Trump & Hillary

[UNC '92]

God I used to love these threads when I was a bit younger, although I'm not sure age has anything to do with it. My friends and I really don't discuss politics all that much. It splits the group and in the end doesn't provide us entertainment. When I'm with my friends, the entertainment value is usually high and subjects like this just bring us down. It's why we largely avoid those discussions except for the occasional joke.

I'm afraid that by the time the election rolls around, this place will be a shell of its former self. Although I try to stay out of most of it, I know I don't help it along commenting as I do. I have a lot of respect for poasters here who don't align with me politically. Longtime guys like @BillyL, @JuleZ '02 HEEL and @Raising Heel (I just put you on a list) are folks I consider friends who I am pretty sure are somewhere to my left, but are all guys I prefer to "keep on the sunny side of life."

Maybe I'm being overly dramatic about it, or I just don't remember how we did it over the last 8 years and remained civil, but this time seems different. It could be the recent addition to this board of personalities whose only intent seems on starting controversial thread topics and then inciting arguments by saying the most incoherent, insane things they can muster.

I see some of you out there trying to go the other way with threads. I appreciate that, even if I don't say it. I hope that during the rest of this election season, and after, we can continue to conduct ourselves as we have in the past. The good folks here is what made OOTB so great in the first place.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

God I used to love these threads when I was a bit younger, although I'm not sure age has anything to do with it. My friends and I really don't discuss politics all that much. It splits the group and in the end doesn't provide us entertainment. When I'm with my friends, the entertainment value is usually high and subjects like this just bring us down. It's why we largely avoid those discussions except for the occasional joke.

I'm afraid that by the time the election rolls around, this place will be a shell of its former self. Although I try to stay out of most of it, I know I don't help it along commenting as I do. I have a lot of respect for poasters here who don't align with me politically. Longtime guys like @BillyL, @JuleZ '02 HEEL and @Raising Heel (I just put you on a list) are folks I consider friends who I am pretty sure are somewhere to my left, but are all guys I prefer to "keep on the sunny side of life."

Maybe I'm being overly dramatic about it, or I just don't remember how we did it over the last 8 years and remained civil, but this time seems different. It could be the recent addition to this board of personalities whose only intent seems on starting controversial thread topics and then inciting arguments by saying the most incoherent, insane things they can muster.

I see some of you out there trying to go the other way with threads. I appreciate that, even if I don't say it. I hope that during the rest of this election season, and after, we can continue to conduct ourselves as we have in the past. The good folks here is what made OOTB so great in the first place.

One thing about it is we cannot allow our differences in these political beliefs really divide us, we have to simply agree to disagree because there is not really a thing any of us can do to change what is going on and what is coming and we all know it. Proof of that is the new information about Hillary essentially knowing through some emails that she had this in the bag no matter what. The whole thing is rigged, always has been, or has been since the 80s anyway that I can recall.

I'm still not convinced yet that somehow Trump is not in cahoots with the Clinton's to ensure she gets this and they (Trump and Clinton) are all sitting back at night laughing their asses off at how much "crazy" Trump is giving the Republican party and how they are just taking it over and over like a bunch of stubborn mules, wondering WHEN will these people just say ENOUGH!!!

I have never seen an election like this one and I know it is only going to get crazier, especially when the debates start up in September! Lord help us all!

If we had any sense (the entire country) we' all just not show up to vote and see what they do but of course, no one would do that. It would be a fun day though haha!

 

[strummingram]

The whole thing is rigged, always has been, or has been since the 80s anyway that I can recall.

It has been rigged and is being rigged all the time. Especially on the national level.That's not a lot of fun to realize or accept... assuming you can do either.

Politics is a game of division. Politics REQUIRES division in order to exist. The more division, the stronger politics becomes. It doesn't care about sides, or left and right, or conservative and liberal, or democrat and republican. It just needs some kind of division and then "let the games begin!"

 

[BillyL]

God I used to love these threads when I was a bit younger, although I'm not sure age has anything to do with it. My friends and I really don't discuss politics all that much. It splits the group and in the end doesn't provide us entertainment. When I'm with my friends, the entertainment value is usually high and subjects like this just bring us down. It's why we largely avoid those discussions except for the occasional joke.

I'm afraid that by the time the election rolls around, this place will be a shell of its former self. Although I try to stay out of most of it, I know I don't help it along commenting as I do. I have a lot of respect for poasters here who don't align with me politically. Longtime guys like @BillyL, @JuleZ '02 HEEL and @Raising Heel (I just put you on a list) are folks I consider friends who I am pretty sure are somewhere to my left, but are all guys I prefer to "keep on the sunny side of life."

Maybe I'm being overly dramatic about it, or I just don't remember how we did it over the last 8 years and remained civil, but this time seems different. It could be the recent addition to this board of personalities whose only intent seems on starting controversial thread topics and then inciting arguments by saying the most incoherent, insane things they can muster.

I see some of you out there trying to go the other way with threads. I appreciate that, even if I don't say it. I hope that during the rest of this election season, and after, we can continue to conduct ourselves as we have in the past. The good folks here is what made OOTB so great in the first place.

Great post, @UNC'92 . .

You and I will always be buds, and please, sir, do post your thoughts and feelings about any subject, political or not. The respect you offer will always be returned by myself I can assure you.

 

[Raising Heel]

Great post, @UNC'92 . .

You and I will always be buds, and please, sir, do post your thoughts and feelings about any subject, political or not. The respect you offer will always be returned by myself I can assure you.

Absolutely. We don't have to agree. We just have to be respectful of each other's opinions. It helps when those opinions aren't completely bonkers though.

I think part of what's different this time around is that we have two of the worst presidential candidates in history. Everybody is on edge wondering how it's gonna play out. In the end, it doesn't really matter. We'll all still be here on OOTB grousing about it for the next four (or eight, God help us) years.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Absolutely. We don't have to agree. We just have to be respectful of each other's opinions. It helps when those opinions aren't completely bonkers though.

I think part of what's different this time around is that we have two of the worst presidential candidates in history. Everybody is on edge wondering how it's gonna play out. .

Al that's true. And I always used to say the same thing - as long as we can be respectful, I won't hold political views against people. But I have a family and a way of life that we enjoy. And when I see politicians attempting to change/destroy the way of life I have enjoyed, it's not so easy to chalk it up to, "well, we just see things differently". And that goes for friends/acquaintances as well. If you support Obama and you support Hillary, then you support something I see as hurtful to my family. And I can't abide it.

 

[Archer2]

I think threads like this one are to be expected in an election year when you have the two most negatively viewed opponents in our history. I have a sister that lives in NY and I love her to death but her political views are diametrically opposed to mine. We were recently at the beach celebrating my mother's 88th and politics was strictly off limits. She voted for Obama twice and likes Hillary, making me question whether we even share the same parents.

 

[UNC71-00]

 

[strummingram]

"Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution"

Maybe Trump skipped the first amendment during his reading?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...ton-go-after-donald-1469931507-htmlstory.html

 

[Blue2010]

So, political parties aside, what's your honest, unbiased take on this?

Trump:

I honestly think he is a bigoted billionaire whose arrogance is about as high as any one person can possibly achieve. I also think that he comes across as a whiner (see: Clinton Campaign is rigging the debates b/c of the NFL schedule). Whining is a typical trait for bullies who are not getting their way.

Clinton:

A lying criminal who is likely also a billionaire through all of her side dealings. Unfortunately for her, even if she tells the truth, there is no way you can believe her b/c of her track record. She is the [boy] who cried wolf too many times. She has irresponsibly jeopardized this country's security with her blatant negligence regarding her emails, and I would be very intrigued, and more-so concerned, about the contents of those emails. She is not stupid -- there is a reason she took a risk of that magnitude, and that is scary, to me.

Result:

We are left with a bigoted bully vs a lying criminal...both of whom have plenty of cash. So - you can effectively toss out the window any notion that we are electing an upstanding candidate who is founded on Christian morals. That simply ain't happening here. We are left voting for the one we feel will leave this country in a better situation than they found it.

Furthering that point, we are left to decide if abrasive bully tactics that are likely to piss off the rest of the world is more reckless than someone who wants to be everyone's friend and trust that those people will change their hearts and reciprocate that notion.

For me, it's a very fundamental concept. There is a reason parents who try to be a "friend" instead of a "parent" to their children ultimately leads to kids with no maturity and many times no moral code...kids who never become adults. The vast majority in this country are (sorry) stupid and need guidance. They aren't (sorry again) smart enough to figure this out on their own. This country needs clear and defined structure and a backbone to enforce it. And as much as I don't necessarily like the bully tactic, I don't think we really have a choice. The fact that the bully in this situation happens to be a great businessman who clearly understand that realm off things, I truly hope can translate to the economical dynamics in this country that are basically circling the drain at this point.

So, without playing the blame game and getting into the "He said, She said" high school drama BS, this is what we are left with. Which method will get this country back on track.

 

[BillyL]

Whaddya'll say we just go ahead and lock her up . . ? Or would it be too un-American to actually give her a trial . . ?

Naah, f*ck it . . . lets just throw her ass in jail, and believe that the DOJ just got it wrong . .

Who is with me here . . ?

 

[Blue2010]

Billy,

Sarcasm aside, if you do not believe there were backdoor dealings that stopped that from happening, then the level of naivety has reached new heights.

 

[strummingram]

Which method will get this country back on track.

What "track" is the country supposed to be ON? That is such a vague, misplaced reference. I see political pundits using that reference all the time... when THEIR PARTY'S name doesn't occupy the presidency. I think it's just another divisive illusion that is perpetuated by these sides, in order to keep the ruse going and paying dividends.

There is no one, specific "track." The country, and the world, are made up of billions of individuals on their own respective tracks. We all have ideas of how each other would be better off. Those ways are almost always based on how we (the individual) see the rest of the world.

The "country" is not off-track at all, because no track exists. In fact, there's really no "country" either. Most of what people consider "their country" is in their own imagination, too. It's based on a collective observation. We'd be better off realizing that we're all in the same big backyard.

 

[Archer2]

Having the mothers of blacks killed by police at the DNC was unconscionable, political pandering at it's worst, aimed at further dividing us and getting out the black vote. How about the mothers of the 468 homicides in Chicago alone last year, most of whom were black and the vast majority of which were killed by other black people. Don't those lives matter? Don't those mothers matter?

Politicizing a tragedy for their benefit, nobody does it better than the Dems.

 

[strummingram]

Whaddya'll say we just go ahead and lock her up . . ? Or would it be too un-American to actually give her a trial . . ?

Naah, f*ck it . . . lets just throw her ass in jail, and believe that the DOJ just got it wrong . .

Who is with me here . . ?

Billy, I know you don't REALLY believe that woman is completely innocent. People on her level don't go to jail. They don't even get indicted. Indictments and jail is for you and I. Defending them because you feel some allegiance to the party they claim to represent seems like a rather hollow effort. If it helps you, then go for it.

 

[Blue2010]

What "track" is the country supposed to be ON? That is such a vague, misplaced reference. I see political pundits using that reference all the time... when THEIR PARTY'S name doesn't occupy the presidency. I think it's just another divisive illusion that is perpetuated by these sides, in order to keep the ruse going and paying dividends.

There is no one, specific "track." The country, and the world, are made up of billions of individuals on their own respective tracks. We all have ideas of how each other would be better off. Those ways are almost always based on how we (the individual) see the rest of the world.

The "country" is not off-track at all, because no track exists. In fact, there's really no "country" either. Most of what people consider "their country" is in their own imagination, too. It's based on a collective observation. We'd be better off realizing that we're all in the same big backyard.

Don't get hung up on terminology here. The basic premise is focusing on which of these individuals will leave this country in a better position than they found it.

 

[BillyL]

Billy,

Sarcasm aside, if you do not believe there were backdoor dealings that stopped that from happening, then the level of naivety has reached new heights.

I will respect your opinion.

 

[Blue2010]

Billy, I know you don't REALLY believe that woman is completely innocent. People on her level don't go to jail. They don't even get indicted. Indictments and jail is for you and I. Defending them because you feel some allegiance to the party they claim to represent seems like a rather hollow effort. If it helps you, then go for it.

Mark the calendar...we agree on something

 

[UNC71-00]

 

[strummingram]

Don't get hung up on terminology here. The basic premise is focusing on which of these individuals will leave this country in a better position than they found it.

I just think it's important to really consider the terminology. We THINK in language. The better the language use, the more accurate the thoughts become. The more accurate the thoughts, the more likely we are to arrive at situations and conditions that mutually serve us as individuals and as a whole. That's all.

Choosing between gonorrhea or chlamydia doesn't give me much hope. If the choices are comprised of "which of these two do I like the least?" then we need to restructure the choosing process.

 

[Blue2010]

I feel like every 4 years, this is the same thing people say though.... "So, they is all the parties could come up with???" It's the same spiel every election. I do think this election has taken that a step further than in previous years, but I would argue that is largely b/c of other dynamics at play: A celebrity GOP candidate and the first woman to be nominated. Those are outliers in every other election. Without Trump being a reality TV star, I think we wind up with Rubio or Cruz (honestly). And if Hillary were not a woman, I doubt she would have even been in the primaries.

 

[strummingram]

I feel like every 4 years, this is the same thing people say though.... "So, they is all the parties could come up with???" It's the same spiel every election. I do think this election has taken that a step further than in previous years, but I would argue that is largely b/c of other dynamics at play: A celebrity GOP candidate and the first woman to be nominated. Those are outliers in every other election. Without Trump being a reality TV star, I think we wind up with Rubio or Cruz (honestly). And if Hillary were not a woman, I doubt she would have even been in the primaries.

Don't you get tired of "let's see how much worse they can get" at all? What ends up happening is people on either side are actually angry with the other for accepting these crappy candidates! They wind-up adhering to what they THINK their parties are supposed to represent, but even that rarely plays-out. So, if they have a D or R by their name, then it's "not as bad as the other." It's based on nothing. The politicians play to peoples' fears anyway. Trump does that like a maestro! Basically, it's "be MORE afraid of THEIR candidate and vote for me!" That's the track we're on!

 

[Blue2010]

Don't you get tired of "let's see how much worse they can get" at all? What ends up happening is people on either side are actually angry with the other for accepting these crappy candidates! They wind-up adhering to what they THINK their parties are supposed to represent, but even that rarely plays-out. So, if they have a D or R by their name, then it's "not as bad as the other." It's based on nothing. The politicians play to peoples' fears anyway. Trump does that like a maestro! Basically, it's "be MORE afraid of THEIR candidate and vote for me!" That's the track we're on!

Of course. Personally, I don't align with either party. I go with the choice that I believe will do the better job. That doesn't mean I "like" the person. If I had to choose anyone who threw their name into the ring this year based on how well I liked them as a person, I'd have easily gone with Ben Carson...and it would not have even been close. But solely focusing on the job I think they'll do, it doesn't matter if I like them or not. Even without all of her past issues, I truly do not think Hillary would do a good job...and that has NOTHING to do with her party affiliation. I think Trump is a loud-mouthed bully, but also someone who can accomplish what he says he will. JMHO

 

[BillyL]

 

[strummingram]

Of course. Personally, I don't align with either party. I go with the choice that I believe will do the better job. That doesn't mean I "like" the person. If I had to choose anyone who threw their name into the ring this year based on how well I liked them as a person, I'd have easily gone with Ben Carson...and it would not have even been close. But solely focusing on the job I think they'll do, it doesn't matter if I like them or not. Even without all of her past issues, I truly do not think Hillary would do a good job...and that has NOTHING to do with her party affiliation. I think Trump is a loud-mouthed bully, but also someone who can accomplish what he says he will. JMHO

I'm going with Gary Johnson because he's just heads-and-shoulders more qualified and the best choice, by far. He'll be on all 50 states' ballots. They should allow him into the debates.

I don't want a loud-mouthed bully as my president. Whatever they may claim they will accomplish is not worth the potential harm they will incur from... being a loud-mouthed bully. I don't want some government elite who's connected with all manner of global and domestic criminal activity and acts above the law. So, the choice is very easy for me! The Johnson-Weld ticket is the best 3rd Party ticket I have ever seen.

 

[BillyL]

 

[TarHeelMark]

I - like many Americans - am so disgusted by the two big party candidates that I can't see myself voting for either. As for Johnson, I hope he's allowed in the debates as I want to hear what he has to say on the national stage. Regardless, I know that I'm essentially throwing my vote away but that's the lesser of all the evils, IMO.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Do you guys know what would happen if this election everyone heard ALL of the candidates and made a choice based on what THEY ACTUALLY WANTED, not feeling they HAVE to choose between this left and right debauchery????? I have seen SO many people all over social media claiming that they "would vote 3rd party but....." (throw away vote, doesn't count, would be a vote for Hillary or Trump and wasted.....blah, blah, blah, the usual crap) yet if everyone truly voted as they really want to vote, Trump and Hillary would be left in the dust wondering what the hell just happened.... yet, most people don't have the balls to do it. I do though! ha!

 

[uncboy10]

 

[strummingram]

That's convenient.

American politics is Cronyism at its finest. Elections are just scenery to keep up appearances.

 

[Louigi]

That's convenient.

American politics is Cronyism at its finest. Elections are just scenery to keep up appearances.

Which is why we need to repeal the 17th ammendment.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Just when I think that psycho running on the Repub ticket cannot act more like a 2-year-old.... he does. NOW, suddenly he realizes the elections are rigged and of course they are ONLY if he loses. If he wins, then obviously, since he cannot admit to a mistake or ever being wrong, he will tweet that someone told him it was rigged but it wasn't, THEY made the mistake, not him.

So what this tells me is he KNOWS he has no chance in Hades in winning and to save face now, he will just go ahead and throw that out there to make his ego feel better in November when he loses to a woman! (albeit an evil woman... but a woman, nonetheless)

Gary Johnson 2016!!!!!!!

 

[prlyles]

 

[Blue2010]

Very true. They do have the ability to directly influence how many outside of this country who hate us are allowed to migrate in. So, there is that...

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Whaddya'll say we just go ahead and lock her up . . ? Or would it be too un-American to actually give her a trial . . ?

Naah, f*ck it . . . lets just throw her ass in jail, and believe that the DOJ just got it wrong . .

Who is with me here . . ?

Sounds good, she certainly has earned an orange pants suit

 

[BillyL]

Sounds good, she certainly has earned an orange pants suit

No trial needed huh . . ? Coming from a poster that claimed her to be 'TOAST' months ago with your inside info, that sounds about right.

Un-American much do you . . ?

 

[HeelFan58]

damn John

Roger Ailes is a real pro, isn't he?

View embedded media

Damn Jon Stewart doesn't look a day over 65.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

No trial needed huh . . ? Coming from a poster that claimed her to be 'TOAST' months ago with your inside info, that sounds about right.

Un-American much do you . . ?

No trial needed huh . . ? Coming from a poster that claimed her to be 'TOAST' months ago with your inside info, that sounds about right.

Un-American much do you . . ?

Let me put it this way. Anyone other than Shillary Skank-ton would have been perp-walked out of their place of employment, booked, and forced to either cop a plea-deal or stand trial for having committed just a tiny fraction of what Shillary Skank-ton committed while posing as Sec. of State. The Comey/Skank-ton connection has been discussed at length. The decision not to indict reeked of impropriety...

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

And, let's set the record on Khizr Khan. While we all mourn the loss of his son, he put himself out there to be used as a political pawn by Shillary Skank-ton, so his background is now fair game. Here is the scoop from Brietbart:

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.

This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.

A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.”

The website is completely removed from the Internet, and instead directs visitors to the URL at which it once was to a page parking the URL run by GoDaddy.

The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has detailed such corruption over the past several months, and in February issued a blistering statement about it.

“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

Grassley’s statement even noted that the program Khan celebrated on his website has posed national security risks.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”

Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan at the Democratic National Convention last week in Philadelphia, and they were honoring their son U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan—a hero who lost his life to a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004. On behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, Khizr Khan ripped into Donald Trump’s policies on immigration—specifically bashing his plan to bar Muslim migration from regions afflicted with rampant terrorism into America temporarily until the United States can figure out what’s going on.

Khan even brought out a pocket Constitution, claiming inaccurately that Trump’s plans were unconstitutional. That’s not true, as Congress has already granted such power to the president under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952—allowing the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time. Such a class of aliens could be Muslims, or it could be people from a specific region of the world, or any other class—such as someone’s race, weight, height, age, national origin, religion, or anything else.

The media, along with Hillary Clinton and her supporters throughout the Democratic Party establishment, has pushed the line of attack against Trump for days. Now on Tuesday, President Barack Obama has said that Trump is “unfit” to serve as President over the matter. Even a group of anti-Trump congressional Republicans has gone after Trump on the matter.

But as Breitbart News and other new media have exposed Khan’s various deep political and legal connections to the Clintons—and to Muslim migration—the attack line has crumbled. Now, with Khan deleting his website in an apparent effort to hide his biographical information, the attack is falling apart even more.

What’s perhaps interesting is that also on this website that he has now deleted, Khan revealed that he spent nearly a decade working for the mega-D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson—now Hogan Lovells LLP—which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves. Saudi Arabia, which has retained the firm that Khan worked at for years, has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton, despite the repeated urging of Trump, has refused to return the Clinton Cash money to the Saudis. What’s more, Hogan Lovells also did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—and helped acquire the patents for parts of the technology she used in crafting her illicit home-brew email server that the FBI director called “extremely careless” in handling classified information.

What’s more, the entire mainstream has proven negligence with regard to this matter as none of them even thought to look into this Khan guy’s law practice before bandying him about as some kind of magic elixir that cures the country of Trump.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]