|
JohnCompany posted:That last bit being the problem. You can hope, but the last epidemic the mortality rate was still over 35%. I'm more worried that so many people are going to consider Trump done that they don't bother to vote and he gets elected by his remaining base.
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
After tonight Clinton may have to actually legally and correctly change her name to Killary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
trash person posted:I have never been more convinced Trump was a Democratic plant That will at least be his story if he's still alive in a few years.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Boon posted:Ask yourself if that's logical and why you might feel that way. I don't think that's going to help the hesitant voter in this case. Also I came to the realization tonight (though always kind of knew), and not a particularly happy one, that much as I love the guy, if Bernie had won the primary we'd be looking at a Trump presidency. He wouldn't have been able to get under Trump's skin or crush him in the debates, and I think far less of Trump's deplorable poo poo would have come to light and what did would have been downplayed. It's maddening that the first woman president has to win against certainly the most incompetent person to ever run for the office and among the most heinous to ever run, but if it hadn't been her he would have won. And there is still a part of me that can't let go of worrying that he still might.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Squeegy posted:Are you kidding? Bernie crushed Trump in the polls during the primary and he's a firey orator who zinged Clinton plenty. But I guess if you think Trump still might beat Clinton there's no convincing you otherwise. I don't think all the third party stuff would have come up is more what came to mind. Trump's rampant misogyny wouldn't have been as big of an issue for one, and making the tax thing more of an issue might have backfired and sent more people to the "I'm smart and dodge taxes so I'll give the tax cuts (that you don't benefit from)" guy than the one who says taxes will go up but you're unlikely to pay them guy. Foreign policy was also a huge weakness for Bernie in the primaries and that has been one of the biggest weapons Clinton has had against Trump. Trump also would want someone to try to get heated with him so that he could win by shouting them down with nonsense to "project strength" rather than someone refusing to play his game and giving him the rope to hang himself and his entire party with. Bernie making the primary a hard fight and really pulling the party left before bowing out was the most valuable thing he could have done, and I think he recognizes that. Not to mention the harm the moron Bernie bros could have done. chumbler fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Dogwood Fleet posted:Drinking contest- who would win, Hillary Clinton or Rachel Maddow? I think I gotta go with Maddow on this one, but it would be a fierce battle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:"What kind of look do you want to go for at the final debate, Secretary Clinton?" Notably, the suffragists wore all white and that is not lost on a lot of people. Though to be honest I was thinking more Equilibrium when I saw her outfit. I'll also agree that it's a good thing that she's probably going to help move us past the mandatory American flag pin.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
The sleeves and slits for arms to poke through look a bit silly in the first one, but drat if that second shot ain't killin it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
What male politicians (or really any man of even a slight level of stature) wear might get talked about more if there were anything to talk about. You've got what, tux or not, one of two (now three) potential suit colors, two colors of tie, and flag pin Y/N? Not to excuse the inherent sexism of women of stature being judged on their clothes and appearance, but men's clothing is just too boring to do anything with. If only Obama had worn the golden space emperor cloak.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
SomeMathGuy posted:On November 9th I will probably go to work because it's a Wednesday. On November 9th Clinton will have destroyed all jobs in the US, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:What in the loving christ is wrong with people. Have they lived in a loving alternate reality bubble for 8 years where the GOP hasn't been obstructing everything? But you see, Obamacare was passed, and it shipped in all the Mexicans and terrorists and shipped out your job and also called you a dork. And see? Now its rates are going up because our nightmare health care system wasn't fixed forever because it wasn't allowed to be. So clearly there was no obstruction and the dems got everything they wanted from fuehrer Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It would've been just as bad with Bernie. And I think an argument for her over Bernie is that she is probably better equipped to deal with gridlock than he is. The argument for Hillary over Bernie is that Bernie would be losing to Trump. Neither of the two would be any better at dealing with gridlock. chumbler fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Weren't they at least also charged with destruction of federal property, which they demonstrably did? I didn't follow it too closely because I thought it was an open and shut case, but I guess not!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
On the bright side, this may end in people trying to occupy the capitol or whute house or something to try to take are country back, and I'm sure that will go swimmingly for them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:This is super frustrating. I worry it's only going to empower these militia dildos to do more dumb and terrible poo poo. Let's be honest here, any outcome to this trial would have done that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:An acquittal should have some further backing more than "We felt like being nice today". Playing devil's advocate (as someone with no legal background), any justification they offer would have to be accepted or you're kind of throwing out the importance of the jury, so their justification is irrelevant. If you would argue that the jury must defend their verdict, then that is an unfair burden since the jurors are extremely unlikely to have the legal background to adequately do that in what would be essentially a second trial. Yes this verdict is lovely and bad, but saying fundamental parts of the jury system and presumption of innocence are faulty because of it isn't a good look. If anything the fault here is in jury selection.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
size1one posted:I just looked up the statute. It is always illegal but they weren't charged with simple possession. They were charged with possession in the commission of a crime. The latter is 5 years in jail instead of just 1. Why they weren't charged with both is mind boggling though. It's possible they were worried that a simple possession charge could have turned it into a second amendment battle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:"You don't like how six shitheads voted out of spite to let people on Their Team off scot-free? Well you should never call them out, that's just bad for the justice system. Advocating what is basically jury intimidation probably would not turn out in the way you'd like.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 02:00
|
|
"
|
Nessus posted:So goons posting on the internet is a threat to democracy, but a bunch of militiamen standing outside of the courthouse with guns isn't. Funny how that works out, isn't it. Yeah that's totally what I said and I clearly approve of jury intimidation and did not say exactly the opposite.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Crooked Hillary's dark money, out in the open! And speaking of republicans who will likely go down with the Trump ship, god I hope Giuliani is on the bow. Or the stern. Whichever one sinks first.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
logger posted:I would say that opens the door for President Exxon, but we have had that for decades now. That gives me the worrisome thought of how long until president Elon Musk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:That may disqualify dogs, but not turtles. Also parrots.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:Why didn't Killery say she did? Because to her it was a Tuesday.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Duscat posted:Trump has Russian ties, of course he does, he's done business there for a long time, as he has all over the planet. That's why he needs to release his goddamn tax returns, as well as a far more detailed disclosure of his interests abroad, so we can see where the conflicts of interest lie, and whether they're what goons here apparently like to call "nothingburgers" or whether he is in fact five hundred million deep to a literal Russian mob, or whatever. I mean he'd still get 40% or whatever of the vote even then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
I want the emails to just be "Hey check out this cute cat video" once they are released.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:I hope it's stuff like this: That would indeed by significantly better than my lovely thought.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I'm incredibly impressed with how Clinton's kept her composure this entire time. I'd have broken down long ago. And that's one of the reasons she should be president. Also if her storied dry sense of humor is to be believed, I am ready for how she's going to deal with the rampant obstructionism she's going to receive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Mixodorian posted:You don't need to reflexively defend her, or try to assassinate the character of Jill Stein. Stein and Johnson are only saved from being the biggest idiots in this entire election cycle by the existence of Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 07:58
|
|