Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

May I be the first here to congratulate Woodsman, whether or not you agree with him, he called it correctly, right on the button from the outset.

Well done Woody.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

May I be the first here to congratulate Woodsman, whether or not you agree with him, he called it correctly, right on the button from the outset.

Well done Woody.

[verdo]

Re: Trump to win?

im honestly shocked. I never bought the mainstream media garbage saying she had a 90% chance, but i still didnt think hed actually win. This is a crazy monkey wrench. We need EJ immediately...


seriously, what the hell is wrong with Americans? i get it, hillary sucks..but really? Trump the maniac? boy oh boy. Will the markets even survive the month? Oh and i guess we can consider Fed interest rate hikes goodbye. I really dont know whats going to happen next

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

God damn, touchring, you called it! Be sure to buy a lottery ticket tomorrow.
You guys should see my Canadian facebook feed... people are in totally disbelief.
Meanwhile in Canada, just as Trump took the lead tonight.

Well, at least gold is going through the roof. Seriously though, would have been amazing if Bernie had won. I feel for you Americans tonight. Good luck with everything!

I think Trump is acting on the immigration and foreign trade issues just to get the popular vote, no doubt there will be renegotiations for a better deal, as a businessman he should know better. But I think he would stop the mess the Obama administration has created in the Middle East and Europe. WWIII will be deferred, at least for the next 10 years. This point alone is a win for the entire world.

I am guessing that a Trump win is going to be very positive for Canadians because it will help to deflate the housing bubble and at the same time a domestic economic boom in the U.S. will benefit Canada directly, not to mention the pipeline will be approved.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

i would support a revenue neutral carbon tax [i.e. recycle the money in some fashion to offset the burden on those who can least afford it]. i think climate change - whatever its cause- is a real threat to our well-being as a nation and, to a lesser degree, as a civilization. i also think we have to shut down coal-fired plants if we are going to get india and china to stop building new ones. [a necessary step, not a sufficient one.]

Although not yet 100% sure, it appears the alt-right has control of the US. Trump supporters wanted to break the party system but it appears they've put Republicans in charge of every branch of US government. It's a great day for coal and oil and it's a great day for billionaires. There will be no tax on carbon, just more carbon. Unless something changes dramatically in the next couple of hours, Trump supporters should enjoy what they've created. I guess they deserve it.

I was just trying to think of all the things that will disappear quickly; renewable energy, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd Frank, foreign trade, civil rights, separation of church and state...it's going to be fun? watching the children play with democracy.

Reminds me of an old joke: Little Johnny comes home from school and tells his mom, "They let us make explosives at school today." Mom says, well be careful at school tomorrow. Little Johnny says, "What school?"

[Adeptus]

Re: Trump to win?

God damn, touchring, you called it! Be sure to buy a lottery ticket tomorrow.
You guys should see my Canadian facebook feed... people are in totally disbelief.
Meanwhile in Canada, just as Trump took the lead tonight.

Well, at least gold is going through the roof. Seriously though, would have been amazing if Bernie had won. I feel for you Americans tonight. Good luck with everything!

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i actually think nixon did more in the way of criminal activity, and more important crimes at that. but i suppose that is a value judgement, since you could argue they both misused the powers of their offices.

"Wrong!"


Nixon's worst crimes were obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Hillary has that and more on Dick.

Resolution

Impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, of
high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United
States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the
following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name of
itself and of all of the people of the United States of America,
against Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of
America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment

[[Page 2185]]

against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States,
Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration
of justice, in that:
On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee
for the Reelection of the President committed unlawful entry of the
headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington,
District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political
intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the
powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his
subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to
delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful
entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to
conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert
activities.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan
included one or more of the following:
(1) making or causing to be made false or misleading statements
to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the
United States;
(2) withholding relevant and material evidence or information
from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of
the United States;
(3) approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling
witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading
statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and
employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in
duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
(4) interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of
investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Watergate
Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
(5) approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious
payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining
the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential
witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry
and other illegal activities;
(6) endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an
agency of the United States;
(7) disseminating information received from officers of the
Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of
investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative
officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of
aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid
criminal liability;
(8) making false or misleading public statements for the
purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing
that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with
respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of
the executive branch of the United States and per

[[Page 2186]]

sonnel of the Committee for the Reelection of the President, and
that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct;
or
(9) endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and
individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment
and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony,
or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary
to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HP...S-V3-5-5-2.htm

We have emails demonstrating multiple instances of HRC and her subordinates trading her office and access for cash in a blatant pay to play fashion. And Nixon didn't know about Watergate break in until after it occurred. Hillary was in on Emailgate from the start.

It's going to be a fascinating next two years.

"Hillary paid me to commit voter fraud and create violence @DavidCornDC. She is a mob figure herself."
@Scott_Foval

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Speaking of confusing signature pictures, I have to ask. Woodsman: was your Trump signature originally intended as a comical jab at Trump and his supporters? I never questioned for a second that it could be sincere when I first saw it. Now I don't know what to make of it.

I'm giggling at the cognitive dissonance so many of you are experiencing.

Yes, Spence, it is a comical jab at Trump and his supporters. There have been so many vicious and mean-spirited depictions of Trump supporters, but this one was hilariously ridiculous knowing what we know about The Donald, but with a certain sweetness about it too. I was struck by the earnestness of the people and the hope expressed in the prayer "Thank you Lord Jesus for President Trump" and there's a follow-up story on the mother and the older couple that humanizes everyone involved.

I guess you can call it a naive hope, but I'm glad we still have people like this in America. They might be dying out and subject to the hate of their so-called betters, but they're much the same sort of folks I came up and despite their human shortcomings, I find much to admire in them and the America they aspire to even if it only ever existed in a dream.

So yeah, I guess it's a comical jab at the entire universe, Spence. Many levels of meaning and these have evolved over time, too. But I'm good with you making of it whatever you will!

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

it was when i realized this was the case, that someone for whom i had great respect had "evolved" to the point that an insult was a substitute for a reply, that i put woody on ignore. i had hoped that by ignoring his insults i could eventually engage him in a real discussion, but it wasn't to be. that's when i realized that woody was no longer supporting trump as a strategic choice but that he had "become him."

i went and voted early this morning. my vote won't change anything in this very blue state where i live, but i've never felt so gung-ho about voting. i want to run up the popular total so that when/if hillary wins there won't be any doubt about the people's choice. i laughed out loud to think i was so gung-ho about someone i actually dislike, but so be it. [/COLOR]

Doctor you think too much of your perceptive powers and this is in the same vein (vain?) as your first attempt to "diagnose" me way back in the Procrustean bed of this long and rollicking thread.

My motivations for supporting Trump haven't changed since I shared them so I will take your confusion as a compliment. I became a partisan the moment I decided to support Trump and I played the role to the hilt. The fact that you can't tell the difference is your problem, but my guess that is inseparable from your inability to discern the opportunity that the Donald provides us despite his many personal shortcomings.

Unlikely as it is, I'm rooting for a Donald win and barring that, like you, a Johnson-sized landslide for old Hilzy.

Because if If I can't have the whole cake I ordered this summer after they stabbed Sanders in the back and the Democrat/MSM collusion was confirmed; if a majority of the voters succumb to the weapons-grade propaganda and fall victim to the information war waged against them; if Americans fail to take this last opportunity for change now, then the half will just have to do for me. It's been a heck of a ride and it was much fun coming out of "retirement."

The GOP is forever split with the neocons either in exile or back to being "Scoop Jackson" Democrats again. And with Wikileaks showing the Sanders' Left precisely where they fit in Hillary's plans for governing, I think the reaction here is inevitable if hard yet to discern. And the paybacks and sweetheart deals begin tomorrow as the chits come due. Who do you think Citibank will put on their Cabinet shopping list, as they did for Obama? And do we go to war with Russia in Ukraine or Syria?

Until President Kaine is sworn in, I'll enjoy eating my half-a-cake while y'all get to own another war, perhaps another economic crisis and for sure a further collapse in governance. And all of that belongs to HRC and her supporters, the die hard Kool-aid drinkers and "pragmatists" like you alike, doctor.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Unless the "environment" in HRC's case is some carbon trading/taxing scheme administered by Wall Street, I don't see her administration changing things much for the average person. Budgets for environmental cleanups will go up slightly, and nothing much will change. And, for what it's worth, I really hope she doesn't push any carbon trading/taxing scheme....but I wouldn't rule it out happening.

If environment means closing down coal fueled power plants, yes, that will continue through regulation-strangulation in her administration.

i would support a revenue neutral carbon tax [i.e. recycle the money in some fashion to offset the burden on those who can least afford it]. i think climate change - whatever its cause- is a real threat to our well-being as a nation and, to a lesser degree, as a civilization. i also think we have to shut down coal-fired plants if we are going to get india and china to stop building new ones. [a necessary step, not a sufficient one.]

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Nixon did far less that Clinton...

i actually think nixon did more in the way of criminal activity, and more important crimes at that. but i suppose that is a value judgement, since you could argue they both misused the powers of their offices.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm a consultant who works in the hazardous waste site cleanup industry....not sure if that is the topic when we talk of environment. I don't think we qualify for the "environmental-industrial complex" label since the annual federal funds budgeted for EPA cleaning up the environment (I'm not talking about passing regulations by the gov't) is around $650 million per year....so I work in an industry where my company fights with other companies for scraps....that number really hits home when you do this work in the shadow of Wall Street where the top 10 hedge fund owners made more than $7 billion in 2015.

Unless the "environment" in HRC's case is some carbon trading/taxing scheme administered by Wall Street, I don't see her administration changing things much for the average person. Budgets for environmental cleanups will go up slightly, and nothing much will change. And, for what it's worth, I really hope she doesn't push any carbon trading/taxing scheme....but I wouldn't rule it out happening.

If environment means closing down coal fueled power plants, yes, that will continue through regulation-strangulation in her administration.

If Trump wins, just like when Bush won, the environmental cleanup budgets didn't change much. Polls show folks who vote for either party don't want dirty rivers or hazardous waste sites in their back yards....hence, this issue is all smoke and mirrors and hot button rather than real.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

we are faced with what to me is an ugly choice this year. my signature is indeed ironic, but i think there are or will be less risky ways to go forward than throwing the dice with trump. further, although hillary will do nothing to dismantle socialism for the rich, she is more likely to do things of which i'd approve at least in the realms of the environment and supreme court choices.

Nixon did far less that Clinton, and he was caught because he was surrounded by enemies. Trump will be sounded by enemies. Clinton will be in an air conditioned room in Death Valley once she is in the White House. Clinton does not believe in any issues. Its honey on barbed wire.
Any speech of hers on the environment is like a free meal for time share sales pitch.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

And now you're going full fascist, (there's a bad German theme here in case you missed it). Opposing opinions must be banned.

Being hypocritical jackass, you have certainly picked the party with the correct mascot. Since your memory seems a sieve, only fit to mine unrefined lumps of cliched b-ore , I'll help with your mineral deficiency.

I believe the last time we met was during my "screed". I provided source material for both Christianity, Judaism and Islam to prove they are not equal in their ideologies, or their idiosyncrasies. It was shortly after that you displayed your only truly remarkable quality , hypocrisy with dry ice and laser lights; you asked Fred to shut the thread down. That is of course because you know nothing about it like a man on a donkey during the battle of Kursk.

Do try to use the ignore feature properly in the future. 'Tiss best for all.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

Politics in many nations seems to have fallen into such disrepute that it seemingly can attract only disreputable people.