HanoiVillan Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: Losing Ohio where it was winner takes all might have just stopped Trump winning the republican nomination outright according to some reports ? I doubt it personally. Nearly 70% of the remaining delegates are awarded in winner-take-all contests: for as long as Trump has more than one competitor, he's likely to win a plurality of the vote in most states. Those states most favourable for Cruz have already voted, and Kasich, having finally won the only state he appeared to actually be competing in, has no field offices to speak of anywhere else and owing to an administrative error, looks like he might not make the ballot in Pennsylvania, which is one of the few states he could hope to compete in. I now think Trump will win a majority of delegates (although probably not by much) and a contested convention is unlikely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Trump fires an opening salvo at Hillary, 1-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 lol Although, does he really want to get into a battle of embarrassing soundbites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 8 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: lol Although, does he really want to get into a battle of embarrassing soundbites? Donald Trump has listened to your concerns, but would like to let you know that he knows you are but what is he. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 The political scene in Brazil is getting seriously sleazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 The gif that accompanies this thread on Tapatalk is absolutely tremendous!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 17, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2016 On 15/03/2016 at 21:47, OutByEaster? said: with Trump, if he gets in it'll be a deliberate choice. I appreciate that they want someone different to the last bunch of liars and crooks, but I'd have hope they'd have aimed for "better", it's all well and good being sick of these lying assholes, but going out and picking one that can't be bothered to lie isn't really an improvement. I think you seriously do Trump a disfavour. He most certainly can be bothered to lie. He's probably the most dedicated and diligent at lying of all of them. I'd go so far as to say the man's an utter fraud, such is his mendacity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 These Clinton emails are startingto drip through now ..... One that is quite staggering ( though not directly related to Clinton other than she was the recipient ) is Google offering to produce a tool to help the uprising against Assad in Syria so so there you have it ISIS is all googles fault ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Georgia passed a law meaning people can refuse to serve gay people due to religious beliefs Land of the free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC Speech Was a Symphony of Craven, Delusional Pandering http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/hillary_clinton_s_aipac_speech_was_a_symphony_of_craven_delusional_pandering.html Pretty devastating article. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Shit like that is why Trump has a chance against her. Hilary is the establishment. A strong populist campaign would tear her (and BIll) to shreds. Fortunately, in the end it may turn out that people's dislike for Trump...er... trumps their dislike for Hilary, but that is hardly the most encouraging way to get the presidency. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 26, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) Talking of establishment views, Trump has revealed some of his foreign policy ideas - he's revealed them to the people that matter on US policy - the Israelis. They feature a policy advisory group made up of military men and oil execs, threats to the Chinese and the idea that the UN (where motions are regularly tabled with 170 odd countries voting in favour and the US, Israel and a random US pacific island voting against - with the US being the only vote that counts) is undemocratic and not a friend of the US - it's either one thing or the other surely - if it stays undemocratic, it's a friend to the US? And finally, he talked about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. So, he's positive force for change in the world then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35867961 Quote The men (and they're all men) who have Mr Trump's ear on foreign policy matters are a motley collection that includes an energy industry executive, a ex-adviser to Ben Carson only seven years removed from college, a retired general, an academic with ties to Lebanese Christian militants and a former defence department official who later worked for a military contractor Seems legit. Quote "Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in Nato, and yet we are doing all of the lifting, they're not doing anything," he said. And I say, why is it that Germany is not dealing with Nato on Ukraine? You organised the coup, you've got the biggest mobilisation of troops assembled since World War II on Russia's border, you pay for it! Quote South Korea is very rich," he said. "Great industrial country. And yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do. We're constantly, you know, sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games. We're reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing." Maybe, you know....stop sending them? No one but you wants them there. Quote When told that South Korea pays roughly half of non-personnel costs, Mr Trump wondered why it wasn't 100%. You boy - gimme your dinner money! Quote He has since threatened the nation with a 45% tax on some imports to gain the upper hand in negotiations. In November he set out a four-part trade policy with China that included labelling the nation as a currency manipulator, more vigorously enforcing international patent law and ending China's "illegal export subsidies". What could possibly go wrong? Quote "I would put tremendous pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops, and I'd give them tremendous air support, because we have to get rid of Isis," he said. During his Washington Post interview, Mr Trump was pressed on whether he would match his bellicose rhetoric directed against the so-called Islamic State (IS or Isis)) with a commitment of US ground troops. Dead people - hell yes! Dead Muricans? Nah. Quote "The United Nations is not a friend of democracy," he said. "It's not a friend to freedom. It's not a friend even to the United States of America, where as we all know, it has its home. And it surely isn't a friend to Israel." Finally, Mr Trump pledged to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem - a move that is endorsed by many Republicans but would anger US Arab allies. Happy Easter! *bleedin quote boxes. Edited March 26, 2016 by blandy Sigh. Clumptitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 26, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 26, 2016 Apologies for the terrible quoting on that. I hope it makes enough sense to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Boys, for the first time in 17.5 years of living here, i have a vote..... I care about a lot of things, but honestly, one of the biggest things i care about is 2A....the other massive thing i care about is not having a complete numpty in charge. seems like im in a lose/lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted March 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26, 2016 16 minutes ago, Dom_Wren said: Boys, for the first time in 17.5 years of living here, i have a vote..... I care about a lot of things, but honestly, one of the biggest things i care about is 2A....the other massive thing i care about is not having a complete numpty in charge. seems like im in a lose/lose. Hey Dom - I moved here exactly 17 1/2 years too (from Stourbridge) and having just got my citizenship I can vote for the 1st time in a Federal this year. You're absolutely in a lose/lose if the GOP don't block Trump for the nomination but we're still not there. Yet........ I've always seen the 2A as an idealistic clause rather than how it exists today. But I've never been able to reconcile that the majority of people who vote for a really strong US military also desperately want 'the right' to overthrow that military if the government gets out of hand. Even the most well armed militia in Vermont/Montana is never going to outfight the US armed forces even if it did have a good reason. So why do they vote to arm something that they reserve the right to try and beat /destroy?!? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 thanks geez, and i agree with alot of what your saying, but to me, a rookie, but still a voting member of the us population, if i care about the 2A and all it entails, then voting against HC is my only choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 26, 2016 Author Share Posted March 26, 2016 14 minutes ago, Dom_Wren said: thanks geez, and i agree with alot of what your saying, but to me, a rookie, but still a voting member of the us population, if i care about the 2A and all it entails, then voting against HC is my only choice? Hillary won't fight the NRA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted March 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, Dom_Wren said: thanks geez, and i agree with alot of what your saying, but to me, a rookie, but still a voting member of the us population, if i care about the 2A and all it entails, then voting against HC is my only choice? Well unfortunately that is the problem with party politics and with divisive issues such as gun control (and abortion, but lets leave that one alone for now.) 2A was written for another time but that doesn't mean I'm dismissing it's merit. For example, in Saudi Arabia you cannot criticize the government. You cannot write on an internet forum, on a blog, on twitter, or publish a piece of paper that says you don't agree with the government on an issue. Bad things happen if you do. But here in the US we are guaranteed protection by the constitution if we chose to do any of the things I mentioned. Even more than that, we are encouraged as citizens to be involved in politics and involved in political discourse by joining a party or writing to newspapers with our views (amongst other things.) 2A states that if we, the people (and admittedly it would take an awful lot of us at this point) agree that the government is really doing a bad job, we can take weapons and overthrow them and replace them. It's a very empowering statement and 2A is an important piece of legislation. In my earlier post I talked about how 2A "exists today" and I believe it's been bastardized. There are many examples of this: but one of the most recent is 2012 in Sandy Hook. A mentally ill person killed 20 children who were ages 6 & 7. He also killed 6 adults (teachers), his mother, and himself. The NRA, the main defender of 2A and unelected spokesperson for the amendment, stated that the death toll would be lower if the staff and administration had been armed with even more weapons. Their statement wasn't defending 2A or rooted in a philosophy for the betterment of all fellow man. It defended the position of arms manufacturers and the wish that they continue to make profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts