That's an easy mistake, the big one is actually "waist"'I have the best words', 'I went to an Ivy League school. I'm very smart'.
"There" blood...
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Disagree about "there" being easy mistake. Just more common, but still as frustrating as "waist". Not a case of simple shuffle of few letters, but both are missing some.
It's too common in the social media age. Could be an auto-correct action too but I find it's simply how the English language is butchered today. People truly do not comprehend the difference in words like their/there/they're, your/you're, etc.
Funny for a man like Trump to claim he likes uneducated people when he comes off as uneducated in some of his speaking rants and social media posts.
Funny for a man like Trump to claim he likes uneducated people when he comes off as uneducated in some of his speaking rants and social media posts.
Last edited:
Laughing at autocorrect... are we back in 2010?
What autocorrect changes 'their' to 'there' or 'waste' to 'waist'?
This isn't laughing at autocorrect, it's laughing at an idiot who claims to be clever and is running for bloody POTUS.
This isn't laughing at autocorrect, it's laughing at an idiot who claims to be clever and is running for bloody POTUS.
Hah.. you're right.. it shouldnt...
Not a fan of laughing at little typos.. so first instinct was to look for any reason for it.
Well.. maybe he was using text to speech... or not..
Laugh away....
Not a fan of laughing at little typos.. so first instinct was to look for any reason for it.
Well.. maybe he was using text to speech... or not..
Laugh away....
There are some phones/devices, when swipe is used, that may select a word that is not the desired choice. My phone has done it. Perhaps it's not so much autocorrect but a selection process (and proofreading your desired post, of course).
FFS, clowns, I'm not defending that lunatic.
FFS, clowns, I'm not defending that lunatic.
Last edited:
Uh-oh...
Wasserman-Schultz booted from his speaking slot at the DNC
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...88991-dnc-chairwoman-wont-speak-at-convention
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...88991-dnc-chairwoman-wont-speak-at-convention
Is that Americano?
I know. Enticing his supporters by bashing him though
https://berniesanders.com/press-rel...twitter&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=tw160724
Seems sensible. They'll probably cut some 400 supers who are members of the DNC but keep the status for elected office holders. A fair compromise.
Seems sensible. They'll probably cut some 400 supers who are members of the DNC but keep the status for elected office holders. A fair compromise.
BTW...I hope Bernie flies down to South Florida to actively campaign for DWS's opponent. She shouldn't be anywhere near the Congress much less in Dem leadership role.
Her district is a very affluent, Jewish one that went 65-35 to Clinton in the Florida primary.
She's also favoured and endorsed by Obama.
There are fights you can't win. If he's sincere about his aim to elect down ballot tickets, he should fly to Arizona for Anne Kirkpatrick. McCain is in trouble there.
Yes, I grew up in the same city where DWS currently lives. Broward County in general has a very high Jewish population of New Yorkers whose families moved to Florida in the 70s and 80s. The problem for DSW is that she is going to be utterly humiliated in the coming weeks by way of increased media scrutiny, lack of top cover from Hillary following the convention, more heat from Bernie and his Bros, and most annoyingly the fact that Bernie is going to be actively supporting her opponent Tim Canova, who is actually out-fundraising her at the moment. Collectively, that may spell the end of DWS's political career.
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/new...fundraising-largely-from-small-donors-7854552
The debatable wisdom of kicking out one Dem for another aside, when the party already tolerate the likes of Joe Manchin or Heidi Heitkampt, I just find it hard to believe that the people of her district will kick out their Jewish representative for an outsider. Politics is tribalistic in nature.
Jews aren't a monolithic voting block - there are conservative jews, liberal jews, as well as jews who are agnostic about Israel and care more about normal non-religion type social issues. DWS has become a stain on the Democratic establishment and needs to get booted asap.
He's now reposted it:
Can understand people wanting to hide their waist.
The man has not an ounce of presidential act within him. He'll run to social media on an hourly basis if elected POTUS. He'll severely harm ties with allies and make the US look worse in some areas of the world (not that the US needs more help to be honest).
I had a far-right loon criticize me over my praise of how Obama handles criticism without rushing to the media/social media in comparison to Trump (back in May/June 2015). He claimed Obama constantly takes shots in media circles, as if that's on equal par to Trump's social media rants. And yet this loon now supports Trump because he's on the Rep ticket.
DWS is so dislikeable. Having people like her in the party is what makes frustrated, independent voters go to Trump. Needs to resign or Trump will use her as ammo to attack Clinton to capture the disillusioned and disappointed Sanders' voters.
I doubt many people really give a shit who the party chairs are.
Of course - but in this case, the primary's were closely fought and a lot of the Sanders supporters don't like Hilary because she's part of the "establishment." But when it turns out that the establishment (DNC) was actually actively working against Bernie when they were supposed to be neutral, it plays into the Crooked Hilary narrative that Trump is peddling.
Agreed. She looks like she's from some reptilian cabal like the people in V .
Weird and very different article, but I thought it was worth reading
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/07/21/check-your-amnesia-dude-on-the-vox-generation-of-punditry/
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/07/21/check-your-amnesia-dude-on-the-vox-generation-of-punditry/
The DNC manipulations are getting a lot of coverage here. I think the situation makes for some interesting contrasts between the candidates:
Clinton: Democrats wanted her to be the candidate from the beginning, selected by Barry
Trump: Republicans never wanted him to be the candidate, some are still fighting to take him down
Clinton: support for her campaign manufactured with help from the DNC, forced down people's throats
Trump: actively opposed by party insiders, but support grew organically from voters
Clinton: took longer than Trump to "defeat" a field of 5 candidates who posed no serious threat
Trump: soundly defeated a field of 17 candidates including the son of a former president wtih massive financial advantage
Clinton: DNC suppressed support for alternative candidate
Trump: the Republican party acknowledged the will of the people
Clinton: claims to be a sweet grandmother but everyone hates her behind her back
Trump: everyone knows he is an asshole but he is capable of doing nice stuff for people
We can see that the primary process was conducted fairly on the Republican side, because the candidate who won had no support from party leaders, yet he still got the nomination. We can't say the same for the Democrats who had to put their finger on the scales to help Hillary get her birthright. The Democrats like to convince themselves and everyone around them about how much better they are. This only shows them for what they are: lacking transparency, corrupt, anti-Semitic, and out of touch with what their voters actually want. Hillary is a massively flawed candidate who has now added yet another scandal to her list. Wasserman will take the fall but you can be sure she was acting on orders from Barry & Hillary.
Trump fought everyone and everything to win the nomination, and he overcame them all. His support is more hard-won, more vigorous, and more convicted. Hillary is a hollow candidate, an arranged marriage.
Clinton: Democrats wanted her to be the candidate from the beginning, selected by Barry
Trump: Republicans never wanted him to be the candidate, some are still fighting to take him down
Clinton: support for her campaign manufactured with help from the DNC, forced down people's throats
Trump: actively opposed by party insiders, but support grew organically from voters
Clinton: took longer than Trump to "defeat" a field of 5 candidates who posed no serious threat
Trump: soundly defeated a field of 17 candidates including the son of a former president wtih massive financial advantage
Clinton: DNC suppressed support for alternative candidate
Trump: the Republican party acknowledged the will of the people
Clinton: claims to be a sweet grandmother but everyone hates her behind her back
Trump: everyone knows he is an asshole but he is capable of doing nice stuff for people
We can see that the primary process was conducted fairly on the Republican side, because the candidate who won had no support from party leaders, yet he still got the nomination. We can't say the same for the Democrats who had to put their finger on the scales to help Hillary get her birthright. The Democrats like to convince themselves and everyone around them about how much better they are. This only shows them for what they are: lacking transparency, corrupt, anti-Semitic, and out of touch with what their voters actually want. Hillary is a massively flawed candidate who has now added yet another scandal to her list. Wasserman will take the fall but you can be sure she was acting on orders from Barry & Hillary.
Trump fought everyone and everything to win the nomination, and he overcame them all. His support is more hard-won, more vigorous, and more convicted. Hillary is a hollow candidate, an arranged marriage.
Wummers gonna wum
Not worth reading his posts anymore.
Except that his support is built on the back of scaring citizens through cynical fear mongering, conspiratorial demagoguery, and dog whistle racism (among many other negative things). You are therefore morally complicit in each of those things by supporting him.
Since we're doing this, what am I morally complicit in by supporting Hillary?
Civil and specific policy discussions about actual issues that are important to citizens as opposed to the broad racially tinged generalizations you'll see from Trump.
Don Jr. doing Dad proud today with a healthy dose of angry, mildly unstable demagoguery.
for the next wars in Syria and or Libya.
I've heard that repeated quite liberally in the "echo chamber" of the press and Trump opposition. I think it is an unfair characterization of Trump and his supporters. First, the fear. There is none. What does exist is DISSATISFACTION. When I speak with people at my barber shop, my church, my YMCA, that is what I hear. House is worth less money now then when it was bought. Same salary now as 2009. Good jobs hard to find. More money for less health care. The key issues are economic and Trump = money in the minds of the people.
The "racism". Or the homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, the panoply of phantom phobias and isms. These spurious and baseless smears come back to something I said earlier: the Democrats have found a devious way to appeal to the hearts and intellect of some people. They'll try to convince you that you are some sort of elite, special being just for agreeing with them. Apple markets the same way. It works well and many have bought into it. Call someone else a racist to feel better about yourself. Accuse someone else of Islamophobia to make yourself look better. I'm not a racist, even though someone earlier in the thread attacked me with some video trying to label me as such. It's sad that this is how some Democrats would treat others. Their raging "anti-Trumpism" is the real bigotry here, borne out in the violent protests and irrational behavior committed in its name (Elizabeth Warren, anyone?).
Even though you support Hillary, I don't think that makes you a soulless and corrupt sellout who would trade the future of the country for a few more years of "power". Your party has let you down and not given you a great choice. That's not your fault. We're kind of in the same boat.
1. Its not a liberal echo chamber - its being echoed across the political spectrum from liberals to conservatives who see through his BS. He is overtly lying to the public by promising all sorts of things that can't and won't ever be done, and is using fear mongering tactics to in essence tell the public "everything is really bad and only I can fix it".
Jeb Bush hits the nail on the head here -
(4:35 onwards)
2. There's a reason Trump gets called out for dog whistle race baiting. After all, he was one of the main ring leaders of the anti-Obama birther movement (which has been proven to be a complete lie ginned up by the insane clown posse on the right) and is using similar tactics on Obama again this cycle by saying "there's something going on there" as in - he's not one of us (thus surely a Kenyan Muslim who should be distrusted). As for the Islamophobia, he has proposed a policy that is both unconstitutional and unamerican, which was a blanket ban on muslims entering the US. The fact that he removed that from his speech last week is evidence that he recognized the racial and religious discrimination (ie racism and islamophobia) wouldn't fly with the broader American public.
Additionally, there's good reason why white nationalists almost universally support Trump - he is blatantly using dog-whistle racism tropes to gin up support among whites who are pissed the US is no longer a homogenous white country and increasingly a heterogenous multi-cultural one.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-n...nt-through-donald-trumps-candidacy-1463523858
Collectively, there's no logical argument to support an unstable charlatan with zero governance experience to become President of the United States.
Last edited:
DWS out!
He had 2 years with democrat majority in the congress
- Status