[P]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This is the place where you cite your sources, otherwise it's just two people saying things.

Did you see the Three-Fifths conversation? Sources don't seem to matter much in our discussions right now. But sure, I can find some. Washington Post good enough?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...leaked-emails/

All the leaks are from May or the very tail end of April. Clinton won New York by 16 points on April 19 and all of the "Acela primiary" except RI the week after - at that point it was definitely game over. All Dem primaries award their delegates by proportion, and there simply weren't enough delegates left on the board to matter. Even excluding the supers, Bernie would have to win by 25-30 point margins in every state to catch up.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Yes people who always vote republican would hate him. Just like people who always vote democrat will hate whoever the "r" is. But the swing voters might of chosen Sanders, after all they elected a socialist for the last 8 years. At least Bernie seemed like a good person. With HRC there was nothing to like. The primary argument for HRC was "1st female pres" or "anything but Trump", the later being the same failed branding that lost Kerry the election against Bush.

The democrats who consistently remind of us of their intellectual superiority and edication, should have seen this coming a mile away. People need something new & exciting to start, not someone who we already watched campaign and lose to Obama. Basic marketing psychology. If not Sanders, put someone else up. So much for all that college.

Taking your 'Obama was a socialist' at face value, I think you'd be hard pressed to say he and Bernie were equally so, either in reality or public opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You make a good point about her loss to Obama, though its a little like having to choose between a Real Madrid team that rank second to Barcelona (widely held to be the best team ever) and a declining Manchester United who use money to project an image above their true status and have been scoring wins through dubious means for many many years. You lot chose United, who coincidentally also still have a rabid and deplorable following of scumbags that probably won't stick around very long.

There's no better way to demonstrate an understanding of America than using a footie analogy.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by P 

Did you see the Three-Fifths conversation? Sources don't seem to matter much in our discussions right now.

They matter more than ever. The national political landscape has proven that it doesn't matter how true what you say is, as long as you say it confidently. It's up to us to demand a higher level of discourse.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Okay, I never said they were the same reasons and two your opinion only applies if you think you fairly represent the section of the populace that went trump.

Maybe I misunderstood, but the original comment was Hillary lost because of WWF in the rust belt. All I'm saying is Florida doesn't fit that, and if she had won Florida we would have had a deadlock.


As a Libertarian, my opinion counts double.

My right half is predisposed to the Republican, but found the idea of Trump so distasteful, it can be easily swayed to jump for someone who isn't some flavor of scumbag.

My left half was genuinely excited about the guy. The kind of excitement which gets me to vote Democrat for no good reason.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's no better way to demonstrate an understanding of America than using a footie analogy.

I don't really know enough about any American teams in any sport to make the analogy work. Plus I like bagging on Man United. And their fans really are the worst.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I guess I have to ask, what are dem presidents doing that you regret that republican ones won't?

You have to remember my voting situation as a Libertarian in a solidly blue state. Unless the Libertarians put up a dickhead like Bob Barr, I want to give them my vote in a bid to break 5%.

Even in a Bob Barr situation, I'd rather give my infinitesimal nudge to the Green Party or something rather than have it lose all meaning with a vote for a major candidate.

The only valid reason for me to vote for a major candidate is to say I did it.

By that metric, my Kerry vote was a disappointment because he lost.

With Obama, I voted for him in the hope he would reject the surveillance state. Talk about disappointment.

McCain or Romney probably wouldn't have done any better in that regard, but neither of them were selling me a pig in a poke.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

They matter more than ever. The national political landscape has proven that it doesn't matter how true what you say is, as long as you say it confidently. It's up to us to demand a higher level of discourse.

Possibly. Or it could be what you promise.

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the original comment was Hillary lost because of WWF in the rust belt. All I'm saying is Florida doesn't fit that, and if she had won Florida we would have had a deadlock.

C'mon subego, context. The democrats hadn't lost those states in 20 years. Florida is a quadrennial nailbiter.

Originally Posted by subego 

As a Libertarian, my opinion counts double.

By my calculations it has about 5% value.

Originally Posted by subego 

You have to remember my voting situation as a Libertarian in a solidly blue state. Unless the Libertarians put up a dickhead like Bob Barr, I want to give them my vote in a bid to break 5%.

Even in a Bob Barr situation, I'd rather give my infinitesimal nudge to the Green Party or something rather than have it lose all meaning with a vote for a major candidate.

The only valid reason for me to vote for a major candidate is to say I did it.

By that metric, my Kerry vote was a disappointment because he lost.

With Obama, I voted for him in the hope he would reject the surveillance state. Talk about disappointment.

McCain or Romney probably wouldn't have done any better in that regard, but neither of them were selling me a pig in a poke.

Well this was needlessly complicated.

Originally Posted by subego 

With Obama, I voted for him in the hope he would reject the surveillance state. Talk about disappointment.

McCain or Romney probably wouldn't have done any better in that regard, but neither of them were selling me a pig in a poke.

I can't justify what he did, but I do think he believed what he was saying in 2008. What do you think?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I can't justify what he did, but I do think he believed what he was saying in 2008. What do you think?

I've had it argued to me if you look at what precisely what he said during his campaign, and look at his pre-Presidential voting record, it's pretty clear he never intended to lighten-up on surveillance, and thoughts to the contrary were just me filling in blanks with my own confirmation bias, and/or not paying enough attention.

The twist? This was from an Obama supporter who was arguing the above means I have no grounds for anger towards anyone but myself.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well this was needlessly complicated.

This checks out.

[subego]

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Just another Tuesday for Americans … 

[subego]

Perhaps you can confirm what I've heard about Japan.

Totally legal to burn the Japanese flag, but illegal to burn flags from other countries.

I thought this was an interesting (and very Japanese) take on the idea.

[subego]

In case anyone is confused... the American flag stands for for freedom, which includes the freedom to burn flags.

And lest we forget, Hillary has a history of going along with this dipshit idea, but doesn't have the excuse of being a dipshit.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Red herring because something unfavorable must have popped up in the news.

[andi*pandi]

Perhaps next Herr Trump will insist we all salute him as he walks by.

^Perhaps a deflection from recount, or latest nomination, or just trying to stir up the base.

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

Perhaps you can confirm what I've heard about Japan.

Totally legal to burn the Japanese flag, but illegal to burn flags from other countries.

I thought this was an interesting (and very Japanese) take on the idea.

We have that law in Sweden - although to be fair, it would be hard to prosecute someone for burning some other country's flag. It remains on the books, though.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Red herring because something unfavorable must have popped up in the news.

I must commend Trump for being an absolute master at manipulating the media. As soon as the issue of the constitutional conflicts of interest that clearly exist between his business empire and his election as POTUS started to gain traction ... he did what's done throughout the campaign season and ginned up another "controversy du jour" by saying something outlandish on Twitter.

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just another Tuesday for Americans … 

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Red herring because something unfavorable must have popped up in the news.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Perhaps next Herr Trump will insist we all salute him as he walks by.

^Perhaps a deflection from recount, or latest nomination, or just trying to stir up the base.

Originally Posted by OAW 

I must commend Trump for being an absolute master at manipulating the media. As soon as the issue of the constitutional conflicts of interest that clearly exist between his business empire and his election as POTUS started to gain traction ... he did what's done throughout the campaign season and ginned up another "controversy du jour" by saying something outlandish on Twitter.

OAW

You've been trumped! Hillary co sponsored an anti-flag burning bill in 2005. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-...911/cosponsors

Ҥ 700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States

“(a) Definition Of Flag Of The United States.—In this section, the term ‘flag of the United States’ means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.

“(b) Actions Promoting Violence.—Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

“(c) Flag Burning.—Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

“(d) Damaging A Flag Belonging To The United States.—Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

“(e) Damaging A Flag Of Another On Federal Land.—Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

“(f) Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to indicate an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, or possession of the United States, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.”.

(b) Technical And Conforming Amendment.—The chapter analysis for chapter 33 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 700 and inserting the following:
“700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States.”.
SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, and the application of this Act to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected by such holding.

[andi*pandi]

I saw that also. Interesting timing, is all. Is he still campaigning against Hillary? Whatever for?

[OreoCookie]

@Chongo
Hillary Clinton has lost the election, and Donald Trump has become President. So why are you pivoting to her?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Chongo
Hillary Clinton has lost the election, and Donald Trump has become President. So why are you pivoting to her?

He trump-trolled you.

[andi*pandi]

Sure, Chongo, but why?

#Distraction (via Gin and Tacos)

3:49 AM: Wall Street Journal adds a story to its site about Trump's children's financial conflicts of interest and the potential legal / ethical nightmare this presidency has in store

3:55 AM: Trump makes non-sequitur Tweet about how flag burning should lead to revocation of citizenship

HMMM.

Hmm, indeed.

[Chongo]

You got trump-trolled

[andi*pandi]

If so, and I doubt he has enough attention span for that... How presidential! And not like a 12 year old at all!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Sure, Chongo, but why?



Hmm, indeed.

Indeed indeed
Judge Nap: President Trump's Business Dealings Political, Not Legal Problem | Fox News Insider

[Chongo]

First Ford, now Carrier.

Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.-NY Times

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You got trump-trolled

Is "Trump-trolling" a positive thing? Does it encourage productive discourse? Does it promote unity, security, and the common good?

Or is it literally a distraction from news that could be potentially harmful to Trump?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

First Ford, now Carrier.

Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.-NY Times

Wait...you still think the Ford thing was real?

[The Final Dakar]

I'm not sure how my calling out Trump for misdirection is getting trolled but this is the most playful and human chongo has ever seemed, so I'll allow it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

First Ford, now Carrier.

Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.-NY Times

We give them money and they still ship half the jobs away. Win-win. For them.

[andi*pandi]

Ford was never closing.

So, trump will officially sever ties to his businesses... finally, but also, really? Will his kids still sit in on high level officials visiting? What about his DC hotel that elected officials are not allowed to own?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Ford was never closing.

So, trump will officially sever ties to his businesses... finally, but also, really? Will his kids still sit in on high level officials visiting? What about his DC hotel that elected officials are not allowed to own?

See videos above. Conflict of interest laws do not apply to the POTUS and VPOTUS. That's why Hillary was so sad she had to concede. The cash would have been flowing into the Clinton Foundation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

See videos above. Conflict of interest laws do not apply to the POTUS and VPOTUS. That's why Hillary was so sad she had to concede. The cash would have been flowing into the Clinton Foundation.

Semantic distinction and deflection to Hillary. Bottom line: Trumps no better than Hillary here, right?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Semantic distinction and deflection to Hillary. Bottom line: Trumps no better than Hillary here, right?

Did you watch the clips?
Napolitano is the expert on the matter. he points out that Trumps business dealing would not fall under the emoluments clause, nor under the laws currently on the books because the POTUS and VPOTUS are not covered.

As to the pivot to Clinton. Just pointing out another reason for her sadness. The Clinton Foundation could have been an even bigger cash cow.

[andi*pandi]

Not as big as Trump University.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Did you watch the clips?
Napolitano is the expert on the matter. he points out that Trumps business dealing would not fall under the emoluments clause, nor under the laws currently on the books because the POTUS and VPOTUS are not covered.

As to the pivot to Clinton. Just pointing out another reason for her sadness. The Clinton Foundation could have been an even bigger cash cow.

You're still arguing law versus ethics. Trump stands to make a lot of money and exert influence as president. I'm still not hearing a denial there is a conflict of interest ethically.

Meanwhile the Clinton Foundation spends 90 cents of every dollar on actual charity. Oh the horror that more people might be helped versus Trump at the very least enriching his kids.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're still arguing law versus ethics. Trump stands to make a lot of money and exert influence as president. I'm still not hearing a denial there is a conflict of interest ethically.

Meanwhile the Clinton Foundation spends 90 cents of every dollar on actual charity. Oh the horror that more people might be helped versus Trump at the very least enriching his kids.

Yes it looks bad. But that will be a mooooooooooooot point soon.

How much of that involves groups that do not have Clinton as part of the name?

[Waragainstsleep]

So much for hard working, productive conservatives voting for Trump.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...utput-america/

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Napolitano is the expert on the matter. he points out that Trumps business dealing would not fall under the emoluments clause, nor under the laws currently on the books because the POTUS and VPOTUS are not covered.

I think you are losing sight of the issues: even if it were legal for Trump, it doesn't mean it is prudent, moral or good. Even before entering office he has already mingled official state business with his own business interests (e. g. his dealings in Argentina surrounding the planned Trump Tower in Buenos Aires). How does it make you feel that Trump owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the state-owned (!) Bank of China? Think about that: Trump effectively owes money to the Chinese government! Don't you see how this is a problem?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think you are losing sight of the issues: even if it were legal for Trump, it doesn't mean it is prudent, moral or good. Even before entering office he has already mingled official state business with his own business interests (e. g. his dealings in Argentina surrounding the planned Trump Tower in Buenos Aires). How does it make you feel that Trump owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the state-owned (!) Bank of China? Think about that: Trump effectively owes money to the Chinese government! Don't you see how this is a problem?

According the "as long as I'm getting what I want" standard used by the left, no.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

According the "as long as I'm getting what I want" standard used by the left, no.

I don't understand. Are you speaking from Trump's perspective?

[subego]

There's an old memo about this... let me dig it up.

Ah, here it is.

"Republicans can get shady business dealings, Democrats can get laid. Don't cross the streams."

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

"Republicans can get shady business dealings, Democrats can get laid. Don't cross the streams."

Well, Trump isn't just following “tradition” here, he's pushing it to the extreme.

If you want to understand what quite likely will happen with Trump, study Berlusconi's reign in Italy. There are ample similarities: a weak, ineffectual opposition that is absorbed by internal squabbles rather than an opposition, a media which prefers to pick up dick moves that end up overshadowing much more significant and worrying things (not least because of that person's media savviness) — including law changes that were designed to suit the head of government's situations.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

According the "as long as I'm getting what I want" standard used by the left, no.

Why can't you answer the question? Is it too hard to give a straight answer? Do you always have to deflect to The Left or Hillary to justify something shitty your team is doing?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

He trump-trolled you.

Yep. They still haven't figured out that he's pushing the media around, wherever he wants them. Oh well, I'm glad he's having fun, and there's no group that deserves it more than the MSM.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yes it looks bad. But that will be a mooooooooooooot point soon.

How so?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How so?

Trump To 'Completely' Sever Business Ties | The Daily Caller

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Trump To 'Completely' Sever Business Ties | The Daily Caller

We'll see. If his kids are still involved it'll be mostly theatrics.

[andi*pandi]

Shell game.