Page 5 of 46
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:26 am
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:Leisher wrote:Holy shit. We're going to have to choose between Hillary and Trump.
There's still a chance of no Trump.
That means Kasich, Cruz, or Rubio would take him down. Those clusterfucks of human beings don't have a chance.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:29 am
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:Give me MOAR of other people's money.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:27 am
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:TheCatt wrote:Leisher wrote:Holy shit. We're going to have to choose between Hillary and Trump.
There's still a chance of no Trump.
That means Kasich, Cruz, or Rubio would take him down. Those clusterfucks of human beings don't have a chance.
I think at the convention, one of those 2 has a chance. Cruz, most likely.
Who position-wise, is basically Trump, but whatever.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:29 am
by Leisher
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:30 am
by Malcolm
I think at the convention, one of those 2 has a chance. Cruz, most likely.
Ted Cruz has a better chance of being the #1 NFL draft pick than he does of getting nominated.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:32 am
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:I think at the convention, one of those 2 has a chance. Cruz, most likely.
Ted Cruz has a better chance of being the #1 NFL draft pick than he does of getting nominated.
I'll take those odds.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:11 pm
by Malcolm
In the same question-and-answer session here, Boehner referred to Ted Cruz as "lucifer." He previously called the Texas senator, who led the failed Republican effort to shut down the government over Obamacare, a “jackass.”
Ryan and his staff say he doesn't want the nomination.
Uh .... yeah.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:26 pm
by Malcolm
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:22 pm
by Alhazad
That seems like it could have been turned back on Trump with a single comment about "press events instead of policy discussions" if Gov. Kasich weren't a chump.
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:47 am
by GORDON
I wonder when was the last time a politician told the truth during a debate.
If ever.
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:27 am
by Alhazad
GORDON wrote:I wonder when was the last time a politician told the truth during a debate.
If ever.
I think a lot of them say some variation on "... and I want to be your next president."
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:46 am
by GORDON
My favorite little phrase is becoming variations of, "They don't mind if they accidentally display good leadership now and then, but that isn't the main reason they ran for office in the first place."
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:40 am
by Leisher
Ted Cruz was the lead singer of Stryper.
Ok, not really, but look at the resemblance.
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:26 am
by Malcolm
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:22 pm
by Malcolm
Early reports indicate any pachyderm would lose.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont leads Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, with 51.1 percent to 37.4 percent. In a Hillary Clinton versus Trump scenario, 47.7 percent report they would support the former U.S. Secretary of State, comfortably topping the 38.4 percent who said they would back Trump.
I'd post scenarios for other Republicans, but since they've all been out-douchbagged beyond hope, it's not worth the copy-paste effort. Let's break out the modern standard of a presidential slam dunk:
Ronald Reagan
Electoral vote 525
States carried 49
Popular vote 54,455,472
Percentage 58.8%
Walter Mondale
Electoral vote 13
States carried 1 + DC
Popular vote 37,577,352
Percentage 40.6%
Edited By Malcolm on 1458923205
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:18 pm
by Alhazad
No worries. We can still get a Repub in the White House if we vote for Hillary.
And that example is of how fucked up our electoral vote system is more than anything else. 18% more people agree with you than the next guy, is that really a staggering victory? If forty percent of the country doesn't want you in the office, it's not really a mandate to lead. Can't help but think that using, or at least publicizing, the popular numbers instead would actually help the two halves of the country realize that neither is going anywhere -- in some small measure.
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:33 pm
by Malcolm
18% more people agree with you than the next guy, is that really a staggering victory?
This is where everyone points out the founding fathers put that indirection in there on purpose. I can't say it's because they looked into a crystal ball and saw the rise of Donnie Dickslurper, but I like to think so. Hell, they've even made it so you can lose the popular vote and still get into office. Kind of puts into perspective what "by the people, of the people, and for the people" means. But that's the least retarded part of the election process I see before me today.
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:01 pm
by Alhazad
Malcolm wrote:This is where everyone points out the founding fathers put that indirection in there on purpose. I can't say it's because they looked into a crystal ball and saw the rise of Donnie Dickslurper, but I like to think so.
My personal view is that they did it because fewer crops die when you send one unemployed prick to D.C. on horseback to cast a vote instead of everyone.
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:09 pm
by Malcolm
Wtf-ever. Votes could be collected and transported even then. Course, back in the day, voting meant standing on your porch and shouting your choice.
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:30 pm
by Alhazad
Malcolm wrote:Wtf-ever. Votes could be collected and transported even then. Course, back in the day, voting meant standing on your porch and shouting your choice.
Whereas today it means standing on other people's porches?
