BIll Clinton did coke ? Hmmmm. Big surprise. Maybe that's why he and GWB are such good buddies ?
The big question about this newsflash, as well as the sexual harassment allegations against Trump is, which side do they come from ? Relative to votes, how do we know whether these things are positives or negatives ?
I mean if Trump being a dishonest, narcissistic, hate mongering sociopath is a positive to a large percentage of the population, it's not hard to imagine that being a "player" to the extreme of occasional assault might not be seen as, if anything, a positive ?
Humans (especially the lower half of the intelligence distribution) are hard to figure these days with regard to what they actually respect in a person. And apparently, the promoters have figured a lot of this stuff out.
it's trendy in recent years in this age of emails, text messaging and forums to not capitalize any letters. i for one don't practice this often, although i must admit that i find using the lower case i in reference to oneself as sometimes kind of interesting, i guess depending on the context, likewise for ending a letter or note with
(rather than the capital Love)
it's permissible to get creative in these ways and in my opinion not a mortal sin. i can not believe the ineffable one is that easily offended
To what do you refer ? Tubman on the 20 ? Marijuana legal in a couple states ? Gay Marriage ? He didn't achieve a progressive agenda. He just dialed back the heavy slide to the right, ever so slightly.
THe Koch brothers are evil. But they aren't evil enough to support Trump.
Allow me to break this down for you. The fact that the evil Koch brothers may think Hillary would be better for the country than Trump, in terms of risk aversion alone, is not proof that Hillary is worse than Trump.
Put that 150 to work for a minute and see if you can't grok this.
Btw, I know that at one time the Koch brothers said they prefer Hillary. I don't know if that's even still true. Doubtful really, based on her view on climate change versus Trumps, and also Trumps VP choice.
Interesting take on things. If true, I would think we would see a change in messaging at fox regarding race. It's kind of late in the game for that.
Well I guess it's kind of a lose lose for the corporotacracy/plutocrats. They need them to win elections, but they're making the party unrecognizable to the old school business conservatives. They lose without them, but with them too, at least this time.
This is the real reason Roger Ailles had to step down from Fox news. The stories about sexual harassment were just a false flag of sorts (even if true). The plutocrats aren't going to come out and say that they're upset about the direction the party has taken because of decades of Fox catering to the alt right haters. Besides, they also distract from the less voluminous sexual harassment cases that have come up about Trump.
AS expected. Okay don't listen to me. Go back to your cherry picking. We both know Trumps absolute peak may be happening right now on the heels of the RNC. So you should find the best polls you can right now and savor them, you know, just in case it's all down hill from here.
You should be celebrating that he (or they) has it down to only 58.3% chance that Hillary wins, and the dust hasn't settled from the RNC yet. These are probabilities, not poll numbers. A 58.3% probability of winning reflects a spread of only a couple points in the average polls.
If and when they have Trump ahead, you can imagine me being very disturbed.
I'm waiting a few days to see where it settles. I'm not going to cherry pick right now (like you guys). But real politics still has the average of all the polls with Hillary ahead. This is good, but considering what a clown Trump is I'm not happy to see him even close.
Marcus, you showed a motive. You still have to prove the crime
I don't claim proof nor am I saying that I know what happened. What I'm saying is that if anyone hired thugs to infiltrate the protesters and to intentionally instigate violence on their behalf, it would have been Trump. Yes, because of obvious motives on his side - it makes the protesters look bad.
I acknowledge that protesters were at Trumps rallies, and it seems that at least one person in the DNC encouraged that. I have no problem with that. Although not all that wise. A lot of people , including myself are deeply frightened and disturbed by the prospect of a Trump presidency. ( I would not choose his rallies as a place to protest him - although the University one made sense, since it's right there on the campus)
Trump was in charge of logistics at his rallies where the protesters would be cordoned off etc. It would be very easy for him to cause some controlled drama with a little violence towards his own goals of getting free media attention for his rallies and making "liberals" look bad.
And BTW I consider every Obamacare argument you and I ever had as won as well.
You're changing the subject, and I was right. It was a step in the right direction. Please explain to people with "preexisting conditions" (i.e. people with diseases or serious health care issues that need treatment but can't couldn't get insurance before the ACA) how terrible the A.C.A. is.
But the DNC did what they could (as indicated in the emails) to increase the likelihood of it occurring... and then delighted in the outcome
"Delighted in the outcome ?" Once it was violent, it was a bad outcome. Because people saw and reported violence being instigated by anti-Trump protesters. This causes guilt by association to all those who are anti-Trump. You're right I don't have proof. But where's your proof that violence was a goal of those wanting protesters there ?
Can anyone be so stupid that they think any democrat would think violence caused by anti-Trump protesters is good for democrats ? ( Or that it's not good for Trump). Anyone besides TPB that is ?
Please think about this. And then point me to the evidence that democrat caused or "delighted in" violence at the rallies.