2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Don't want to get into the penis measuring contest but this was a good read...

Carr: Two sons killed in combat, two different responses | Boston Herald
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two grief-stricken parents, two sons killed in combat with Islamic extremism in the Middle East, two addresses to political conventions on national TV.

One parent was born in the U.S., the other in Pakistan. One is a Christian, the other a Muslim. One is for Trump, the other for Hillary. Do you get the idea where we’re going with this?

Would you care to guess which one of the grieving parents is the toast of the mainstream media, lionized from sea to shining sea, a model to us all, and which one is, well, Patricia Smith?

Her son Sean was murdered in 2012 in Benghazi. She told her story to the nation at the Republican rather than the Democrat convention, and these are some of the responses she got from Hillary’s bought-and-paid-for rumpswabs in the in-the-satchel mainstream media.

“I don’t care how that woman felt,” said Comrade Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

“A cynical exploitation of grief,” sniffed the Nation.

The Washington Post tut-tutted that what Mrs. Smith represented was “an early dip into the gutter.”

The New Yorker called her speech “the weaponization of grief.”

“A spectacle so offensive,” said Comrade Chris’ pal Rachel Maddow, “it was hard to even comprehend.”

A writer for GQ (who knew they were even still in business?) said he wanted “to beat her to death.”

What a difference it makes to have a “D” rather than an “R” after your name. If only Patricia Smith had put the blast on Donald Trump, she would have been speaking truth to power. She’d be on the shortlist for a Profiles in Courage award, maybe even the Nobel Peace Prize.

But instead she blamed Hillary, and that made her the snake at the garden party, the turd in the punch bowl. How dare she! Blasphemy!

Look, I’m not excusing Donald Trump’s rude response on Twitter to the Khans. But c’mon. After all, it wasn’t Donald Trump who loudly clamored to ship the late Capt. Khan off to Iraq. Then New York Sen. Hillary Clinton did.

When it came to invading Iraq, the Senate Democrats were so overcome with blood lust that they scheduled a second roll call, so the malingerers could be rounded up and recorded in favor of what they were soon denouncing as Bush-Lied-People-Died jingoism.

If only Trump had responded with Democrat-like compassion, if only he had said something to the Khans about the death of their son like, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Trump handled it badly, no question. But no matter what he said, Hillary’s press-credentialed common nightwalkers of the media were going to throw everything at him but the kitchen sink.



And now we see it happen again. Khizr Khan is a national treasure. Patricia Smith is a national disgrace.

Donald Trump should have seen this one coming a mile away, but somehow he never does. When will he ever learn? Until he does, somebody grab his iPhone. Stop him before he tweets again.

Khan said Donald Trump hasn't read the Constitution. Smith said Hillary was personally responsible for the death of her son and should be in jail. Lol. There is a huge difference between what the two were saying. And Hillary handled it well. She disagrees with Smith in that they did not do everything they could for her son. But she does not attack her. Trump is the one that made this in to an issue. If he didn't say anything, it would have just been a DNC speech. But he's that dumb.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Don't want to get into the penis measuring contest but this was a good read...



Carr: Two sons killed in combat, two different responses | Boston Herald

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Two grief-stricken parents, two sons killed in combat with Islamic extremism in the Middle East, two addresses to political conventions on national TV.



One parent was born in the U.S., the other in Pakistan. One is a Christian, the other a Muslim. One is for Trump, the other for Hillary. Do you get the idea where we’re going with this?



Would you care to guess which one of the grieving parents is the toast of the mainstream media, lionized from sea to shining sea, a model to us all, and which one is, well, Patricia Smith?



Her son Sean was murdered in 2012 in Benghazi. She told her story to the nation at the Republican rather than the Democrat convention, and these are some of the responses she got from Hillary’s bought-and-paid-for rumpswabs in the in-the-satchel mainstream media.



“I don’t care how that woman felt,” said Comrade Chris Matthews on MSNBC.



“A cynical exploitation of grief,” sniffed the Nation.



The Washington Post tut-tutted that what Mrs. Smith represented was “an early dip into the gutter.”



The New Yorker called her speech “the weaponization of grief.”



“A spectacle so offensive,” said Comrade Chris’ pal Rachel Maddow, “it was hard to even comprehend.”



A writer for GQ (who knew they were even still in business?) said he wanted “to beat her to death.”



What a difference it makes to have a “D” rather than an “R” after your name. If only Patricia Smith had put the blast on Donald Trump, she would have been speaking truth to power. She’d be on the shortlist for a Profiles in Courage award, maybe even the Nobel Peace Prize.



But instead she blamed Hillary, and that made her the snake at the garden party, the turd in the punch bowl. How dare she! Blasphemy!



Look, I’m not excusing Donald Trump’s rude response on Twitter to the Khans. But c’mon. After all, it wasn’t Donald Trump who loudly clamored to ship the late Capt. Khan off to Iraq. Then New York Sen. Hillary Clinton did.



When it came to invading Iraq, the Senate Democrats were so overcome with blood lust that they scheduled a second roll call, so the malingerers could be rounded up and recorded in favor of what they were soon denouncing as Bush-Lied-People-Died jingoism.



If only Trump had responded with Democrat-like compassion, if only he had said something to the Khans about the death of their son like, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”



Trump handled it badly, no question. But no matter what he said, Hillary’s press-credentialed common nightwalkers of the media were going to throw everything at him but the kitchen sink.







And now we see it happen again. Khizr Khan is a national treasure. Patricia Smith is a national disgrace.



Donald Trump should have seen this one coming a mile away, but somehow he never does. When will he ever learn? Until he does, somebody grab his iPhone. Stop him before he tweets again.

I hope nobody truly believes this is non-partisan. The Boston Herald is as slanted as they come, and this piece completely fails to see major differences between the stories.

Patricia Smith is personally blaming Hillary Clinton for the death of her son, despite Clinton having nothing to do with her son's death. News organizations, which are not controlled by Clinton, rightly took issue with the RNC taking advantage of this woman's grief to attack Clinton on completely unfounded grounds.

The Khans did not personally blame Donald Trump for their son's death, but spoke to how their son, a Muslim who died for the U.S., would not have been allowed in the country if Trump had his way. Donald Trump PERSONALLY took it upon himself to attack this family.

The differences are so large it astounds me that someone took the time to write this piece. But, then again... It's the Herald.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pgisback]

Obama just destroying Trump right now. Love it!

[ajlaxmn]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Don't want to get into the penis measuring contest but this was a good read...

Carr: Two sons killed in combat, two different responses | Boston Herald
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two grief-stricken parents, two sons killed in combat with Islamic extremism in the Middle East, two addresses to political conventions on national TV.

One parent was born in the U.S., the other in Pakistan. One is a Christian, the other a Muslim. One is for Trump, the other for Hillary. Do you get the idea where we’re going with this?

Would you care to guess which one of the grieving parents is the toast of the mainstream media, lionized from sea to shining sea, a model to us all, and which one is, well, Patricia Smith?

Her son Sean was murdered in 2012 in Benghazi. She told her story to the nation at the Republican rather than the Democrat convention, and these are some of the responses she got from Hillary’s bought-and-paid-for rumpswabs in the in-the-satchel mainstream media.

“I don’t care how that woman felt,” said Comrade Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

“A cynical exploitation of grief,” sniffed the Nation.

The Washington Post tut-tutted that what Mrs. Smith represented was “an early dip into the gutter.”

The New Yorker called her speech “the weaponization of grief.”

“A spectacle so offensive,” said Comrade Chris’ pal Rachel Maddow, “it was hard to even comprehend.”

A writer for GQ (who knew they were even still in business?) said he wanted “to beat her to death.”

What a difference it makes to have a “D” rather than an “R” after your name. If only Patricia Smith had put the blast on Donald Trump, she would have been speaking truth to power. She’d be on the shortlist for a Profiles in Courage award, maybe even the Nobel Peace Prize.

But instead she blamed Hillary, and that made her the snake at the garden party, the turd in the punch bowl. How dare she! Blasphemy!

Look, I’m not excusing Donald Trump’s rude response on Twitter to the Khans. But c’mon. After all, it wasn’t Donald Trump who loudly clamored to ship the late Capt. Khan off to Iraq. Then New York Sen. Hillary Clinton did.

When it came to invading Iraq, the Senate Democrats were so overcome with blood lust that they scheduled a second roll call, so the malingerers could be rounded up and recorded in favor of what they were soon denouncing as Bush-Lied-People-Died jingoism.

If only Trump had responded with Democrat-like compassion, if only he had said something to the Khans about the death of their son like, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Trump handled it badly, no question. But no matter what he said, Hillary’s press-credentialed common nightwalkers of the media were going to throw everything at him but the kitchen sink.



And now we see it happen again. Khizr Khan is a national treasure. Patricia Smith is a national disgrace.

Donald Trump should have seen this one coming a mile away, but somehow he never does. When will he ever learn? Until he does, somebody grab his iPhone. Stop him before he tweets again.

I was thinking about Mr. & Mrs. Khan the other day, how I could never feel the loss of a child, especially to war, and how I, and any other normal warm blooded American would feel for someone who lost a loved one serving.

However, using their anguish as a political tool is disgusting, and if it was ever done with a republican candidate to this extent, still disgusting. I have no party loyalty, I want a genuine, honest individual who looks like he/she cares about the nation. Hillary and Trump are neither.

This year has been the epitome of bought and paid for politicians and large media influence. I honestly think that the media actually tries to be as ridiculous as possible. It is embarrassing to see our nation run by politicians like this.

I love the USA, don't want to live anywhere else, proud of men and women who have given their lives and those who will continue to pay the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. With that said, I'm not going to state we are the greatest nation, far from it, we are behind in many statistical categories and although we may be a great country because of our military size and world economic influence, we can do MUCH better.

It is beyond me that people are finding no issue with all of Hillary's faults, how they can look past that and say, no, I'm still going to voter for her. The tweets from people when she was officially nominated about how amazing of a moment this was, how they were touched to see Hillary and her daughter share that moment was probably the thing that pissed me off the most. She is crooked and not trustworthy, she is not someone a young female should look up to, she is the epitome of crooked politics. I could care less if a women is president, I just want an honest and trustworthy one. The whole DNC email issue just proved how she was the anointed nominee from the start, that is not how it is supposed to work, Bernie was a true by the people candidate and he was working against the "system" the whole way, Hillary had it easy, and still struggled to beat Bernie. It's like the Patriots having deflated footballs and just barely beating the Colts by 4.

With that being said I don't think Trump is a good candidate either, he lacks a lot of professionalism that a president needs. I don't care about his doom scenario he may promote, it's more accurate than the standard happy go lucky sh*t we get, but he just doesn't have the demeanor, IMO, to be president.

Hopefully this election pissed off a lot of young people who will maybe vote Libertarian or Green Party so that they will be include in the Ticket in 2020 and we get to see more than two nominees to elect president.

All my opinion just shooting from the hip.

[pgisback]

Another one of my democratic puppet masters...

----------------------------

Rep. Richard Hanna of New York has become the first Republican member of Congress to endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

In an op-ed article for Syracuse.com, Hanna, who is retiring this year, called Trump "profoundly offensive and narcissistic" and "a world-class panderer" and said the GOP nominee's temperament made him unfit for office.

"I never expect to agree with whoever is president, but at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect," Hanna said.

"For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country," Hanna said.

Richard Hanna supporting Hillary Clinton over Trump - Business Insider

[quackhead]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Don't want to get into the penis measuring contest but this was a good read...

Carr: Two sons killed in combat, two different responses | Boston Herald
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two grief-stricken parents, two sons killed in combat with Islamic extremism in the Middle East, two addresses to political conventions on national TV.

One parent was born in the U.S., the other in Pakistan. One is a Christian, the other a Muslim. One is for Trump, the other for Hillary. Do you get the idea where we’re going with this?

Would you care to guess which one of the grieving parents is the toast of the mainstream media, lionized from sea to shining sea, a model to us all, and which one is, well, Patricia Smith?

Her son Sean was murdered in 2012 in Benghazi. She told her story to the nation at the Republican rather than the Democrat convention, and these are some of the responses she got from Hillary’s bought-and-paid-for rumpswabs in the in-the-satchel mainstream media.

“I don’t care how that woman felt,” said Comrade Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

“A cynical exploitation of grief,” sniffed the Nation.

The Washington Post tut-tutted that what Mrs. Smith represented was “an early dip into the gutter.”

The New Yorker called her speech “the weaponization of grief.”

“A spectacle so offensive,” said Comrade Chris’ pal Rachel Maddow, “it was hard to even comprehend.”

A writer for GQ (who knew they were even still in business?) said he wanted “to beat her to death.”

What a difference it makes to have a “D” rather than an “R” after your name. If only Patricia Smith had put the blast on Donald Trump, she would have been speaking truth to power. She’d be on the shortlist for a Profiles in Courage award, maybe even the Nobel Peace Prize.

But instead she blamed Hillary, and that made her the snake at the garden party, the turd in the punch bowl. How dare she! Blasphemy!

Look, I’m not excusing Donald Trump’s rude response on Twitter to the Khans. But c’mon. After all, it wasn’t Donald Trump who loudly clamored to ship the late Capt. Khan off to Iraq. Then New York Sen. Hillary Clinton did.

When it came to invading Iraq, the Senate Democrats were so overcome with blood lust that they scheduled a second roll call, so the malingerers could be rounded up and recorded in favor of what they were soon denouncing as Bush-Lied-People-Died jingoism.

If only Trump had responded with Democrat-like compassion, if only he had said something to the Khans about the death of their son like, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Trump handled it badly, no question. But no matter what he said, Hillary’s press-credentialed common nightwalkers of the media were going to throw everything at him but the kitchen sink.



And now we see it happen again. Khizr Khan is a national treasure. Patricia Smith is a national disgrace.

Donald Trump should have seen this one coming a mile away, but somehow he never does. When will he ever learn? Until he does, somebody grab his iPhone. Stop him before he tweets again.

I would think lying to the face of a dead persons mother, as SOS, is 1000 times worse than what Trump did. And then saying "What difference does it make?"

At least Trump has time to apologize, maybe hug it out with the Kahns and it becomes water under the bridge.

[quackhead]

Originally Posted by ssbledsoe

Robots are certainly the future

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

[jlzinck]

My link was not a political argument. It was how both sides in this argument are wrong.

Unless you don't believe that Mrs Clinton told Mrs Smith her son was dead because of a video.

Neither one of these a-holes should be president. Neither presidency will be as bad as you fanatics say it will be.

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

My link was not a political argument. It was how both sides in this argument are wrong.

Unless you don't believe that Mrs Clinton told Mrs Smith her son was dead because of a video.

Neither one of these a-holes should be president. Neither presidency will be as bad as you fanatics say it will be.

It's as political as it gets, lol.

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by quackhead

I would think lying to the face of a dead persons mother, as SOS, is 1000 times worse than what Trump did. And then saying "What difference does it make?"

At least Trump has time to apologize, maybe hug it out with the Kahns and it becomes water under the bridge.

I'm not a fan of Clinton, but let's look at that single sentence within context;

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

Within that context, she is saying at that point, months after the event, why does it matter the reason that the embassy was attacked. I agree. The line "What difference does it make?" is taken out of context when trying to pin on her that she does not care about who died or how they died.

[Brobocop]

And so as not to appear biased, another commonly out of context thing that bugs me is George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. You know what I'm talking about or have at least seen the photo. George W. Bush standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. People love to spout off about how stupid Bush looked or how wrong he was about the war being over. Well, that's not what the speech was about or what the banner was referring to. The banner was put there by the crew of the carrier as a acknowledgement of the end of their 10-month deployment. Bush in the speech said that the mission was far from over several times in the speech.

The one error of the speech, the vast majority of casualties, both military and civilian, occurred after the speech. Still, this is a lot to do about nothing. That won't stop people from not knowing the truth behind the moment. I mean, why bother doing five minutes of research when you can just repost a meme and forget about it?

[jlzinck]

Originally Posted by pgisback

It's as political as it gets, lol.

My argument was not and you probably cannot understand that because you are no different that those who worship Trump.

Thanks for playing though

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by pgisback

It's as political as it gets, lol.

Nah, Jl is right, that article to me showcases more why neither of these people are qualified to be President. One doesn't have the ability to console the parents of a dead solider, the other doesn't know how to secure classified documents. This election has become nothing more than the console war. Arguing over nothing and pledging blind allegiance to something that will probably never have your back if you ever needed it to. Listen, just like how Sony and Microsoft just want your money, Trump and Clinton just want your vote. They'll say or do anything to get it.

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

My argument was not and you probably cannot understand that because you are no different that those who worship Trump.

Thanks for playing though

It's pretty much the definition of a political argument. Just because you're claiming to not like Trump nor Clinton, does not mean it is not a political argument.

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Nah, Jl is right, that article to me showcases more why neither of these people are qualified to be President. One doesn't have the ability to console the parents of a dead solider, the other doesn't know how to secure classified documents. This election has become nothing more than the console war. Arguing over nothing and pledging blind allegiance to something that will probably never have your back if you ever needed it to. Listen, just like how Sony and Microsoft just want your money, Trump and Clinton just want your vote. They'll say or do anything to get it.

Yea, saying they are not qualified to be President is a political argument. I don't even comprehend how that is up for debate.

[jlzinck]

Originally Posted by pgisback

Yea, saying they are not qualified to be President is a political argument. I don't even comprehend how that is up for debate.

Keep up the "Trump is the Devil" crusade.

God Bless.

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Keep up the "Trump is the Devil" crusade.

God Bless.

I'm just letting you know that you are making a political argument.

[jcardstore]

"I'm just continuing to show how badly I lack self-awareness"

[quackhead]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Neither one of these a-holes should be president. Neither presidency will be as bad as you fanatics say it will be.

Agree, I just hope its not Hillary.

[pgisback]

Wow, the wheels are falling off.

Bovada now has Clinton at -300. That's landslide territory.

Predictwise up to 74% for Hillary

538 up to 66% for Hillary.

Rarely, if ever, are all these indicators incorrect for a Presidential election. Unless Comrade Trump's commie friends commit espionage and help him out, he's toast.

[quackhead]

Interesting. Didn't know Kahn was an immigration lawyer:

Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration - Breitbart

Why would he delete his website??

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by pgisback

Yea, saying they are not qualified to be President is a political argument. I don't even comprehend how that is up for debate.

Okay, fine, it's a political argument saying that none of these clowns are qualified to be president. There, are you happy?

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Okay, fine, it's a political argument saying that none of these clowns are qualified to be president. There, are you happy?

I'm happier... but still unhappy you are willing to throw away a vote. Hillary is clearly much more qualified to be President than Trump. Trump's the least qualified candidate in American history.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by pgisback

I'm happier... but still unhappy you are willing to throw away a vote. Hillary is clearly much more qualified to be President than Trump. Trump's the least qualified candidate in American history.

More qualified than Trump isn't saying much.

Regardless of how "qualified" she is, plenty of people believe she is also unfit to be president.

Just because someone doesn't want to vote for her does not mean their vote is wasted.

That is your problem, you cannot accept that some people don't want to vote for her, regardless how how great you think she is.

I, for one, refuse to contribute to either party because they are both awful. I'm not going to waste my own vote voting for someone who I do not believe in. Plenty of other people feel the same so just get over it.

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

More qualified than Trump isn't saying much.

Regardless of how "qualified" she is, plenty of people believe she is also unfit to be president.

Just because someone doesn't want to vote for her does not mean their vote is wasted.

That is your problem, you cannot accept that some people don't want to vote for her, regardless how how great you think she is.

I, for one, refuse to contribute to either party because they are both awful. I'm not going to waste my own vote voting for someone who I do not believe in. Plenty of other people feel the same so just get over it.

I don't think she is great. I think she is qualified and not some sociopathic disgrace to this country like Trump. And many people I like support her.

Barack Obama
Michelle Obama
Warren Buffet
Mark Cuban
Bernie Sanders
Michael Bloomberg
Joe Biden
Jill Biden

That's a pretty powerful list of people vouching for her and claiming she is more qualified to lead this country. And yes, a lot has to do with the fact, she is not Trump. Heck, I would even consider Romney over Hillary.