The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[falafel]

Hillary basically splits Kentucky with Bernie and then loses Oregon by double digits #presumptivenominee



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but Bernie's not exactly making up ground in the delegate count here, is he? He's basically splitting delegates with HRC, which means he's just treading water until the convention.

[Moliere]

Yeah, but Bernie's not exactly making up ground in the delegate count here, is he? He's basically splitting delegates with HRC, which means he's just treading water until the convention.

Right, but it's funny to see her lose so far into this thing. I'm sure Bernie would get out if he started losing states but he's not.

[Eddie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/us...-kentucky.html

So Hillary is going to put Bill in charge of the economy. Seems weird. Is there a reason why this isn't weird? Is this the first time that an ex-president has been mentioned as someone that would take charge of a very important part of another president's role? Sure, the economy functioned well during Bill's presidency but that was 20 years ago.

Don't look at it as the president calling on an ex-president for help.

Think of it as the president giving the first lady...er...first gentleman something to do. Bill gave Hillary health care to talk about. Hillary is going to give Bill the economy!

[old_gregg]

Right, but it's funny to see her lose so far into this thing. I'm sure Bernie would get out if he started losing states but he's not.

he needs to win every state by double digits to have a shot

[Northwestcoug]

So I'll just say what everyone here is thinking. Donald Trump is like a composite character of all the bad guys in the Book of Mormon.

He's as bipolar as Laman and Lemuel.

He's a selfish and rich asshole like Laban.

Shares the same taste in interior decoration as King Noah.

Doesn't believe in repentance like Nehor.

Same branding sensibilities as Amlici.

Authoritarian like a kingman.

Rocks a disguise like Kishkumen.

Pride cycles like the Nephites (Success then lawsuits then divorce then bankruptcy then a TV special or two and the process repeats)

I'm sure there's a ton of others but that's my scripture study for the day. I leave with Moroni's peak into the 2016 election:

Yes! This is exactly why I can't vote for Trump.

And even if Hillary is as bad as the harlot Isabel, she doesn't even come close to those other bad guys. That is why she will get my vote!

[Topper]

Yes! This is exactly why I can't vote for Trump.

And even if Hillary is as bad as the harlot Isabel, she doesn't even come close to those other bad guys. That is why she will get my vote!

I shake my head. Hillary is wrong on everything, but she simply has a different "style" than Trump. Yet her party is far more destructive than the GOP. I would never vote for Hillary or Trump as individuals, but if I am forced to vote for the parties, the GOP, grudgingly, gets my vote over the Democratic Party, which is absolutely does nothing right. Can you name a single major issue where the Democratic Party doesn't screw it up?

[byu71]

Yes! This is exactly why I can't vote for Trump.

And even if Hillary is as bad as the harlot Isabel, she doesn't even come close to those other bad guys. That is why she will get my vote!

Good one. I would wager if Trump were a democrat espousing Bernie and Hillary ideas you could vote for him.

[Northwestcoug]

I shake my head. Hillary is wrong on everything, but she simply has a different "style" than Trump. Yet her party is far more destructive than the GOP. I would never vote for Hillary or Trump as individuals, but if I am forced to vote for the parties, the GOP, grudgingly, gets my vote over the Democratic Party, which is absolutely does nothing right. Can you name a single major issue where the Democratic Party doesn't screw it up?

Can you name a significant issue the republican party hasn't screwed up in the last two decades? Whatever nostalgic Reaganesque view you have of the GOP, it ain't it anymore.

Good one. I would wager if Trump were a democrat espousing Bernie and Hillary ideas you could vote for him.

No. I don't vote for classless demagogues, no matter what the political affiliation.

[byu71]

Can you name a significant issue the republican party hasn't screwed up in the last two decades? Whatever nostalgic Reaganesque view you have of the GOP, it ain't it anymore.



No. I don't vote for classless demagogues, no matter what the political affiliation.

OK, you probably saved me some money. I would have bet anyone you would vote for someone like Bernie.

[Northwestcoug]

OK, you probably saved me some money. I would have bet anyone you would vote for someone like Bernie.

He may be a demagogue, but he isn't classless

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Trump released a list of potential nominees he would vet for Scalia's spot on the Supreme Court in the unlikely event he actually becomes the president. Tom Lee is on the list.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Trump released a list of potential nominees he would vet for Scalia's spot on the Supreme Court in the unlikely event he actually becomes the president. Tom Lee is on the list.

The Supreme Court is the ONLY thing I can think of that would give me a reason to vote for Trump (well, that, and the HUUUGE entertainment value, perverse through the entertainment would be). I'd like an unbiased review of each of the candidates. And how do we know he's serious about these and that he won't change his mind, claim they were simply suggestions, and then nominates one of his goombahs? Other than his quest for money and his love of the Trump brand, has shown lifelong fidelity to any principle or thing?

[old_gregg]

Trump released a list of potential nominees he would vet for Scalia's spot on the Supreme Court in the unlikely event he actually becomes the president. Tom Lee is on the list.

at least it's not mike lee

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The Supreme Court is the ONLY thing I can think of that would give me a reason to vote for Trump (well, that, and the HUUUGE entertainment value, perverse through the entertainment would be). I'd like an unbiased review of each of the candidates. And how do we know he's serious about these and that he won't change his mind, claim they were simply suggestions, and then nominates one of his goombahs? Other than his quest for money and his love of the Trump brand, has shown lifelong fidelity to any principle or thing?

His sister is a federal appeals court judge, I'm not kidding. But she's older than him and unlikely to get the nomination.

We have no guarantee he wouldn't change his mind. Trump doesn't strike me as someone that cares all that much about who's on the Supreme Court. He'll listen to his advisors and whoever is advising him on these nominees suggested some very conservative justices.

One thing to keep in mind regarding Hillary is how it's guaranteed she'd get another lock step liberal on the court who never deviates from the party line. The Democrats haven't had a Kennedy, O'Connor or even a Roberts since Byron White. It's not just gay marriage type questions, but ones involving the extension executive power. Does anyone seriously doubt that the four libs on the court would rubber stamp Obama's threat to yank federal money going to school districts that don't allow transsexuals into female locker rooms pursuant to legislation passed 45 years ago?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The limitless extension of statutory language to suit the latest pet issue of a sitting president could work just as well for a President Trump or Ted Cruz. There's a certain consistency to a guy like Kennedy that doesn't exist with most of the justices. One could argue that prohibiting gay marriage is an issue of onerous government power (which in a way it is, since substantive due process was the doctrine they used to get rid of those state laws).

[I.J. Reilly]

His sister is a federal appeals court judge, I'm not kidding. But she's older than him and unlikely to get the nomination.

We have no guarantee he wouldn't change his mind. Trump doesn't strike me as someone that cares all that much about who's on the Supreme Court. He'll listen to his advisors and whoever is advising him on these nominees suggested some very conservative justices.

One thing to keep in mind regarding Hillary is how it's guaranteed she'd get another lock step liberal on the court who never deviates from the party line. The Democrats haven't had a Kennedy, O'Connor or even a Roberts since Byron White. It's not just gay marriage type questions, but ones involving the extension executive power. Does anyone seriously doubt that the four libs on the court would rubber stamp Obama's threat to yank federal money going to school districts that don't allow transsexuals into female locker rooms pursuant to legislation passed 45 years ago?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The limitless extension of statutory language to suit the latest pet issue of a sitting president could work just as well for a President Trump or Ted Cruz. There's a certain consistency to a guy like Kennedy that doesn't exist with most of the justices. One could argue that prohibiting gay marriage is an issue of onerous government power (which in a way it is, since substantive due process was the doctrine they used to get rid of those state laws).

This is perhaps the first time I've seen anyone claim consistency as a quality of Kennedy's. Bravo.