Well, at least, they're releasing the Amelia Earhart files...

Faldoe · Post by **Faldoe** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:04 am

Chankgeez wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/christie-kicked-off-amtrak-quiet-car-for-talking-on-his-phone/ar-BBmqf4Q?li=AA54ur

That fat fuck

snipelfritz · Post by **snipelfritz** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:11 am

New Jersians/New Yorkers know the word "quiet."

I'm mildly surprised we haven't seen the Christies and Jindals and Santorums start to drop like flies at this point.

Gone Fission · Post by **Gone Fission** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:30 am

snipelfritz wrote:I'm mildly surprised we haven't seen the Christies and Jindals and Santorums start to drop like flies at this point.

There are limits, but 2012 demonstrated that a Super PAC sugar daddy can keep a candidate running long past realistic viability. It requires operating on a shoe-string, but Santorum is doing that now, has already done that and he's the prime 2012 example. This time Perry and Walker have dropped out with flush Super PAC's, though. I think they were in it to win it, though. Some motives don't need a competitive performance in delegate counts to make sticking it out worthwhile--book sales, speaking fees, TV access, an inflated martyr complex.

Mudfuzz · Post by **Mudfuzz** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:03 pm

darthbatman · Post by **darthbatman** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:37 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yxGsWHx9o[/youtube]

Chankgeez · Post by **Chankgeez** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:50 am

I didn't watch the real Democratic debate, but that was probably just as entertaining.

darthbatman · Post by **darthbatman** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 2:33 pm

Their Bad Lip Reading of the Republican debate is pretty funny also

Chankgeez · Post by **Chankgeez** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:31 pm

Wages too high?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... -too-high/

Trump too high.

echoraven · Post by **echoraven** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:03 am

Chankgeez wrote:Wages too high?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... -too-high/

Trump too high.

With wages stagnant since before 2009, Trump just dropped his pants and took a big dump on his presidential ambitions. Not every Republican is a business owner or making 6+ figures.

snipelfritz · Post by **snipelfritz** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:20 am

Lol, I think Trump is on a slow downslide, but if he's proven anything he's immune from being defeated by one single gaffe.

Looking at it from a liberal (read: sensible) perspective, of course it's silly. From a conservative perspective, "our wages are too high" means "THEIR wages are too high" not "YOUR wages are too high." THEY being the lazy, entitlement-sucking, service industry schleps who don't work in a 1950's fantasy world of manufacturing jobs.

D.o.S. · Post by **D.o.S.** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:30 am

echoraven wrote:
Chankgeez wrote:Wages too high?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... -too-high/

Trump too high.
With wages stagnant since before 2009, Trump just dropped his pants and took a big dump on his presidential ambitions. Not every Republican is a business owner or making 6+ figures.

The guys paying the guys on the podium are, though.

echoraven · Post by **echoraven** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:26 pm

snipelfritz wrote:Lol, I think Trump is on a slow downslide, but if he's proven anything he's immune from being defeated by one single gaffe...

Probably not. Between that and "operation wetback" (as a fairly thick skinned libertarian, even I found that offensive) and lackluster debate performance he is on his way out.

hbombgraphics · Post by **hbombgraphics** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:40 pm

echoraven wrote:
snipelfritz wrote:Lol, I think Trump is on a slow downslide, but if he's proven anything he's immune from being defeated by one single gaffe...
Probably not. Between that and "operation wetback" (as a fairly thick skinned libertarian, even I found that offensive) and lackluster debate performance he is on his way out.

I can't take much more of trump, and I can't believe anyone ever thought he was a good idea to represent our country to the world.

Between he and Carson it's like a contest to see who is more clueless and out of touch.

D.o.S. · Post by **D.o.S.** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:00 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Ignoring the clickbait headline:

The apprehension [about Trump and Carson] among some party elites goes beyond electability, according to one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the worries.

“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”

hbombgraphics · Post by **hbombgraphics** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:02 pm

wow......seems about right...........

ilovefuzz.com

Well, at least, they're releasing the Amelia Earhart files...

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS

Re: Does it even really make a difference who the next POTUS