President Donald J. Trump

[21st Century Man]

Wait until some foreign leader directs a nasty tweet at him.   

LOL.  If such happens, maybe he should just go on a twitter rant then.  Get it out of the system then react more presidentially.  Oh geez, I hope he doesn't start to conduct foreign policy through twitter.  That could be a nightmare.  The secret service better disable his twitter account if he wins.   It is a brave new world.

[21st Century Man]

So Trump doesn't worry you as CIC but Hillary does. What is "her side?" What has she or "her side" done to instigate trouble with the Russians?

Haven't you been paying attention the last few months?  It is all over the news.  Blame Russia first, ask questions later.  The Democrats and Clinton would have us in a new Cold War.

[ItsOver]

Putin would see Big Hill for the babushka she is.

[Value Of Pi]

Haven't you been paying attention the last few months?  It is all over the news.  Blame Russia first, ask questions later.  The Democrats and Clinton would have us in a new Cold War.

What are the Democrats blaming Russia for that the Russians don't deserve blame for? Annexing Crimea, helping to shoot down an airliner, buzzing our destroyers, helping Assad slaughter his people, cyber attacks? Tell me, please.

[Dr. MD MD]

What are the Democrats blaming Russia for that the Russians don't deserve blame for? Annexing Crimea, helping to shoot down an airliner, buzzing our destroyers, helping Assad slaughter his people, cyber attacks? Tell me, please.

That's some nice jingoistic spin. Good...GOOD! Let the hate flow through you! 

[Value Of Pi]

That's some nice jingoistic spin. Good...GOOD! Let the hate flow through you! 

Go away, Dr. Doofus. Nobody was talking to you.

[Zetaspeak]

And there is something honest about Hillary?  Got a news flash for you.  Many politicians are dishonest and the Clintons top the list.  There are no good choices this year.  Pick your poison.

Sure, but this is the Trump section and Trump been on the sidelines complaining about all this and it just shows the opportunity he gets, he is willing to screw the system as much as anybody, so why reward him? I not a huge Hillary fan, but at least he's willing to be in the game, at least she had her vote counted. Trump is the a-hole fan who spends all his time second guessing people by calling talk-radio stations (be it politics or sports) acting like a know it all but taking both sides of every issue and waits for the outcome to claim "I told you so" as he quickly forgets (or deletes tweets) that he mentions he supported the other side too. The guy has never casted a public vote, was never held to account, never had to take responsibility for any track record in any form of government.. Yeah faulty as Hillary is, at lease she was in the game, not waiting in the sidelines to weasel himself in to the most powerful position in the land

I posted that mainly to look at the demographics and demonstrate which was different demographics are leaning. I don't really pay attention to polls as they are repeatedly shown as useless. Yet this LA Times poll is interesting because it supplies so much info.

A few weeks ago when Trump was ahead on most of them, I wonder what you would have been saying then. They all have bias in some way. But like I said, the LA Times one is the most interesting because it's supplying the most info.

I don't know why people need to tear it apart. It's not like it has the lack of credibility like the Washington Post or CNN.

I have been following polls closely in the "2016 general election" thread. Trump was never ahead in most polls even during his strongest point in September, at best he was averaging around 3 points behind Clinton, he was definitely getting close (Mostly with Clinton losing votes to 3rd party/ undecided/ vote for neither) but state by state Trump was as close to one state away until the debates happen.

I don't care about bias, I care about results, who gave me the best results. All I saying LA Times last election didn't bother polling in the last month and didn't see anything for 2008. While CNN and Wash Post did. CNN hit it right on the money (Obama by 7) in '08 and got Obama win correct in '12 (even though they underestimated him by 3%) Wash Post also correctly predicted an Obama victory in both elections as well. Actually when you say polls generally are useless, I'll ask when is the last the where the majority of polls agree turned out to be incorrect during a US general election? 

[Dr. MD MD]

Go away, Dr. Doofus. Nobody was talking to you.

Too bad it's a free forum, shit for brains! 

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

So Trump doesn't worry you as CIC but Hillary does. What is "her side?" What has she or "her side" done to instigate trouble with the Russians?

How about apparently supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine? 

http://huffpost.com/us/entry/4938747

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-support-of-kiev-hardliners-towards-large-scale-escalation-of-combat-operations-in-ukraine/5542754

Even though this phone leak is public information widely available on YouTube, I have personal qualms with posting other people's phone conversations, but you can easily find it if you even care.  Anyway, this was the press conference after the leak where the US was apparently caught meddling in Ukraine...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Px_dRO2rs

I'm not defending Russia, I'm just answering your question.  In international politics there are rarely good guys, it's mostly different gradations of bad, Russia included.

[WOTR]

Plus the fact Trump was pandering to the base rustling their collective jimmies. Stirring up their emotions as a ploy to collect votes for "Trump Make America Great Again." Over the fact companies are not paying any taxes. Meanwhile hes engaging in the very same practice he himself declares as a problem, which is eroding Americas greatness.

I am beginning to think that one of my biggest problems is not that he paid no taxes.  Many have pointed out that was just a smart business move.  Fine- he contributed nothing to the government for decades while amassing wealth in the billions.  I get it- we should all cheer that he contributed nothing to help feed the illegals and the Falkies of the world.  That is his right. 

My problem is that there is no evidence that he contributed ANYTHING to society or any charity for those same years (aside from the million he was almost forced to contribute to vets this election cycle, and a tiny bit to his own foundation.)  That shows a huge character flaw when you cannot voluntarily give .00001% of your wealth away to a group who you think is deserving.  It says that you believe that the most deserving person in America is you.

It shows greed on a scale befitting a Russian oligarch (though even they will give to "pet" charities to gain some "good will.)  It says that the only way to "make America great again" is through actions that will not impact your bottom line.  I have seen very poor people giving to charities they believe in- and here is a man in his ivory tower bragging about his wealth who apparently believes in nothing aside from his own importance and privilege.

(Here. Let me save all of the Trump supporters time typing... "But Hillary does not contribute enough either, and she is just in it for herself- so we should all vote Trump".)

[136 or 142]

How about apparently supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine? 

http://huffpost.com/us/entry/4938747

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-support-of-kiev-hardliners-towards-large-scale-escalation-of-combat-operations-in-ukraine/5542754

Even though this phone leak is public information widely available on YouTube, I have personal qualms with posting other people's phone conversations, but you can easily find it if you even care.  Anyway, this was the press conference after the leak where the US was apparently caught meddling in Ukraine...

I'm not defending Russia, I'm just answering your question.  In international politics there are rarely good guys, it's mostly different gradations of bad, Russia included.

The 'neo-Nazis in Ukraine' claim is complete nonsense and only a dimwitted Putin enabler would fall for it, Trumptard.

[Jackstar]

The 'neo-Nazis in Ukraine' claim is complete nonsense

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

only a dimwitted Putin enabler would fall for it, Trumptard.

.ca domain, eh? Take off hoser!

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

The 'neo-Nazis in Ukraine' claim is complete nonsense and only a dimwitted Putin enabler would fall for it, Trumptard.

You have no right to lecture others on logic when you throw out ad-hominems so casually.  I cited Huffington Post, are they Trump supporters? 

[Jackstar]

Go away, Dr. Doofus. Nobody was talking to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg

[Jackstar]

when you throw out ad-hominems so casually.

To be fair, that's how we do things around here, Fucko.

[136 or 142]

You have no right to lecture others on logic when you throw out ad-hominems so casually.  I cited Huffington Post, are they Trump supporters?

The Huffington Post link is dead. 

[136 or 142]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554


.ca domain, eh? Take off hoser!

This is the person behind that website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

In 2005, The Jewish Tribune criticized the Centre for Research on Globalization's website for being "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial." Chossudovsky responded that he is of Jewish heritage and would be one of the last people to condone antisemitic views.[16] Nevertheless, an example of Holocaust denial in the Global Research website is in an article entitled “Anti-Semitism: The Ultimate Zionist Weapon”. In the article by William Hanna,[17] Charles A. Weisman is quoted as saying “Ever since the Jews invented the libel charge of ‘anti- Semitism’….it…has been built up with Jewish money, organizations, propaganda and lies (such as the Holocaust â€" Holohoax)”[18][19]

Conspiracy theories[edit]
Common conspiracy theories listed as such in Wikipedia are frequently advanced, and stated to be facts by authors other than Chossudovsky on his website Global Research. A few examples are: The New World Order (conspiracy theory),[20] 9/11 conspiracy theories, such as the assertion that the attack on the Twin Towers was a False flag operation,[21] The HAARP conspiracy theory, that the installation is a "secret weapon used for weather modification, electromagnetic warfare"[22] (Chossudovsky also included that in one of his books.), Global warming conspiracy theory,[23] Charlie Hebdo shooting conspiracy theories,[24] and the FEMA camps conspiracy theory[25] Michel Chossudovsky also published on his website a Press TV report that the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq and Afghanistan[26]

[136 or 142]

To be fair, that's how we do things around here, Fucko.

Thanks for the support, Jackoff.

[Jackstar]

Hey, look, it's the primary attack the messenger ploy again. You trot that one out a lot for a guy who isn't verifiably riding a horse pony.

the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq and Afghanistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

[136 or 142]

Hey, look, it's the primary attack the messenger ploy again. You trot that one out a lot for a guy who isn't verifiably riding a horse pony.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

So, the veracity of the messenger isn't important in determining how seriously to take anything else they claim?

[Jackstar]

... and, there's that straw man gambit again.

[Dr. MD MD]

The 'neo-Nazis in Ukraine' claim is complete nonsense and only a dimwitted Putin enabler would fall for it, Trumptard.

So, you disprove the statement is blustery hand waving and name calling then? Weak!  :

[136 or 142]

... and, there's that straw man gambit again.

Referring to depleted uranium as using nuclear weapons is a stretch.   That's not what people think of when the term 'nuclear weapons' is used.  That's also not a straw-man. Some logicians believe that commenting on the person and not on what they're saying is the logical fallacy of 'ad hom' AKA 'playing the man and not the ball' but other logicians argue (and I agree with them) that as there is a limited amount of time and it's impossible to check out every single claim a person makes, if the person is generally not trustworthy, it's entire rational to dismiss all of their claims.

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[9] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm familiar with other logicians who also argue that as well as what I wrote above.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

I thought you wrote you didn't read my replies to you, liar.

I don't remember saying that.

The Huffington Post link is dead.

For some reason the link is not working, but Google the article title, "The Neo-Nazi Question in Ukraine" and you'll probably find it.  Dated 3/11/14.

[Jackstar]

Referring to depleted uranium as using nuclear weapons is a stretch.

Implying that the posting of articles that state "the assertion that the attack on the Twin Towers was a False flag operation" is some kind of negative is more than a stretch, it's a bias.

Irrespective of that, depleted uranium munitions are a direct outgrowth of nuclear weapons technology, are massively destructive to the landscape, and were certainly used. And you're so okay with that, you're arguing semantics on whether or not they are actually "nuclear." They sure as shit aren't "conventional" or "chemical" or "cheese," now are they?

Bob & Doug Mackenzie have more credibility when discussing geopolitics than you do. That's a fact.

[136 or 142]

So, you disprove the statement is blustery hand waving and name calling then? Weak!  :

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/01/behind-russias-neo-nazi-propaganda-campaign-in-ukraine

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/04/putins-fabricated-claim-of-a-fascist-threat-in-ukraine/&refURL=https://www.google.ca/&referrer=https://www.google.ca/

[136 or 142]

Implying that the posting of articles that state "the assertion that the attack on the Twin Towers was a False flag operation" is some kind of negative is more than a stretch, it's a bias.

Irrespective of that, depleted uranium munitions are a direct outgrowth of nuclear weapons technology, are massively destructive to the landscape, and were certainly used. And you're so okay with that, you're arguing semantics on whether or not they are actually "nuclear." They sure as shit aren't "conventional" or "chemical" or "cheese," now are they?

Bob & Doug Mackenzie have more credibility when discussing geopolitics than you do. That's a fact.

Where did I say I was okay with it?  Now that is a genuine ad-hom.

[Dr. MD MD]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/01/behind-russias-neo-nazi-propaganda-campaign-in-ukraine

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/04/putins-fabricated-claim-of-a-fascist-threat-in-ukraine/&refURL=https://www.google.ca/&referrer=https://www.google.ca/

Hmmm...hardly credible. The guy who owns the first paper you linked works for the Democratic party and was a speechwriter for Obama...and Forbes, well...NEXT! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Zuckerman

[Jackstar]

Where did I say I was okay with it?  Now that is a genuine ad-hom.

The HAARP conspiracy theory, that the installation is a "secret weapon used for weather modification, electromagnetic warfare"[22] (Chossudovsky also included that in one of his books.)

The implications are staggering!!!



http://whale.to/m/disin.html

[136 or 142]

I don't remember saying that.

I was confusing you with Astrid Galactic. Sorry.  Two bad mistakes from me tonight.  I apologize.

I modified my original message to remove that.