The Unknown Poster Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, tacklewasher said: So, people on both sides of the electorate are idiots for listening to these dumbasses. I can get behind that. The odd thing Obama did promise his first time through he didn't follow through on (Gitmo is still open). But we have the same to look forward to up here. We voted in the man-child and now get to see how many of the promises we think he made he will actually keep. Well that's sort of the problem of politics, especially in the US right now. Is that the game is to win, not to campaign on your ideals. Trump's strategy is effective. If he did win the general election, I think you'd see a pretty stark change in how he acted. He's even said as much. I dont think he'd be a very effective President because I think he'd be battled at every turn by Congress and the media. But I dont think he'd do anything overly "crazy". Its such a contrast between Trump and Hilary that it would make for an entertaining campaign if nothing else. I assume Trump would choose a more moderate and experienced running mate to try and blunt some of the criticism. People might have sober second thoughts when it comes down to actually voting for him. Clinton needs a good running mate too...she's getting up there in age. If it's Trump/Palin though...ugh Im surprised to see JT label the bombings today as terrorism. Baby steps I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 8 hours ago, sweep the leg said: I saw a John Oliver bit where they had engineers cost out the wall based the length, height, materials, etc. that Trump noted, as well as other required infrastructure, and the cost would come in around $25 billion. It's so easy for the Jon Stewarts and John Olivers of the world to sound smart when they never have to be accountable to anything or anyone and when they say something dumb, they were "just joking." The pedestal that the public places these guys on is sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, tacklewasher said: So, people on both sides of the electorate are idiots for listening to these dumbasses. I can get behind that. The odd thing Obama did promise his first time through he didnYou won't have to retire at 67't follow through on (Gitmo is still open). But we have the same to look forward to up here. We voted in the man-child and now get to see how many of the promises we think he made he will actually keep. You won't have to retire at 67 if you were born after 1958 to receive CPP & OAS. I haven't heard the federal budget today or the details other than the deficit is $30 billion. I heard news stories in the last few days that will be changed back to 65 today by the Libs. Meanwhile some fiscal Republicans in the US are talking about raising retirement in the US to 70. Wonder if Trump is thinking the same thing but just not saying? Edited March 22, 2016 by iso_55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Atomic said: It's so easy for the Jon Stewarts and John Olivers of the world to sound smart when they never have to be accountable to anything or anyone and when they say something dumb, they were "just joking." The pedestal that the public places these guys on is sickening. Lol, that was a strong response. It's easy for them to sound smart because they employ fact checkers. There aren't very many instances where they've gotten their facts wrong when skewering a politician. Floyd, Wanna-B-Fanboy and Jimmy Pop 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taynted_Fayth Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 My 11 year old made me watch John Olivers spiel on "Drumpf" so I did, and he makes good points, especially on the contradictions he so blatantly has demonstrated between his past interviews and his platform. What I took from it though was the Drumpf is playing a game and after seeing him 180 so much from before running, to actually running on alot of issues, I have to believe a lot of his platform is BS. in fact he's been quoted as saying as much, Ive seen a bunch of different pics but the interview is always the same Atomic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 2 hours ago, sweep the leg said: Lol, that was a strong response. It's easy for them to sound smart because they employ fact checkers. There aren't very many instances where they've gotten their facts wrong when skewering a politician. It's not about facts though. It's about them sitting there doing nothing but telling jokes and getting worshipped for it. There's a mass murder or terrorist attack and they go on their meaningless little rant about gun control, xenophobia or whatever the flavor of the month is and it explodes on social media "OMG they're so right!! You simply must watch this!" Armchair politicians whose largest concern is what tie to wear on TV tonight, trying to tell people how to vote. Disgusting! The worst pretentious celebrity filth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 15 hours ago, iso_55 said: You won't have to retire at 67 if you were born after 1958 to receive CPP & OAS. I haven't heard the federal budget today or the details other than the deficit is $30 billion. I heard news stories in the last few days that will be changed back to 65 today by the Libs. Meanwhile some fiscal Republicans in the US are talking about raising retirement in the US to 70. Wonder if Trump is thinking the same thing but just not saying? I wasnt against raising the age to 67. The point that life expectancy and the amount of time people work had gone up a lot since "65" was chosen is a pretty valid point. There are many options for today's worker to save money that wasnt there years ago. To expect the average Canadian to save/work an extra two years is asking much, in my opinion. But if JT wants to pay me at 65, I wont complain but I would expect to see a conservative government or two before I hit that age (long way to go), so who knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 10 hours ago, Atomic said: It's not about facts though. It's about them sitting there doing nothing but telling jokes and getting worshipped for it. There's a mass murder or terrorist attack and they go on their meaningless little rant about gun control, xenophobia or whatever the flavor of the month is and it explodes on social media "OMG they're so right!! You simply must watch this!" Armchair politicians whose largest concern is what tie to wear on TV tonight, trying to tell people how to vote. Disgusting! The worst pretentious celebrity filth. I agree. The "comedians" who cover politics are generally just arrogant jerks. I like Colbert though while disliking Stewart (he's not as bad as some). I can';t stand Bill Maher. Even when he's on the right side of an issue, he's so arrogant and dismissive of others. He insults people for laughs and acts like its "support" for his position. He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. There is no debating with him because he doesnt believe their is two sides to an issue, only his. He seems mean spirited. Atomic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 Saw a tweet from a major US new organization today. They're reporting that Trump's approval with the US voters is bad. That he'd lose to Clinton but really lose big to Sanders. I don't have the stats nor the tweet but if someone sees it please post it. It seems his approval rating with most American voters other than his base isn't very good. They're saying some strong Republican States would go Democrat & we're talking Ronald Reagan majority for the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 6:56 AM, sweep the leg said: I saw a John Oliver bit where they had engineers cost out the wall based the length, height, materials, etc. that Trump noted, as well as other required infrastructure, and the cost would come in around $25 billion. Is that all? Hell that's not even the size of one year of Trudeau deficit. Perhaps Justin should be a consultant on this project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, iso_55 said: Saw a tweet from a major US new organization today. They're reporting that Trump's approval with the US voters is bad. That he'd lose to Clinton but really lose big to Sanders. I don't have the stats nor the tweet but if someone sees it please post it. It seems his approval rating with most American voters other than his base isn't very good. They're saying some strong Republican States would go Democrat & we're talking Ronald Reagan majority for the Democrats. as well, pretty much every election campaign ever has demonstrated, polls taken this far from the actual election date are completely meaningless. Look at our own election. If the polls before the election were any indication of what was going to happen, we'd be talking about Prime Minister Mulcair right now. Instead, by the end of the battle, the NDP was down big time, and his party's polling around 10-15% right now. The Liberals stepped in and stole a big chunk of their voters, purely out of the desire to get rid of Harper. Trudeau started the election at a distant third. I want to see Trump and Hillary on the same stage. That will be an epic battle. Evil vs more Evil. Edited March 23, 2016 by kelownabomberfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/21/2016 at 4:22 PM, Rich said: I wish he would cost this out, but it sounds damn expensive. What would the cost benefit analysis look like? Who cares, the Mexicans are paying for it right? At least Vicente Fox seems to be on board with this plan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 Apparently this poll was done at the same time during the last 2 elections. It is an interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Trump wants to scale back on NATO. Of course, the US has bases in Europe & will want to share any information with other NATO allies. The organization may not do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 16 hours ago, iso_55 said: Saw a tweet from a major US new organization today. They're reporting that Drumpf's approval with the US voters is bad. That he'd lose to Clinton but really lose big to Sanders. I don't have the stats nor the tweet but if someone sees it please post it. It seems his approval rating with most American voters other than his base isn't very good. They're saying some strong Republican States would go Democrat & we're talking Ronald Reagan majority for the Democrats. You'd have to think, at the very least, the republican party should be worried about the swing vote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 11 hours ago, iso_55 said: Trump wants to scale back on NATO. Of course, the US has bases in Europe & will want to share any information with other NATO allies. The organization may not do that. I dont know that this is a terrible idea. Although I remember thinking the US should have thumbed their nose at the UN and expanded NATO years ago. The US pays a lot into these organizations. Any "United Nations" that has Russia and China as permanent members of a world security council is a joke. And their choices for some of the human rights committees is bizarre. Sounds like Trump supports a bit of US isolationism. Other Presidents have felt that way too. Its not a position without merit. Both parties will have some decisions to make. If polling shows Trump wont beat Hilary or Sanders but he's got the support over Cruz, what are they to do? They either negotiate a Trump exit which sounds impossible if he feels he has the support, throw their support behind Cruz and risk Trump running independently and fracturing the party (which isnt a terrible idea) or supporting Trump and hoping for the best. On the other hand, I cant see the Democrats not backing Hilary. Even if their polls show Sanders has a better shot against Trump, unless he's ahead of Hilary, the Clinton's are too much a force within the party. They did a lot of campaigning for Obama when it was clear they couldnt stand him. They've done their part for the party and now it's Hilary's time. She will have full support of the party. Here's a question for people: At this early stage, who do you see as potential running mates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Blue&Gold Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: I dont know that this is a terrible idea. Although I remember thinking the US should have thumbed their nose at the UN and expanded NATO years ago. The US pays a lot into these organizations. Any "United Nations" that has Russia and China as permanent members of a world security council is a joke. And their choices for some of the human rights committees is bizarre. Sounds like Trump supports a bit of US isolationism. Other Presidents have felt that way too. Its not a position without merit. Both parties will have some decisions to make. If polling shows Trump wont beat Hilary or Sanders but he's got the support over Cruz, what are they to do? They either negotiate a Trump exit which sounds impossible if he feels he has the support, throw their support behind Cruz and risk Trump running independently and fracturing the party (which isnt a terrible idea) or supporting Trump and hoping for the best. On the other hand, I cant see the Democrats not backing Hilary. Even if their polls show Sanders has a better shot against Trump, unless he's ahead of Hilary, the Clinton's are too much a force within the party. They did a lot of campaigning for Obama when it was clear they couldnt stand him. They've done their part for the party and now it's Hilary's time. She will have full support of the party. Here's a question for people: At this early stage, who do you see as potential running mates? It does have merit but I have a hard time seeing Americans willfully giving up their position as a world leader (and occasional policeman). It's something they take a lot of pride in whether they like to admit it or not. This would be especially tough for Republicans and their base that advocate for more involvement in the fight against ISIS and Middle East issues in general, not to mention the occasional staredowns with China and Russia over economic and territorial squabbles. Knowing Trump, it's part of a "plan" of his to get the U.S out of NATO (and the commitments the U.S is obligated to) and create a new organisation where he can get the best deal ever (!) for the U.S, with conditions that greatly favour them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Hilary will run with Bill (if that is allowed) and Trump will run with whoever is willing to stand with him. It won't be a well known Republican politician, I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Blue&Gold Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 8 minutes ago, Atomic said: Hilary will run with Bill (if that is allowed) and Trump will run with whoever is willing to stand with him. It won't be a well known Republican politician, I don't think. Rumour is it could be Newt Gingrich. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Atomic said: Hilary will run with Bill (if that is allowed) and Trump will run with whoever is willing to stand with him. It won't be a well known Republican politician, I don't think. Can't be Bill. He isnt allowed to be in the line of succession as he's been President for two terms. There was talk of him as potentially being Sec of State had Hilary won 8 years ago and it was determined he couldnt even do that, even though its highly unlikely the Sec of State would ever succeed to the top job. I imagine Bill would enjoy being first gentleman and probably be used as an unofficial party whip and ambassador at large. Trump and Palin were chummy...but that would be crazy. Right?!? Atomic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Brandon Blue&Gold said: Rumour is it could be Newt Gingrich. Hmmm...well, I guess it makes sense. Someone who is experienced. Mitt Romney might have been a decent idea but Mitt is no pal of Trumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Trump and Gingrich would be the most unlikable running mates in the history of the US. On the bright side, this may give Gingrich a chance to finally see through his plan to colonize the moon. The Unknown Poster and Atomic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 I support colonizing the moon. The gutting of the space program under Obama was terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, bearpants said: You'd have to think, at the very least, the republican party should be worried about the swing vote... Bearpants, if you want to call Trump "Drumph" then do it in your own quotes. Please don't change mine unless you first acknowledge you made the change. Edited March 24, 2016 by iso_55 Atomic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: I dont know that this is a terrible idea. Although I remember thinking the US should have thumbed their nose at the UN and expanded NATO years ago. The US pays a lot into these organizations. Any "United Nations" that has Russia and China as permanent members of a world security council is a joke. And their choices for some of the human rights committees is bizarre. Sounds like Trump supports a bit of US isolationism. Other Presidents have felt that way too. Its not a position without merit. Both parties will have some decisions to make. If polling shows Trump wont beat Hilary or Sanders but he's got the support over Cruz, what are they to do? They either negotiate a Trump exit which sounds impossible if he feels he has the support, throw their support behind Cruz and risk Trump running independently and fracturing the party (which isnt a terrible idea) or supporting Trump and hoping for the best. On the other hand, I cant see the Democrats not backing Hilary. Even if their polls show Sanders has a better shot against Trump, unless he's ahead of Hilary, the Clinton's are too much a force within the party. They did a lot of campaigning for Obama when it was clear they couldnt stand him. They've done their part for the party and now it's Hilary's time. She will have full support of the party. Here's a question for people: At this early stage, who do you see as potential running mates? If the US fears for its borders with terrorism then pulling back in NATO won't make sense. It will embolden Russia. And the Euros may not want to share the same kind of info on terrorism etc. It's a stupid move. Besides, a guy like Trump will want the power. Yesterday, he talked about using nukes in Syria to defeat ISIS. Edited March 24, 2016 by iso_55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts