I don't know if either of these jokes made it abroad, but if they didn't, just trust me that this is hilarious.
Nice. Also Ted Cruz is a scumbag, religious fruitcake who thinks it's okay to attend religious beliefs conferences that support the killing of gays. Nice bloke but I wonder if he will get pulled up on that when he runs for president again.
I don't know if either of these jokes made it abroad, but if they didn't, just trust me that this is hilarious.
Nice. Also Ted Cruz is a scumbag, religious fruitcake who thinks it's okay to attend religious beliefs conferences that support the killing of gays. Nice bloke but I wonder if he will get pulled up on that when he runs for president again.
He is hated by a lot of people within the Republican establishment. Some of Trump's success was down to the complete shambles around him, and some of that was the rightwing nut job that was Cruz. Cruz came as close as he ever will to the White House this year, and fortunately that wasn't very close.
My criticisms of Hillary on the night were that at times she was static and awkward, particularly when discussing race if she is in fact the candidate of African Americans, even if it's de facto. And also, she didn't go for the jugular. I don't think (in spite of what is discussed on here) that she really hit home the fact that he doesn't pay his laborers, and he doesn't pay his taxes. But she was clever, most of the night she gave him little nudges and then let him talk himself into trouble.
Plenty of time to go for the jugular in the other debates. Make him squeal like a pig!
Unfortunately Mainstream News is no longer independent and a bias can be created one way or the other & bought by the highest bidder. Twitter and Facebook too are controlled from above by people with money. What we are "fed" these days I take with a pinch of salt. I will say this though from looking at the above Poll for who won the debate that CNN is probably into this in a very big way !
Unfortunately Mainstream News is no longer independent and a bias can be created one way or the other & bought by the highest bidder. Twitter and Facebook too are controlled from above by people with money. What we are "fed" these days I take with a pinch of salt. I will say this though from looking at the above Poll for who won the debate that CNN is probably into this in a very big way !
Why don't they report the real truth, eh? The Clintons bathe in the blood of babies and Trump has enough money to turn every town in America into a Disneyland
I get the feeling that Hillary is really keeping her powder dry for the the next two debates. Despite that will the blue collar voters stick with Trump's rantings or will he be really shown up to be unelectable?
I get the feeling that Hillary is really keeping her powder dry for the the next two debates. Despite that will the blue collar voters stick with Trump's rantings or will he be really shown up to be unelectable?
It's all about timing I think, you don't want him to blow up in first debate, be passable in the second and finish strongly, as that's all voters will remember. You want to let it build up slowly so he's at his most idiotic and hate-filled at the very end, so the last image voters have is of him foaming at mouth about women and blacks and mexicans and muslims, whilst it's revealed he isn't as rich as he claims and has avoided paying tax for years.
Unfortunately Mainstream News is no longer independent and a bias can be created one way or the other & bought by the highest bidder. Twitter and Facebook too are controlled from above by people with money. What we are "fed" these days I take with a pinch of salt. I will say this though from looking at the above Poll for who won the debate that CNN is probably into this in a very big way !
Can you specify a time when this wasn't the case? Can I recommend looking in to Operation Mockingbird? This country has had some really, really great moments of journalism (Pentagon Papers, Watergate), and whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you, particularly as it comes to the 24 hour news networks, that line is often trotted out when someone claims something that does not gel with your ideological view.
Also, online, The Intercept, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone (I know, but really, their investigative journalism is really, really good, even better if you can stomach Matt Taibi because they can pay) still provide some great investigative journalism.
I get the feeling that Hillary is really keeping her powder dry for the the next two debates. Despite that will the blue collar voters stick with Trump's rantings or will he be really shown up to be unelectable?
It's all about timing I think, you don't want him to blow up in first debate, be passable in the second and finish strongly, as that's all voters will remember. You want to let it build up slowly so he's at his most idiotic and hate-filled at the very end, so the last image voters have is of him foaming at mouth about women and blacks and mexicans and muslims, whilst it's revealed he isn't as rich as he claims and has avoided paying tax for years.
It's a very good point. It feels like the old cliche applies you can't win an election in the first debate but you can lose it. I thought a couple of times last night Trump was really there for the taking, and thus was disappointed when she didn't call him out on not paying tax and benefiting from outsourcing. But she stuck to her game plan and it sounds that by the end he started to unravel.
Just watched the whole debate what a horrible pair of wankers they both are, And the scary thing is that one of them is going to become president. Be afraid be very afraid
The worst thing about this whole election (apart from Trump himself) is that the democrats could have selected almost anyone other than Clinton and pretty much guaranteed winning at least the Presidency, if not the House.
So I am not without my criticisms of Hillary Clinton, but I think it's worth noting that she is the most qualified Democrat by leaps and bounds in terms of relevant experience (as much as you can have relevant experience)..
Apparently the most experienced presidential candidate ever but I am guessing that she has been in the game all her life where as Trump has been conning people his life and has got lucky to be where he is now because he has appealed to the masses that can't or won't check any of his policies or statements.
Wanted to go back to this real quick because I started to reply yesterday.
Arguably the most qualified in "the modern political era," which would be 1980 (Reagan) onward. Richard Nixon was definitely more qualified when he ran in '60 and won in '68, having been a Congressman, a Senator, and a Vice President for eight years. That ended well. LBJ had similar experience when he ran in '64 as well.
The only other candidate who comes close would be George H.W. Bush in '88 who had been VP for eight years, and prior to that director of the CIA after having spent years as a CIA asset.
The worst thing about this whole election (apart from Trump himself) is that the democrats could have selected almost anyone other than Clinton and pretty much guaranteed winning at least the Presidency, if not the House.
So I am not without my criticisms of Hillary Clinton, but I think it's worth noting that she is the most qualified Democrat by leaps and bounds in terms of relevant experience (as much as you can have relevant experience)..
Apparently the most experienced presidential candidate ever but I am guessing that she has been in the game all her life where as Trump has been conning people his life and has got lucky to be where he is now because he has appealed to the masses that can't or won't check any of his policies or statements.
Wanted to go back to this real quick because I started to reply yesterday.
Arguably the most qualified in "the modern political era," which would be 1980 (Reagan) onward. Richard Nixon was definitely more qualified when he ran in '60 and won in '68, having been a Congressman, a Senator, and a Vice President for eight years. That ended well. LBJ had similar experience when he ran in '64 as well.
The only other candidate who comes close would be George H.W. Bush in '88 who had been VP for eight years, and prior to that director of the CIA after having spent years as a CIA asset.
I bow down to your superior knowledge. Should have fact checked first!
The worst thing about this whole election (apart from Trump himself) is that the democrats could have selected almost anyone other than Clinton and pretty much guaranteed winning at least the Presidency, if not the House.
So I am not without my criticisms of Hillary Clinton, but I think it's worth noting that she is the most qualified Democrat by leaps and bounds in terms of relevant experience (as much as you can have relevant experience)..
Apparently the most experienced presidential candidate ever but I am guessing that she has been in the game all her life where as Trump has been conning people his life and has got lucky to be where he is now because he has appealed to the masses that can't or won't check any of his policies or statements.
Wanted to go back to this real quick because I started to reply yesterday.
Arguably the most qualified in "the modern political era," which would be 1980 (Reagan) onward. Richard Nixon was definitely more qualified when he ran in '60 and won in '68, having been a Congressman, a Senator, and a Vice President for eight years. That ended well. LBJ had similar experience when he ran in '64 as well.
The only other candidate who comes close would be George H.W. Bush in '88 who had been VP for eight years, and prior to that director of the CIA after having spent years as a CIA asset.
I bow down to your superior knowledge. Should have fact checked first!
Nah you're alright, sorry I didn't mean to show off. I was actually going to write what turned in to a lengthy diatribe about how much respect I have for some of Nixon's domestic policies, including integration in the south and the continuation of the New Frontier policies of Kennedy. But then I realized nobody cares .
No doubt the slack-moralled, xenophobic misogynist will dumb his way out of this one, but it's interesting to see he's being implicated in illegal and obfuscated dealings in Cuba, during the ban.
Would you trust the man who seems to have scant regards for the laws to be in charge of making new ones?
No doubt the slack-moralled, xenophobic misogynist will dumb his way out of this one, but it's interesting to see he's being implicated in illegal and obfuscated dealings in Cuba, during the ban.
Would you trust the man who seems to have scant regards for the laws to be in charge of making new ones?
I saw him respond to Hillary's accusation that his few published tax returns show he paid no tax with "That's because I'm smart".
I wonder if HMRC will accept my own fiddled returns on that basis.
Yeah that was fucking unbelievable. I'm sure that will be used in political adverts and whatnot, but to me that represented her biggest failure of the evening in not calling him up on that. If he wants to talk about crumbling infrastructure and then has the audacity to not only say he hasn't paid federal tax but that he's smart for not doing it...There was a potential KO moment for me there.
There is this thing with Americans, particularly the poorly to moderately educated white working classes that look at very wealthy people and say "as they are, I will be." It's part of the reason why so many people vote against their financial interests, they think that when they're rich, they won't want the Government bothering them or taxing them either. It's such a sad state of affairs that a candidate could say something like that and get away with it (and by the way, Romney only paid 15%/year because all his taxes were Capital Gaines taxes (taxes based on stock/bond earnings) which meant he paid at least 15-20% below me).
In an era where federal investment has lead to job creation and at least stopped the rot of the 2008 stock market crash, I remain mystified at how incapable both parties, but particularly the Democrats and Hillary are of explaining the role of Government in peoples' lives. That's before we get into the fact that on Monday night they were debating trickle down economics, super predators and being tough on crime, all that. As someone on FiveThirtyEight said, "this is the problem with a [baby] boomer centric election," you end up talking about things that were relevant at best 30 years ago, things like trickle and manufacturing.
Alec Baldwin's Trump impression on Saturday Night Live is pretty flawless. Only trouble is, Trump himself is so ridiculous that a comedy version doesn't look any more stupid than the real thing.
Comments
What We’re Seeing in the First Presidential Debate http://nyti.ms/2d4Bw5i
Also, online, The Intercept, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone (I know, but really, their investigative journalism is really, really good, even better if you can stomach Matt Taibi because they can pay) still provide some great investigative journalism.
Be afraid be very afraid
Arguably the most qualified in "the modern political era," which would be 1980 (Reagan) onward. Richard Nixon was definitely more qualified when he ran in '60 and won in '68, having been a Congressman, a Senator, and a Vice President for eight years. That ended well. LBJ had similar experience when he ran in '64 as well.
The only other candidate who comes close would be George H.W. Bush in '88 who had been VP for eight years, and prior to that director of the CIA after having spent years as a CIA asset.
https://youtu.be/E2IGezreYbg
Would you trust the man who seems to have scant regards for the laws to be in charge of making new ones?
An October surprise. Interesting. Figure there's one coming for Hillary and my guess is it will be in relation to the Clinton Foundation.
I wonder if HMRC will accept my own fiddled returns on that basis.
There is this thing with Americans, particularly the poorly to moderately educated white working classes that look at very wealthy people and say "as they are, I will be." It's part of the reason why so many people vote against their financial interests, they think that when they're rich, they won't want the Government bothering them or taxing them either. It's such a sad state of affairs that a candidate could say something like that and get away with it (and by the way, Romney only paid 15%/year because all his taxes were Capital Gaines taxes (taxes based on stock/bond earnings) which meant he paid at least 15-20% below me).
In an era where federal investment has lead to job creation and at least stopped the rot of the 2008 stock market crash, I remain mystified at how incapable both parties, but particularly the Democrats and Hillary are of explaining the role of Government in peoples' lives. That's before we get into the fact that on Monday night they were debating trickle down economics, super predators and being tough on crime, all that. As someone on FiveThirtyEight said, "this is the problem with a [baby] boomer centric election," you end up talking about things that were relevant at best 30 years ago, things like trickle and manufacturing.
http://bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37380573
Only trouble is, Trump himself is so ridiculous that a comedy version doesn't look any more stupid than the real thing.