Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)

• rocketalum

  Or close Gitmo. I think that's been promised upwards of a dozen times now between state of the unions and re-election campaign trail.
• bases_loaded

  

  The only thing better than false promises on the campaign trail is changing dialects. Not sure if her current health condition allows for anything past robot; but Hillary was the best at it.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1816681 wrote:Ultimately, this really shouldn't come as a surprise. It was a promise on a campaign trail. How many campaign promises end up being kept?
  
  Remember Obama saying the very first thing he'd do would be to end the wars and bring the troops home?
  
  LOL

  I was pretty skeptical when he said $1B but I at least thought he would pour some heavy cash in(maybe $100M). The only money he's put in his campaign is "on loan" which he will probably write off, claim a loss, and then pay nothing in taxes.
  
  Classic Trump.
• sleeper

  

  bases_loaded;1816684 wrote:The only thing better than false promises on the campaign trail is changing dialects. Not sure if her current health condition allows for anything past robot; but Hillary was the best at it.

  You might as well address her as President Clinton because Trump is about to get dumpstered.
• bases_loaded

  

  sleeper;1816688 wrote:I was pretty skeptical when he said $1B but I at least thought he would pour some heavy cash in(maybe $100M). The only money he's put in his campaign is "on loan" which he will probably write off, claim a loss, and then pay nothing in taxes.
  
  Classic Trump.

  Anytime you loan yourself money in a political campaign you try to pay yourself back with campaign funds. Local politicians have to do this especially early in campaigns. Career politicians haven't used a dime of their own money for anything for years.
  
  His quote about 1BN was about him being willing to throw that money into his campaign and other RNC campaigns, but after their fuckery I would hope he doesn't give them any money.
• QuakerOats

  bases_loaded;1816684 wrote:The only thing better than false promises on the campaign trail is changing dialects. Not sure if her current health condition allows for anything past robot; but Hillary was the best at it.

  obama is heavy into the jive talking bullshit right now .......................what a phony
• O-Trap

  

  rocketalum;1816682 wrote:Or close Gitmo. I think that's been promised upwards of a dozen times now between state of the unions and re-election campaign trail.

  Another perfect example.
  
  Campaign promises are like a box of chocolates. By the time they're given, they're mostly empty.
  

  sleeper;1816688 wrote:I was pretty skeptical when he said $1B but I at least thought he would pour some heavy cash in(maybe $100M). The only money he's put in his campaign is "on loan" which he will probably write off, claim a loss, and then pay nothing in taxes.
  
  Classic Trump.

  Bingo. It was a campaign tactic to make him look invested in the election. In the end, he'll break even. Some he'll get back in campaign donations. The rest he'll find a way to write off.
  
  I read a great article about this "business man" from Breitbart, of all places. Of course, it was written before they hopped in bed for this quicky:
  
  Real Conservatives Stand for Private Property
  

  bases_loaded;1816693 wrote:Anytime you loan yourself money in a political campaign you try to pay yourself back with campaign funds. Local politicians have to do this especially early in campaigns. Career politicians haven't used a dime of their own money for anything for years.
  
  His quote about 1BN was about him being willing to throw that money into his campaign and other RNC campaigns, but after their fuckery I would hope he doesn't give them any money.

  Either way, he hasn't thrown much of anything into his own.
  
  I would hope that, if the RNC has any shred of integrity left, they wouldn't accept money from him at this point.
  

  QuakerOats;1816702 wrote:obama is heavy into the jive talking bullshit right now .......................what a phony

  Heavy into the jive talking bullshit? I don't even know what that means.
• sleeper

  

  bases_loaded;1816693 wrote:Anytime you loan yourself money in a political campaign you try to pay yourself back with campaign funds. Local politicians have to do this especially early in campaigns. Career politicians haven't used a dime of their own money for anything for years.
  
  His quote about 1BN was about him being willing to throw that money into his campaign and other RNC campaigns, but after their fuckery I would hope he doesn't give them any money.

  So he lied.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1816672 wrote:The electricity generation moving from coal to nat gas was forced by regulation. While nat gas prices have been low in recent years, largely due to output from fracking plays, it is not the primary reason. Further, the low prices will not last much longer once demand from nat gas power plants heats up, and especially when Hillary and federal EPA ban fracking. Electricity prices for consumers will skyrocket, and it will hurt seniors and those on fixed incomes the most. It will be just another disaster just like obamakare. I buy enormous amounts of nat gas, corporately; I know of what I speak.

  We own and run coal mines, so I can play the "I know of what I speak" card too. The macro trend in coal is a move toward gas due to much, much lower prices. Regulation is more expensive with coal too since it is high polluting in comparison to gas. But market forces are the primary driver. Again, the demise of coal started long before Obama came on the scene. Spend some time inside and around a coal mine and you may feel differently about moving away from it as our primary energy source.
• thavoice

  sleeper;1816679 wrote:I've seen little out of the Trump camp to suggest he even has a somewhat competent campaign team. I'll give him some credit though; he's doing 'okay' in the polls despite spending basically nothing. A far cry from an earlier version of Trump that claimed he would spend up to $1B of his own money to win the election.

  Honestly, I believe him doing "okay" in the polls is because there is a base that will support their party ticket no matter what.
  I dont believe he truly wants to win the election. He would have to so drastically change his lifestyle to what he has been accustomed to. I believe he got into the race as something to do and didnt think he would actually win the nomination and now that he did he is likw 'whoa, what the fuck am I doing...'.
• O-Trap

  

  thavoice;1816768 wrote:... he is like 'whoa, what the fuck am I doing...'.

  Donald Trump and I are both thinking this, it seems.
  
  "Whoa, what the fuck is he doing?"
• O-Trap

  

  For the Trump supporters who might have missed it in my post earlier, this is worth a read.
  
  And don't worry; it's on Breitbart, though it's from before Trump hired Bannon.
  
  Real Conservatives Stand For Private Property
  

  Where was Donald Trump during this debate [over the Kelo decision]? He was busy using eminent domain to take a little old lady’s home and flatten it for a parking lot to park limos at his casino.
  
  When asked about the justice of using this bully force against property owners, Trump replied that he had no problem with it and that he supported the Kelo decision.
  
  Of course Trump did—the Kelo decision allows more crony capitalism. It puts big business and big government more and more in bed together, with ordinary Americans left out.

  The amazing businessman, ladies and gentlemen ...
• QuakerOats

  "We’ve been bussing people in to deal with you f***in’ assholes [Republicans] for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way to do it,” Democratic operative Scott Foval is caught admitting in the latest Project Veritas video.
  
  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/10/18/second-veritas-video-dnc-operatives-admit-theyve-rigged-elections-for-half-a-century-n2234110
  
  
  The O'keefe sting videos are amazingly revealing. Trump right again.
• QuakerOats

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1816734 wrote:We own and run coal mines, so I can play the "I know of what I speak" card too. The macro trend in coal is a move toward gas due to much, much lower prices. Regulation is more expensive with coal too since it is high polluting in comparison to gas. But market forces are the primary driver. Again, the demise of coal started long before Obama came on the scene. Spend some time inside and around a coal mine and you may feel differently about moving away from it as our primary energy source.

  When nat gas has a 2 handle it may be less expensive, but such historical lows the last few years are now starting to trend the other way. I think over $3.75dth and nat gas becomes not competitive, and Nymex is already getting back in that range. What will ultimately be crippling is the regulatory forces that will take coal plants off-line, and when nat gas prices normalize in the $4-$7 range there will be little alternatives and electric prices will skyrocket, hurting the most vulnerable among us, and once again destabilizing American industrial competitiveness. And when we get future shocks to the market and have price spikes up to $14, well, most of us will be shaking our head at that disaster, all brought to us by asinine liberal policies (yet again).
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1816892 wrote:When nat gas has a 2 handle it may be less expensive, but such historical lows the last few years are now starting to trend the other way. I think over $3.75dth and nat gas becomes not competitive, and Nymex is already getting back in that range. What will ultimately be crippling is the regulatory forces that will take coal plants off-line, and when nat gas prices normalize in the $4-$7 range there will be little alternatives and electric prices will skyrocket, hurting the most vulnerable among us, and once again destabilizing American industrial competitiveness. And when we get future shocks to the market and have price spikes up to $14, well, most of us will be shaking our head at that disaster, all brought to us by asinine liberal policies (yet again).

  An interesting prediction that I don't believe will come to pass remotely. I think you give "liberals' Much more credit than they deserve.
• QuakerOats

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1816912 wrote:An interesting prediction that I don't believe will come to pass remotely. I think you give "liberals' Much more credit than they deserve.

  Gotcha; I was just having a nightmare when obama said he would bankrupt coal companies and Hillary said she would put miners out of work.
  
  Liberals are most dangerous when they can circumvent our elected representatives and have their federal agencies assault Americans and American businesses by using their preferred weapons of choice to fire the bullets for them, be it EPA, IRS, OSHA, MSHA, DOL, etc..etc...
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1816913 wrote:Gotcha; I was just having a nightmare when obama said he would bankrupt coal companies and Hillary said she would put miners out of work.
  
  Liberals are most dangerous when they can circumvent our elected representatives and have their federal agencies assault Americans and American businesses by using their preferred weapons of choice to fire the bullets for them, be it EPA, IRS, OSHA, MSHA, DOL, etc..etc...

  I just think you could benefit from not having such a black and white view of everything. You seem to think everything that happens in this world has some sort of tie to politics, and if it's a bad thing, the "liberals" have caused it. Come on man. You know the world is so much more nuanced and gray than that. Don't fall for the 24 hour news cycled and talking shows feeding out tiny talking point nuggets to be used as a way to defend your identity. Open your eyes and see that there is a lot to explore. Obama probably does over regulate, but coal is going out either way; it's an archaic way of fulfilling our energy needs. But just the same, Bush's tax breaks provided no overall good. He didn't cause the recession though. Macro trends in our world drive those things. Presidents at best can help manipulate our country's reaction to them. But their impact is limited in most ways.
• QuakerOats

  There has never been more (massively onerous) regulations thrust upon business than in the last 8 years. There are bonafide radicals now leading these agencies and they have carte blanche in making rules that suit their agenda; to hell with the repercussions for small business. I wish I was in a nightmare; unfortunately it is reality, yet it doesn't have to be this way. We can do so much better. Good luck.
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1816224 wrote:I have a larger question for those few Trump supporters on here. As Trump is expected to lose (he has about a 15% chance of winning), will his supporters and him accept the outcome? Are you guys going to say ok, like in 2008 and 2012, our guy lost, accept it, or are you going to fight the result due to the system being rigged, whatever the fuck that means?

  
  So now we have video proof of elections being rigged (as if most of us needed it), and yet we have liberals asking us (republicans) if we will accept the outcome of the election. Unparalleled audacity. "We rig elections, and by the way, will you accept the results" ............amazingly hilarious.
  
  
  So, I have a larger question, for all Americans and all voters on here. Will all of us, no matter which side we are on, be willing to accept any amount of vote fraud and the results generated therefrom?
• O-Trap

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1816921 wrote:I just think you could benefit from not having such a black and white view of everything. You seem to think everything that happens in this world has some sort of tie to politics, and if it's a bad thing, the "liberals" have caused it. Come on man. You know the world is so much more nuanced and gray than that. Don't fall for the 24 hour news cycled and talking shows feeding out tiny talking point nuggets to be used as a way to defend your identity. Open your eyes and see that there is a lot to explore. Obama probably does over regulate, but coal is going out either way; it's an archaic way of fulfilling our energy needs. But just the same, Bush's tax breaks provided no overall good. He didn't cause the recession though. Macro trends in our world drive those things. Presidents at best can help manipulate our country's reaction to them. But their impact is limited in most ways.

  QuakerOats;1816929 wrote:There has never been more (massively onerous) regulations thrust upon business than in the last 8 years. There are bonafide radicals now leading these agencies and they have carte blanche in making rules that suit their agenda; to hell with the repercussions for small business. I wish I was in a nightmare; unfortunately it is reality, yet it doesn't have to be this way. We can do so much better. Good luck.

  Just wanted to highlight this exchange.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1816934 wrote:So now we have video proof of elections being rigged (as if most of us needed it), and yet we have liberals asking us (republicans) if we will accept the outcome of the election. Unparalleled audacity. "We rig elections, and by the way, will you accept the results" ............amazingly hilarious.
  
  
  So, I have a larger question, for all Americans and all voters on here. Will all of us, no matter which side we are on, be willing to accept any amount of vote fraud and the results generated therefrom?

  Are you fucking kidding me?
  Post your fucking evidence. Show me elections being rigged and exactly how it impacted. Show me an official source where the Government said fraud changed and impacted an election. Don't post your fucking right wing bullshit sites. Post actual fucking numbers and evidence to back up your bullshit claims. Otherwise, shut the fuck up on this topic. It is insane and just makes you sound like a complete idiot.
  
  Even Kasich is not with your dumbass logic. "“Look, to say that elections are rigged and all these votes are stolen – that’s like saying we never landed on the moon, frankly,” Kasich told “CBS This Morning.” “That’s how silly it is.”
  http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/10/19/john-kasich-slams-donald-trump-rigged-election-talk/92403490/
  
  Post your evidence from legit, official sources. Otherwise, you are just spewing absolute bullshit like normal.
• sleeper

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1816937 wrote:Are you fucking kidding me?
  Post your fucking evidence. Show me elections being rigged and exactly how it impacted. Show me an official source where the Government said fraud changed and impacted an election. Don't post your fucking right wing bullshit sites. Post actual fucking numbers and evidence to back up your bullshit claims. Otherwise, shut the fuck up on this topic. It is insane and just makes you sound like a complete idiot.
  
  Even Kasich is not with your dumbass logic. "“Look, to say that elections are rigged and all these votes are stolen – that’s like saying we never landed on the moon, frankly,” Kasich told “CBS This Morning.” “That’s how silly it is.”
  http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/10/19/john-kasich-slams-donald-trump-rigged-election-talk/92403490/
  
  Post your evidence from legit, official sources. Otherwise, you are just spewing absolute bullshit like normal.

  Brutal. Savage. Rekt.
• rocketalum

  From the Republican election commissioner in one of the cities Trump loves to cite as a hotbed of voter fraud, Philadelphia. This entire "rigged" rhetoric smells of Trump grasping at straws as the reality of his defeat must be starting to settle in.
  
  Voter fraud “does occur,” said Mr. Schmidt, the Republican election commissioner in Philadelphia, who issued a report in 2012 that found a handful of irregularities.
  “But what Trump’s talking about is widespread, coordinated efforts to alter the outcome of the election, and that I’ve just simply never seen. It would be very easy to find because it would involve a conspiracy of dozens if not hundreds of people.”
  
  From the same article
  
  The type of in-person voter fraud Mr. Trump is warning about is extremely rare; one study by Loyola Law School found 31 known cases out of a billion votes cast in United States elections from 2000 to 2014. Moreover, the ability to commit fraud on a scale vast enough to swing a statewide election would require the coordination of scores of people, a possibility widely dismissed by experts.
• rocketalum

  From the same article
  
  The type of in-person voter fraud Mr. Trump is warning about is extremely rare; one study by Loyola Law School found 31 known cases out of a billion votes cast in United States elections from 2000 to 2014. Moreover, the ability to commit fraud on a scale vast enough to swing a statewide election would require the coordination of scores of people, a possibility widely dismissed by experts.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1816934 wrote:So now we have video proof of elections being rigged (as if most of us needed it), and yet we have liberals asking us (republicans) if we will accept the outcome of the election. Unparalleled audacity. "We rig elections, and by the way, will you accept the results" ............amazingly hilarious.
  
  
  So, I have a larger question, for all Americans and all voters on here. Will all of us, no matter which side we are on, be willing to accept any amount of vote fraud and the results generated therefrom?

  You are so easily led. Whatever topic right wing radio/tv brings up on any particular day, we can count on you deciding it is an issue within 24 hours. Today it is voter fraud just because Trump has introduced it into the dialogue (with no basis in truth mind you). Any guesses on what your marching orders will be tomrrow?
  
  Maybe:
  - Common Core being serving to indoctrinate our children into the homosexual communist lifestyle
  - Gun grabbers
  - UN/New World Order
  - War on Christianity
  - Sharia law in our courtrooms
  
  I see you fell for the "Obama eliminates the pledge of allegiance" one, so I suppose any are reasonable.