US Politics
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Bernie is the example of why big crowds don't mean much when it comes to voting, it denotes enthusiasm to see the candidate, but doesn't mean the other candidate won't have people come out in droves anyways.
Voting happens at the polls, not in a stadium.
T-72M1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
the mainstream media is a joke and the people there are wise to it:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
Also, not sure how accurate this indicator will turn out to be but have you noticed how crooked hillary has virtually zero support online anywhere ? and despite their loathing for Trump, all the further/far left progressives seem to hate her just as much if not more than they do DT. Meanwhile, for the GOP, they're all coming together now, even lyin' Ted, and with him, a lot of the "constitutionalists"
He's close to breaching the blue bastions:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/26/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-colorado-pennsylvania-polls/
for now I'd say it's looking extremely good for Mr Trump, don't forget there are more wikileaks incoming, Assange is probably saving the best for last. It could even be something as crazy as some steamy Huma and Hillary e-mails etc
Huma's mum, btw, is a sallafist bitch who propagates FGM
anywhoo, go Donald !
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-po...en-women-got-the-vote-a9d772a85a55#.djvjyzz2u
Trump’s potential SCOTUS appointee thinks America took a wrong turn when women got the vote
But let’s keep talking about Hillary’s pneumonia instead.
Potential future Supreme Court Justice Peter Thiel. CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Peter Thiel, a libertarian billionaire known for funding a lawsuit seeking todestroy the media company behind the website Gawker, is a leading candidate for the Supreme Court in a Trump administration, according to reporting by the Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim.
Thiel, according to a source consulted by Walsh and Grim, told friends that Trump will nominate him to the Court if the GOP nominee is elected president. Another source confirms that members of Trump’s “inner circle” consider Thiel a potential justice. Spokespeople for both Trump and Thiel deny these claims.
Though Thiel’s early career resembles that of a potential future justice — he graduated by Stanford Law School and clerked for a federal appeals court judge — Thiel abandoned the practice of law very early to pursue a career in business. Accordingly, he has very few of the qualifications typically held by a judicial nominee and is unlikely to have the same grasp on legal doctrine as a professional lawyer or judge.
Indeed, in 2012, the conservative Federalist Society asked Thiel to deliver its annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. It is one of the most prestigious and high-profile platforms offered by the influential legal group — past speakers include former Vice President Dick Cheney, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia. And yet, speaking before a audience of many of the nation’s leading conservative lawyers and judges, Thiel barely discussed legal matters at all, and what he did say betrayed only a passing knowledge of the underlying doctrines.
The bulk of Thiel’s speech outlined his pessimistic belief that economic and technological growth is slowing. He mentioned the law and the Supreme Court only a few times in the speech, and then only briefly. Those brief mentions, however, did suggest that Thiel would make radical changes if he had the power to reinterpret the Constitution.
Thiel blames the alleged slowdown, at least in part, on “mischief that has happened on the legislative, left-wing legal side” which has permitted the rise of “environmentalism” — a statement which suggests that, as a justice, he would be very sympathetic to arguments raised by lawyers active within the Federalist Society, which seek to hobble the federal government’s ability to protect the environment. In an even more drastic departure from widely accepted legal and economic doctrine, Thiel attacked a series of decisions which enabled America to abandon the gold standard, claiming they destroyed money’s “link to something real.”
Thiel’s belief that the gold standard was a good idea is not shared by, well, pretty much anyone who knows anything at all. As Matthew O’Brien explained in the Atlantic,
Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard — it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have — which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment.
Indeed, as economist Brad DeLong notes, nations began to emerge from the Great Depression at about the same time that they abandoned the gold standard.
So, while Thiel’s views on the law do not appear to be especially well developed, he also appears eager to upend fundamental assumptions that are widely shared by nearly everyone in the fields of law and economics, even though the consensus view is that overturning those assumptions would be catastrophic.
Oh, and there’s one other thing.
In an essay published by the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank, Thiel questioned the very idea that the right to govern flows from the will of the governed. “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” Thiel claimed. He added that he thinks America made a serious wrong turn when it began extending basic human rights to women and poor people.
The moment when it all went wrong, according to Peter Thiel. (CREDIT: AP PHOTO)
“The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics,” Thiel claims about the decade that culminated in the single worst economic calamity in American history. “Since 1920,” he adds, “the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”
In fairness, Thiel later attached additional remarks to his Cato essay, where he walked back his attack on women’s suffrage somewhat. “While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised,” Thiel said, “I have little hope that voting will make things better.”
So what are we to make of Trump’s reported flirtation with a Justice Peter Thiel? After the Huffington Post’s piece went live, several journalists dismissed the risk of a Thiel appointment, suggesting that he would face widespread opposition.
Maybe Sarlin and Hayes are right. But here’s the thing, Thiel is hardly treated as an unconfirmable pariah by the American right. To the contrary, the Federalist Society and the Cato Institute are two of the nation’s preeminent conservative organizations. The Federalist Society, in particular, played a major role in helping select President George W. Bush’s judicial appointments. And Trump has said that he will defer to the Federalist Society when he names judges in the past. (Though, in fairness, he’s also said that he would pick Supreme Court nominees from a much more conventional list of judges in the past as well.) If Cato and the Federalist Society are willing to vouch for Thiel, it is far from clear that Republican senators will rebel.
Moreover, Thiel’s views, while out of place among mainstream thinkers, are increasingly common among right intellectuals. Consider his Cato essay, for example. The main thrust of that piece is not that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but that democratic values are the enemy of the libertarian society Thiel would prefer to live in. “The great task for libertarians,” according to Thiel, “is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called ‘social democracy.’”
Thiel claims that technology will effectively enable privileged libertarians such as himself to go Galt — among his more speculative ideas is “because the vast reaches of outer space represent a limitless frontier, they also represent a limitless possibility for escape from world politics.” But his general idea that democracy is the enemy is not limited to libertarians who believe they must shoot themselves into space in order to build their billionaires’ paradise.
Consider Randy Barnett, a leading libertarian scholar who rose to prominence after his unsuccessful efforts to convince a majority of the Supreme Court to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In a recent book, Barnett distinguishes between what he calls the “Democratic Constitution,” a constitution that preferences the will of the people, and the “Republican Constitution,” which stands athwart democracy yelling stop. Under Barnett’s Republican Constitution, libertarian boogiemen such as Obamacare, the minimum wage, and the right to join a union are all killed with fire.
The primary difference between Thiel and Barnett is that Thiel appears to believe that libertarians must remove themselves from ordinary politics in order to build their dystopia, while Barnett believes that libertarians can build it right here in the United States of America if only the right people control the Supreme Court.
If Thiel is willing to accept Trump’s nomination to sit on the Supreme Court, that will be a pretty good sign that he’s embraced Barnett’s charge to reshape America in his own image.
Trump’s potential SCOTUS appointee thinks America took a wrong turn when women got the vote
But let’s keep talking about Hillary’s pneumonia instead.
Potential future Supreme Court Justice Peter Thiel. CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Peter Thiel, a libertarian billionaire known for funding a lawsuit seeking todestroy the media company behind the website Gawker, is a leading candidate for the Supreme Court in a Trump administration, according to reporting by the Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim.
Thiel, according to a source consulted by Walsh and Grim, told friends that Trump will nominate him to the Court if the GOP nominee is elected president. Another source confirms that members of Trump’s “inner circle” consider Thiel a potential justice. Spokespeople for both Trump and Thiel deny these claims.
Though Thiel’s early career resembles that of a potential future justice — he graduated by Stanford Law School and clerked for a federal appeals court judge — Thiel abandoned the practice of law very early to pursue a career in business. Accordingly, he has very few of the qualifications typically held by a judicial nominee and is unlikely to have the same grasp on legal doctrine as a professional lawyer or judge.
Indeed, in 2012, the conservative Federalist Society asked Thiel to deliver its annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. It is one of the most prestigious and high-profile platforms offered by the influential legal group — past speakers include former Vice President Dick Cheney, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia. And yet, speaking before a audience of many of the nation’s leading conservative lawyers and judges, Thiel barely discussed legal matters at all, and what he did say betrayed only a passing knowledge of the underlying doctrines.
The bulk of Thiel’s speech outlined his pessimistic belief that economic and technological growth is slowing. He mentioned the law and the Supreme Court only a few times in the speech, and then only briefly. Those brief mentions, however, did suggest that Thiel would make radical changes if he had the power to reinterpret the Constitution.
Thiel blames the alleged slowdown, at least in part, on “mischief that has happened on the legislative, left-wing legal side” which has permitted the rise of “environmentalism” — a statement which suggests that, as a justice, he would be very sympathetic to arguments raised by lawyers active within the Federalist Society, which seek to hobble the federal government’s ability to protect the environment. In an even more drastic departure from widely accepted legal and economic doctrine, Thiel attacked a series of decisions which enabled America to abandon the gold standard, claiming they destroyed money’s “link to something real.”
Thiel’s belief that the gold standard was a good idea is not shared by, well, pretty much anyone who knows anything at all. As Matthew O’Brien explained in the Atlantic,
Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard — it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have — which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment.
Indeed, as economist Brad DeLong notes, nations began to emerge from the Great Depression at about the same time that they abandoned the gold standard.
So, while Thiel’s views on the law do not appear to be especially well developed, he also appears eager to upend fundamental assumptions that are widely shared by nearly everyone in the fields of law and economics, even though the consensus view is that overturning those assumptions would be catastrophic.
Oh, and there’s one other thing.
In an essay published by the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank, Thiel questioned the very idea that the right to govern flows from the will of the governed. “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” Thiel claimed. He added that he thinks America made a serious wrong turn when it began extending basic human rights to women and poor people.
The moment when it all went wrong, according to Peter Thiel. (CREDIT: AP PHOTO)
“The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics,” Thiel claims about the decade that culminated in the single worst economic calamity in American history. “Since 1920,” he adds, “the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”
In fairness, Thiel later attached additional remarks to his Cato essay, where he walked back his attack on women’s suffrage somewhat. “While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised,” Thiel said, “I have little hope that voting will make things better.”
So what are we to make of Trump’s reported flirtation with a Justice Peter Thiel? After the Huffington Post’s piece went live, several journalists dismissed the risk of a Thiel appointment, suggesting that he would face widespread opposition.
Maybe Sarlin and Hayes are right. But here’s the thing, Thiel is hardly treated as an unconfirmable pariah by the American right. To the contrary, the Federalist Society and the Cato Institute are two of the nation’s preeminent conservative organizations. The Federalist Society, in particular, played a major role in helping select President George W. Bush’s judicial appointments. And Trump has said that he will defer to the Federalist Society when he names judges in the past. (Though, in fairness, he’s also said that he would pick Supreme Court nominees from a much more conventional list of judges in the past as well.) If Cato and the Federalist Society are willing to vouch for Thiel, it is far from clear that Republican senators will rebel.
Moreover, Thiel’s views, while out of place among mainstream thinkers, are increasingly common among right intellectuals. Consider his Cato essay, for example. The main thrust of that piece is not that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but that democratic values are the enemy of the libertarian society Thiel would prefer to live in. “The great task for libertarians,” according to Thiel, “is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called ‘social democracy.’”
Thiel claims that technology will effectively enable privileged libertarians such as himself to go Galt — among his more speculative ideas is “because the vast reaches of outer space represent a limitless frontier, they also represent a limitless possibility for escape from world politics.” But his general idea that democracy is the enemy is not limited to libertarians who believe they must shoot themselves into space in order to build their billionaires’ paradise.
Consider Randy Barnett, a leading libertarian scholar who rose to prominence after his unsuccessful efforts to convince a majority of the Supreme Court to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In a recent book, Barnett distinguishes between what he calls the “Democratic Constitution,” a constitution that preferences the will of the people, and the “Republican Constitution,” which stands athwart democracy yelling stop. Under Barnett’s Republican Constitution, libertarian boogiemen such as Obamacare, the minimum wage, and the right to join a union are all killed with fire.
The primary difference between Thiel and Barnett is that Thiel appears to believe that libertarians must remove themselves from ordinary politics in order to build their dystopia, while Barnett believes that libertarians can build it right here in the United States of America if only the right people control the Supreme Court.
If Thiel is willing to accept Trump’s nomination to sit on the Supreme Court, that will be a pretty good sign that he’s embraced Barnett’s charge to reshape America in his own image.
T-72M1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
possibly, we'll find out soon enough but if what's happening online is anything to go by, she's in trouble..
and recent real world polls seem to suggest as much.
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
We'll see, but online communities are notoriously bad for reading the election tea leaves. They tend to be divided into their own echo chambers.
T-72M1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
they're still still more organic and trustworthy than the mainstream media, and I'm watching both sides here, TYT, Infowars, and anything in between.
looks like on her side the progressives still hate her while on his side the conservatives are beginning to coalesce, calcify and are forming a tremendous fist, one powerful enough to punch through the wall of lies that is the media.
Trump will probably win, big league, I just hope he doesn't turn out to be a decepti neo-con who starts more wars in the middle east etc.
maximuswarrior
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Messages
- 13,771
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Only a weak person who lacks the courage to present arguments makes use of the ignore list. You are obviously a clown like your cheerleader Trump.
Just wait how Trump destroys the US when he hopefully comes to power. He is a dream come true. The US is on the path of self destruction. Trump's win will be the last nail in the coffin. You'll see. I personally pray Trump wins by a landslide.
Last edited:
Hassan_Ishtiaq
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 726
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
maximuswarrior
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Messages
- 13,771
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Bruv, you still up his a$$??
Give it a break.
LOL your Trump cheerleader has put me on his ignore list and is proudly telling everyone to do the same. This fool has no answers. I'm done with him.
You need to stop acting like his pimp. LOL If there is anyone up his a$$ it is most likely you.
Trump the mad man? It is Hilary that is pro war, not Trump. She was in favors of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, ect.
She has threatened to "obliterate" Iran and go to war over cyber attacks, she basically said she would attack Russia and China. Now factor in her strange behavior such as literally barking like a dog and rolling here eyes and bobbling her head back and fourth as if she is heavily drugged on PCP.
Who is the real man man? You feel safer with a sociopathic warmonger who is heavily drugged up and suffering from dementia?
No he didn't, stop lying, you are redicolous, just like all liberals you are pulling his speeches out of context, most likely you have never even heard his entire speeches, you just recycle what everyone else says.
Again, he never called all Mexicans rapists, he was referring to a specific sub group of Illegals that cross the boarder, in fact he said that he presumed that there are good people that also cross illegally. He was talking about all the criminals and drug runners that cross the US boarder. Do you understand? Probably not, liberal Hilary supporters don't care about facts and have thick skulls. You don't care if you say something that is not true.
By the way, in the past, Hilary was in support of building a wall to keep illegal Mexicans out and when question about it recently she claims it was a "barrier"
Also since when was building a wall racist? Are you okay in the head? Many countries have some walls or at the minimum armed border patrol. Mexico has a wall on the souther boarder and they have arrested hundreds of thousands of South American migrants.
Hilary has praised KKK leader Robert Byrd as a "great man"if this would be Trump the libtards would go crazy.
You Hilary supporters will label everything as "racist" even Pepe the frog is now a racist symbol according to Hilary. Does it get more pathetic?
You want to talk about flip flopping look at Hilary. She was against gay marriage and even said so on camera many times then when gay marriage became popular she changed her position and claimed she was never against gay marriage even though we have video of her claiming otherwise.
Then she condemns organizations that she took hundreds of thousand of dollars from to push laws. She is very easily bought and manipulated. She is not consistent with anything.
Hilary lied repeatedly about her emails, the FBI and congress busted her. She lied about Bengazi, she even lied about being under sniper fire when she landed in Bostia
We have video of her landing in Bosnia. She is clearly a sociopath and compulsive liar.
Do you honestly think that whatever Trump is saying is based on truth? Hillary might be crooked and dishonest, but so is Trump. He has earned his entire wealth by cheating people his whole life. Trump is an experienced conman. Trump has gone on record to support the war in Iraq. Today he opposes the war in Iraq which is a lie. He has been caught on tape saying these lies. You have to be an utter fool to deny these facts.
Do you think Trump is any different? Hillary is cunning, but she is also seasoned. Trump is a fool and his rhetoric against Iran, China and others is an open secret. The chances of Trump attacking other nations is much higher than Hillary.
Stop bullshitting man. The whole world heard what Trump said and did during the Republican caucus. Who are you fooling here? His outrageous comments regarding Mexican rapists and the ban against Muslims among so many other ridiculous statements is not a coincidence. This man nurtures a certain hateful ideology that has supported his cause and rise. Without a doubt, many Trump supporters are the lowest form of redneck gutter scum who are racist xenophobes. The whole world knows what goes on at Trump rallies. It is a clown fest.
LOL don't even get me started on the wall. What a ridiculous and stupid idea. Like as if that will stop the Mexicans from entering the US. Like as if the wall will be paid by Mexico. The wall is just an election ploy. Stop getting so serious. It won't even be built. Calm down.
Don't stoop so low. Hillary is many things, but she never praised any KKK member. Trump doesn't know who David Duke is LOL Try denying that.
LOL who said I support Hillary? Stop pulling stuff from you know where. I know she has major flaws. She is cunning, deceiving and full of lies, but who says that Trump is an angel and has all the answers? Stop pretending that Trump is the savior. Trump is a fool who only knows how to entertain the masses with his small hand gestures and inflammatory anti immigrant rhetoric. He has no solutions. Everything he says he denies the next day.
If Hillary is a sociopath and a compulsive liar, Trump is all these things on steroid LOL Stop believing that Trump is a prophet. He is nothing, but an entertaining clown in a three piece suite.
Hell, I hope Trump the clown wins the presidential race. He will make sure that his country goes down the gutter.
Last edited:
Hassan_Ishtiaq
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 726
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Lol, did I step on your tail sh!t stain?
Now keep quoting him like you're his b!tch.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Watching the debate and to my surprise, so far Trump is behaving, he’s addressing Hillary, as Secretary Clinton.
https://twitter.com/i/live/778347749217406976
https://twitter.com/i/live/778347749217406976
WaLeEdK2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,291
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
He's interrupted her so much. Hillary looks calm, cool and controlled. She's gonna win this.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I’m loving it, Hillary is killing him, he on the defensive and as usual lying. 
Similar threads
