The Next American President Thread (2016)

1118119121123124198

Comments

  • It's not just you, Gustav. He's The Wiz! He's that way for everybody! It's like the old old slogan at Mad Magazine: we're an equal opportunity offender!
  • Here they come to save the day: The Avengers (plus some friends) take on El Trumpo: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/21/watch-joss-whedon-super-pac-releases-avengers-star-studded-anti-trump-attack-ad/
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I would kidnap the entire nuclear supply of the United States, a bit like S.P.E.C.T.R.E. did in "Thunderball", and ask for a big big ransom, in pink diamonds, drop sized. I then demand ALL citizens of the USA to get out and VOTE. If they don't do that, I will point the nuclear bombs at Washington D.C. and whipe out Capitol Hill forever. And with it millions of poor American citizens.

    And if they accepted your terms and went and VOTED for Trump you'd just accept that would you?

    It was a joke @TheWizardOfIce

    Why are you always after me :-)? One simply can read back and conclude that EVERYTHING I write in here, even if it's Bond related, is meeted with firm disagreement from your side. Really really everything.

    Infamy, infamy the Wiz has it in for me.

    You really should've pointed out that you were joking old son as it's difficult to spot given the above statement bears very close comparison to your histrionics in the Brexit thread when you certainly weren't joking. But you must excuse me - not being Dutch I sometimes find your sense of humour difficult to follow.
    It's not just you, Gustav. He's The Wiz! He's that way for everybody! It's like the old old slogan at Mad Magazine: we're an equal opportunity offender!

    Precisely. No need to bleat about it.
  • Posts: 315
    Hillary preparing for the first debate with Trump.

    giphy.gif
  • It looks like the Avengers REALLY don't like The Donald! I'd like to see Captain America get involved -- but Cap doesn't endorse political candidates. Still, somebody ought to take down Ted Nugent. Maybe he's about Ant-Man's size...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, on Trump I think Cap would look at his policies and say (quoting from Winter Soldier here):

    "This isn't freedom, this is fear."
  • Posts: 6,601
    Since everything is just conspiracy - have you guys ever looked into the matter of the towers? Read anything, that would prove, its not gone down by fire? If not - here is one...even though, I believe, no one is interested in loosing their bubble.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Germanlady, you said you were heading out of the thread, but have since decided to keep posting more frequently than ever. Identity crisis?

    It's getting more annoying than amusing now, and with each post you make in here you only serve to prove our points against you. Not trying to be indelicate here, but a man has his limits.
  • @Germanlady, you said you were heading out of the thread, but have since decided to keep posting more frequently than ever. Identity crisis?

    It's getting more annoying than amusing now, and with each post you make in here you only serve to prove our points against you. Not trying to be indelicate here, but a man has his limits.

    0Brady: A man may have his limits, but it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind.

    GL: You may have missed it, but awhile back Mendes4Lyfe did the same thing: promising the leave the thread but forever returning to make just one more jibe. My response was to post a video of a song by the late great Dan Hicks: "How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?" Much as I hate to repeat myself, that video is still available for reposting... ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Since everything is just conspiracy

    Love how you say that like it's an accepted fact.

    When you say 'everything' I presume you extend that all the way to the earth not being flat and the dinosaurs being made up to test us by God.

    No doubt WW2 was a hoax as well?
  • I guess it's past time I reminded participants in this conversation of a truism I suspect most of us have heard before: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion...but no one is entitled to his own facts." This is a phrase we would all do well to remember, especially when venturing onto the internet. Here on this very forum, one is constantly encountering people who have no qualm about stating their opinion as if it were indisputable fact. How many times have you seen on various threads, something along the lines of: "Pierce Brosnan is the worst Bond ever, he nearly destroyed the whole franchise!" Well, no. This is an opinion -- a value judgment -- stated as if it were incontrovertible, verifiable fact. It is a common fallacy on the internet to act as if one's opinion has a greater weight than it truly has. It is past time that we all honor the truism noted at the beginning of this post.

    Science is based on fact. Observable, repeatable, verifiable fact; checked and rechecked by several sources. If nearly all reputable scientific minds are in agreement that global climate patterns are changing, incrementally, over the course of decades, and that this change is largely due to human activity such as the widespread burning of fossil fuels, then we can take as fact: climate change is a real, factual phenomenon. A few naysayers, often in the pay of corporate interests, do not change the established judgment of the scientific community: climate change is still an actual, verifiable fact. On the other hand, a Weather-Changing machine, whether in the hands of Vladimir Putin or in Sarah Palin's backyard in Alaska...until verified by the scientific community... is going to be considered by most reasonable people as science fiction, not science fact.

    We live in a world of consensual reality. If nine out of ten people look at a blade of grass and declare it green, why then, so it is! If the tenth person in our sampling is color blind, and declares that blade to be grey, it does not alter the grass' agreed-upon hue one iota. I'm sorry, @GL, but a fair amount of what you assert to be true just isn't accepted as such yet. You can preach your gospel of conspiracy all you want -- and just between you & me, I don't believe that Oswald killed JFK all by himself either -- but you're likely to be dismissed by 8 out of 10 people that hear you. And in this world of consensual reality, the grass is still going to be green.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 3,566
    Still to come: my screed on journalism, and how Fox Faux News has nearly destroyed the Bond franchise journalism as Walter Cronkite knew it. Isn't it nice to have something to look forward to?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I guess it's past time I reminded participants in this conversation of a truism I suspect most of us have heard before: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion...but no one is entitled to his own facts." This is a phrase we would all do well to remember, especially when venturing onto the internet. Here on this very forum, one is constantly encountering people who have no qualm about stating their opinion as if it were indisputable fact. How many times have you seen on various threads, something along the lines of: "Pierce Brosnan is the worst Bond ever, he nearly destroyed the whole franchise!" Well, no. This is an opinion -- a value judgment -- stated as if it were incontrovertible, verifiable fact. It is a common fallacy on the internet to act as if one's opinion has a greater weight than it truly has. It is past time that we all honor the truism noted at the beginning of this post.

    Science is based on fact. Observable, repeatable, verifiable fact; checked and rechecked by several sources. If nearly all reputable scientific minds are in agreement that global climate patterns are changing, incrementally, over the course of decades, and that this change is largely due to human activity such as the widespread burning of fossil fuels, then we can take as fact: climate change is a real, factual phenomenon. A few naysayers, often in the pay of corporate interests, do not change the established judgment of the scientific community: climate change is still an actual, verifiable fact. On the other hand, a Weather-Changing machine, whether in the hands of Vladimir Putin or in Sarah Palin's backyard in Alaska...until verified by the scientific community... is going to be considered by most reasonable people as science fiction, not science fact.

    Agreed.
    We live in a world of consensual reality. If nine out of ten people look at a blade of grass and declare it green, why then, so it is! If the tenth person in our sampling is color blind, and declares that blade to be grey, it does not alter the grass' agreed-upon hue one iota. I'm sorry, @GL, but a fair amount of what you assert to be true just isn't accepted as such yet. You can preach your gospel of conspiracy all you want -- and just between you & me, I don't believe that Oswald killed JFK all by himself either -- but you're likely to be dismissed by 8 out of 10 people that hear you. And in this world of consensual reality, the grass is still going to be green.

    Not so sure about this.

    Everyone thought the earth was flat hundreds of years ago so did that make it true?

    If the consensus of the electorate is to vote Trump president because they think he's the best candidate does that suddenly make him fit for the job?

    For what it's worth @GL a lot of these theories are not without plausibility but until they are rigourously tested and proven with evidence they are, like any other scientific hypothesis, merely theories and not fact as you appear to be stating.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 11,119
    It's payback timeeee:
    Trump Attacks Washington Post Story about His Foundation

    On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html) that Donald Trump spent over $250,000 from his foundation to settle lawsuits related to his for-profit businesses. Taking money from a charity for personal use is a violation of federal law. Trump immediately attacked the Post for the story, saying that it was peppered with inaccuracies. However, Trump did not deny any of the specific payments the Post described. So while there might have been some errors in the story, Trump didn't deny that he had used the Trump Foundation's money to get out of paying a fine for violating a town ordinance, setting a lawsuit, and so on. That information would be hard to refute since it came from the foundation's tax returns, which are public.
    Trump Supporters Respond to Fake Story about Trump's Taxes

    Many of Donald Trump's supporters are so supportive of him that nothing can shake their faith. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel demonstrated this when he sent a member of his staff out onto the street to find Trump supporters. The staffer told the interviewee that Trump had just released his tax returns (which isn't true) and asked what they thought about some specific "items" it revealed, including these:

    •Was it legitimate to write off all his previous marriages as entertainment?
    •What do you think of Trump listing his primary occupation as farmer?
    •Are you surprised that Trump's net worth is only $42,000, not $10 billion?
    •What do you think of Trump's donating $100,000 to the dentist who killed Cecil the lion?
    •What do you think of Trump's donating $50,000 to the defense fund of Jared Fogle?
    •Were you surprised that Trump wrote off $100,000 for breast pumps for his family?
    •Do you think that gold plating a toilet is a business expense?
    •Were you surprised that Trump spent $38,000 for a Siberian tiger for Putin's birthday?

    Every one of the supporters approved of the deduction or donation he or she was asked about. Clearly, Trump's support is rock solid.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Since everything is just conspiracy - have you guys ever looked into the matter of the towers? Read anything, that would prove, its not gone down by fire? If not - here is one...even though, I believe, no one is interested in loosing their bubble.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
    I haven't read your link @Germanlady, but am familiar with that website.

    The issue with 9/11 in my judgement is that the investigation wasn't entirely as transparent as it could have been and some of the questions raised by doubters were pushed under the rug rather than given proper scrutiny. So these questions still remain, including the one about Building 7's collapse.

    Conspiracy 'theorists' often fall into the trap of jumping to conclusions and proposing alternative hypotheses without any confirming basis in fact. This allows others to readily debunk the theories and claims, which usually are proven false.

    Unfortunately, these alternative 'theorists' are also lumped in with those who ask valid questions, and those questions are given short shrift and not answered or investigated. I've always believed in the idiom that 'there is no such thing as a stupid question'.

    I keep coming back to the lead up to the Iraq War, which was probably the largest 'conspiracy theory' of modern times, propagated by the United States Government with its willing poodle, Tony Blair, following with his nose firmly up Bush's backside. Many with common sense, including Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei,
    Director General of the International Automic Agency, were saying that there was no evidence that Saddam had WMD and that investigators needed more time, but guess who said no in order to start another war and feed the cancer that is the MIC. Follow the War Machine and you'll get closer to the truth usually, but keep asking questions along the way.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Experience shows that the majority are usually wrong. About almost anything.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 3,566
    Experience shows that the majority are usually wrong. About almost anything.

    So Goldfinger sucks & Thunderball doesn't?
    PS: Just kidding, TF, I like 'em both. But then, I first viewed them through the eyes of a twelve year old & hopefully I always will.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    About almost anything.


  • Not so sure about this.

    Everyone thought the earth was flat hundreds of years ago so did that make it true?

    If the consensus of the electorate is to vote Trump president because they think he's the best candidate does that suddenly make him fit for the job?

    It means we'll find out the "truth" pretty darn soon!

    I hate to get all relativistic on you, but truth (in my opinion) can be subjective. Religion (to name just one topic) can be very "True" to some people. To others it's a total fallacy. I guess we'll each of us get to the truth of that particular topic in our own good time...
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Thanks a zillion for the last few pages.
    Hilariously funny and now my suspicions that one of you is truly delusional has been confirmed.

    Keep on being that entertaining, it's a hoot!
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 6,601
    My pleasure folks. And yes, I said, I walk and didn't. Reason to get me kicked alright. Maybe your lovely naivitee will do the trick now. I hope. For the sake of us all, I promise, I try harder.
  • Here’s maybe a better explanation of how “Truth” isn’t always true: when giving testimony in a court of law, one is tasked to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” And yet, experts in this field will tell us that eyewitness testimony isn’t always reliable. The human eye can be fooled, the human memory plays tricks with us. We WANT the word “Truth” to objectively be factually correct; alas, in reality, that’s not always the case. Subjective “truth” is sometimes the best we can get from fallible human beings.

    And @GL: you only tease the ones you love. Keep trying, Lady!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117

    Not so sure about this.

    Everyone thought the earth was flat hundreds of years ago so did that make it true?

    If the consensus of the electorate is to vote Trump president because they think he's the best candidate does that suddenly make him fit for the job?

    It means we'll find out the "truth" pretty darn soon!

    I hate to get all relativistic on you, but truth (in my opinion) can be subjective. Religion (to name just one topic) can be very "True" to some people. To others it's a total fallacy. I guess we'll each of us get to the truth of that particular topic in our own good time...

    There's a big difference between what some people perceive as the truth and empirical fact. Some religious sect may very well fervently believe that their dead relative will come back to life if they slaughter a goat and then kneel amongst the blood and entrails and pray on their knees to God. That doesn't alter the fact that the person are dead and will remain so.



  • Posts: 315
    Here they come to save the day

    NO! 'Here he comes to save the day..' It's Mighty Mouse!!!!

    tumblr_n3ba59Sb3j1rpduwho1_500.gif

  • You think maybe I was aware of the reference when I made it?
  • Thanks a zillion for the last few pages.
    Hilariously funny and now my suspicions that one of you is truly delusional has been confirmed.

    Keep on being that entertaining, it's a hoot!

    Democracy is not a spectator sport, @Jason -- it's a participatory event. Get involved! Post something outrageous!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It could be you he was talking about.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 3,566
    "Hilariously funny" -- I can only hope!
  • Something funny now ;-):

  • Some presidential candidates can be humanized with a little humor on television. Others can't. Ladies & gentlemen -- pre-presidential Richard M. Nixon on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in:
This discussion has been closed.