"Manafort mailing it in. Staff suicidal."

Well this thread went to crazy town quickly

 

Regardless of who wins, the 45-50% of congress that's part of the other party will just play defense on every piece of legislation they try to pass. Nothing will change. People need to chill out. I don't support trump because I don't want that jackass representing our country, but I don't believe he would be able to do much harm. Same with Hillary.

 

What checks and balances exist limiting the President's ability to launch a nuclear strike? As I understand it, almost none.

It's not something you can rule out with Donald Trump.

 

I just see him as the American version of Chavez talking big game but never doing anything. Then broadcasting himself on national tv once a week to talk about random ****.

 

I suggest you get some therapy and stop watching snuff movies.

The middle east is a huge mess, due to the catastrophic miscalculation of the Iraq War

History isn't going to lay that one on Obama.

 

Chávez basically turned his country into a place where you can't even find bread, so, that's a bit scary

 

But the race isn't close because of the Bernie supporters. They are already supporting Hillary at 85-90%. I think it's close because according to polls about 2/3 of the nation start out not trusting her. Other candidates don't have that big of a disadvantage to start with.

I agree there would be mudslinging regardless of who the Dem Nominee was, and their image would take some hits. However, with Hillary she was covered in decades worth of mud before the race even began.

I also agree with you about the tactics that would be used by the GOP regardless of who the Democratic nominee was.

 

!

 

Legitimate Syrian leader? Assad is a dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people. The guy is beyond horrible. He's as brutal as they come.

It's odd that you are blaming Obama for ISIS rise in Syria, yet want to support the murdering dictator Assad. He's the actual reason for the rise of ISIS in Syria. Assad is so bad that ISIS can gain enough support in Syria to take and hold territory.

I can't believe any American would advocate supporting someone like Assad.

 

This is nonsense.

Hillary would handily beat any of the Republican pretenders this year.

If this were a fresh Romney, it might be a slightly different story.

 

12 years in Christian private school, I've read it all.

 

I think Kasich would have mopped the floor with her. I think she might have had the edge against Cruz or Rubio, but they might have had a chance just like Trump. She was going to give whichever Republican faced her a chance. That's just who she is at this point.

 

You just recommended the US partner with a state sponsor of terrorism. You do nothing to dispute the notion that Trump voters are a bunch of ignorant dopes.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

State Sponsors of Terrorism

Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are three countries designated under these authorities: Iran, Sudan, and Syria.

Syria December 29, 1979

 

I wonder if Trump throws in the towel whether the Republicans can let another candidate take his place.

This is so ridiculous. First of all what rights are you afraid of losing. A liberal supreme court would probably overturn Citizens United which should strengthen our democracy, not weaken it. That's the big one. It won't impact gun control at all.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the deficit and the great recession as well as wars. The surplus was erased by the prior administration.

Also Congress sets spending so how you can blame the president for deficits doesn't make sense. The cuts Republicans wanted to make would not have substantially altered the deficit from what it is today, but it would have had a big impact on the less fortunate.

Finally, our deficit might look big, but it is still manageable when you consider our GDP is 18 billion. Ideally you want the deficit to be around 40% of the GDP, but 50% is consider ok too. So that's 9 trillion.

The other thing is you don't have to get there quickly. So long as GDP increases faster than the deficit, you will move towards that 50% mark. So even if we run a small surplus we'll be in good shape.

The big challenge is entitlement programs, not fiscal spending that everyone complains about. The truth is that this is not democrat or republican issue as both parties are scared to cut entitlement programs like social security.

If we are going to solve this problem, we need to reign in those programs a bit in some form, we need to increase taxes on the wealthy, and we need to find a few other places to limit costs. That's going to take compromise in congress.

The best thing for this country is not to have one party in control of Congress and the Presidency. With a Republican congress and a democratic president, eventually they have to find a way to work together.

8 years of Republicans refusing to compromise has hurt this country. They need to meet dems half way to make this country get on a more secure footing financially.

 

Damn, ole Meg trashing Trump hard. That's gonna leave a mark. Now Trump must attack Meg Whitman.

 

Thank God she isn't.

 

Can someone make a gif of Trump angrily playing walk a mole?

 

Wow... how many months have the republicans (and with the support of the republicans/conservatives on D&D) blocked the Merrick Garland nomination. And now there is concern over whatever USSC nominee Clinton puts forth?

While I'd actually like Clinton to renominate Garland out of respect both for Garland and Obama, I'd also be very happy if she were to nominate Sri Srinivasan or possibly Jane Kelly (both well-liked/respected and *younger*).