, meant that he was preparing financially, as he may rightly believe that he would be taxed more. I do not think he was "preparing" in the sense of loading up on guns. LOL.

well, if there were one group that benefits from this it's definitely gun and ammo manufacterer's. the paranoia that guns will be taken away will only add to sales lol

No, they are not taking away the guns yet, because we aren't quite to that point (yet). But the Democratic party hasn't met a restrictive gun bill yet that they don't like.

Check out the latest Wikileaks email dump where Hillary's staff is talking about her desire to hold gun manufacturer's liable. The president could pursue this simply by directing the DOJ to sue any manufacturer whose guns hurt someone (ie: no input from congress needed).

Look at the restrictive gun laws in areas where the Democrats are in charge.

Don't think they are coming for our guns? Look at Connecticut (a Democratic haven), and how their laws authorized LEOs to seize certain registered weapons that were suddenly declared illegal.

To say that the Democrat Party doesn't want to take away guns is as ridiculous as as saying the Republican Party doesn't want to take away abortion rights.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I know trump is a mean person who says terrible things. Anyone who previously supported him and is surprised about this "revelation" is stupid.

The next debate should be very interesting. With nothing to lose he can go full Trump on Hillary. He needs to hammer her over and over in the strongest possible language regarding her alleged criminal activities, her Wall Street speeches, and her enabling of Bill's own sexual assaults.

 

[enalli]

I certainly don't blame them for saying those terrible things.

But reflect back on the primaries. NBC and the other mainstream media fell over themselves as they fawned over "The Donald", giving him enormous amount of free positive publicity. They did that while sitting on this audio. Why do you think they did that? Because the polls showed Hillary would lose BIG to most of the other (much better qualified) republican candidates.

They built Trump up and tore the other Repub candidates down during the primaries, knowing he was a terrible candidate. Now they are doing everything they can to tear HIM down. Of course, he gives them plenty of ammunition.

It's all a moot point now, get used to saying Madam President, single payer health care, restrictions on guns and ammunition, and 2-4 supreme court justices that will absolutely shred the constitution.

We're screwed.

Are you serious right now? Did we watch the same primaries? You seriously need to stop drinking the conspiracy kool-aid.

At no point did the non-right-wing media build up Trump. At no point did they give him "free positive publicity." They repeatedly hammered him for his many flaws and hateful statements. The big story with Trump is that he managed to do well despite all that negative coverage--he has been the only politician for whom "any publicity is good publicity" held true.

And now you are trying to claim that the collective media conspiracy "sat" on this audio?

Get a grip on reality. Not everything is a conspiracy against you.

 

[xaelia]

With nothing to lose he can go full Trump on Hillary.

... for entertainment value? Or because you think that's the most effective way for him to close his current polling deficiencies with undecided voters and women?

 

[enalli]

I've been preparing for a Hillary win for 4 years anyway. Romney's "47%" comment has a certain truth to it. The Democrats have a baked-in plurality of the vote. Combined with superior turnout operations make it unlikely for any Republican to ever overcome.

Care to guess which states are most dependent on federal aid, blue states or red states?

 

[GeneralVeers]

Care to guess which states are most dependent on federal aid, blue states or red states?

I don't care. I only care about my bottom line.

 

[GeneralVeers]

... for entertainment value? Or because you think that's the most effective way for him to close his current polling deficiencies with undecided voters and women?

Both. He needs to start off the first thing in the debate by apologizing for the statements, and saying he has become a better person. When Hillary brings it up again he needs to just state the he's already apologized and move on. He then needs to hammer her with the harshest possible language on her many, many flaws. At this point bringing up Bill raping women, and Hillary intimidating those women is fair game, and he should go after it 100% by returning again and again to it.

 

[xaelia]

At this point bringing up Bill raping women, and Hillary intimidating those women is fair game, and he should go after it 100% by returning again and again to it.

I don't think attacking HRC for Bill's actions is a winning play – that's like attacking Melania for Trump's words and actions. Sounds good from that right-wing blogger point of view, but it's unfair and probably viewed as such by most independents and women.

It is reasonable to attack HRC for her actions er: shaming and suppressing those who alleged Bill's assaults. However, it could also backfire – remember, HRC is also a victim in that story, and she can one-up Trump by taking us all to the dark place someone ends up when their marriage to someone they love is scandalized in the open on the largest stage in the world.

And, regardless, successful execution depends on a capably contrite speaker and persona – something we haven't seen from non-teleprompter Trump in awhile.

It will be, again, must-watch TV!

 

[Arcan57]

I don't care. I only care about my bottom line.

Which is why your opinion, while interesting in its contrast to most people's, doesn't generalize well. I think most people would look at going to war as worse than a minimal raise in taxes and most people would prefer not to be led by a rapist.

At some point, you have to recognize that being the richest man in the apocalypse (which you wouldn't be since doctors don't make FU money) still leads to a lower quality of life than a society that is still actively trying to integrate together and improve the collective lives of its members.

 

[theBriefing]

To say that the Democrat Party doesn't want to take away guns is as ridiculous as as saying the Republican Party doesn't want to take away abortion rights.

In this administration's eight years of control, there have been two principal thrusts regarding gun reform: 1) To increase background check measures 2) To add restrictions on assault-like weapons. I do not know of anyone that is unreasonable enough to contest the rationality of the first push; However, I know there are many simpletons that contest such a reform. As for the second pressure, it is all a matter of perspective: the reasoning behind restrictions on assault-like weapons is identical to the logic for which it is unlawful for someone to buy a tank or an F16 aircraft. My point is: restrictions, yes, but "taking them away", never.