Trump Bringing One of Bill Clinton's Mistresses to the Front Row of the Debates - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Monkah;51102218]What kind of saddens me here is just how incapable you are of empathizing with others in terms of point of view. While I might personally not agree with Democrat ideology, I can at least get a decent understanding of why one would hold such views without internally painting them as some awful hitler-like caricature. I have friends who are socialists. I have friends who are ancaps. We're all buying wings for this Monday's debate and sitting down to enjoy the show together. And we can do all of this without making obscure hints to wanting to literally murder people of different political belief. Amazing, isn't it? [/QUOTE] That is amazing. Being able to eat while Donald Trump or Hillary is talking, I mean.

[QUOTE]What gets me is the people who clearly don't like or agree with Trump at all but will still vote for him because Clinton is a corrupt liar, but when you try to explain to them that Trump is also a corrupt liar they are totally nonreceptive.[/QUOTE] I find it hilarious. The Democrats are berating Trump supporters for trying to get a liar and a corrupt piece of shit elected while on the GOP side people are berating Hillary supports for trying to get a liar and corrupt piece of shit elected.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51101333]trump won't instantly ruin everything, he won't have the power to, even if he wins by a landslide in his contest to move into the presidential palace (which he'll probably refurbish to suit his vanity) but if he is a reflection of a new trend in american politics then i foresee only a decline for the nation as its voters get exactly what they voted for - which is a slow decay under candidates who publicly announce they don't care for the laws nor principles of the nation they are ruling[/QUOTE] He does have the power to instantly ruin some things though, he would likely tamper with the EPA, FAA and the FDA and maybe the FCC (GOP dosen't like net neutrality) setting back some of the most significant social progress we've made as a nation. Theirs also the debate that the president has the executive power to pull of out trade agreements, his presidency would be a disaster.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51102538]I find it hilarious. The Democrats are berating Trump supporters for trying to get a liar and a corrupt piece of shit elected while on the GOP side people are berating Hillary supports for trying to get a liar and corrupt piece of shit elected.[/QUOTE] The clear difference is that most Clinton supporters on FP will readily agree that Clinton is their last practical choice while Trump supporters bend over backwards to excuse their shitty candidate. [editline]25th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51102497][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/UJnHLI6.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Man Chris Wallace triggered the fuck out of you guys huh [editline]25th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxon;51102542]He does have the power to instantly ruin some things though, he would likely tamper with the EPA, FAA and the FDA and maybe the FCC (GOP dosen't like net neutrality) setting back some of the most significant social progress we've made as a nation. Theirs also the debate that the president has the executive power to pull of out trade agreements, his presidency would be a disaster.[/QUOTE] Also foreign policy which has become almost exclusive to the executive branch. No one who publicly disavows NATO and tells the world we won't live up to treaties should not be in the Oval Office.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51102497][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/UJnHLI6.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] "Hilary is a mess" should be a space too.

[QUOTE=Saxon;51102542]He does have the power to instantly ruin some things though, he would likely tamper with the EPA, FAA and the FDA and maybe the FCC (GOP dosen't like net neutrality) setting back some of the most significant social progress we've made as a nation. Theirs also the debate that the president has the executive power to pull of out trade agreements, his presidency would be a disaster.[/QUOTE] I'm hoping it won't turn out that bad, but if it does, then America is going to become an awful place to be.

[QUOTE=Saxon;51102542]He does have the power to instantly ruin some things though, he would likely tamper with the EPA, FAA and the FDA and maybe the FCC (GOP dosen't like net neutrality) setting back some of the most significant social progress we've made as a nation. Theirs also the debate that the president has the executive power to pull of out trade agreements, his presidency would be a disaster.[/QUOTE] and dont forget the choice of SCOTUS chief justice which is within his purview. He'll wreck every effort the Democrats managed to put into putting moderate judges on the bench.

Conway: it was just bantz, u got triggerd lol [media]https://youtu.be/g-rOD26canE[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubU-dB8B-94[/media]

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51103418]and dont forget the choice of SCOTUS chief justice which is within his purview. He'll wreck every effort the Democrats managed to put into putting moderate judges on the bench.[/QUOTE] Moderate judges, wat? I know the media tried to push the narrative that the guy Obama nominated was a moderate, but once you look at his record he was leftist all the way. The only thing he had sort of went in the middle on was criminal law, and that doesn't really have much of anything to do with the supreme court. On every key issue that the supreme court might have to hear, Garland would clearly have voted to the left. Here's a quote from the New York Times: "Political scientists say the answer is clear. Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the member of the court at its ideological center and the one who often holds the controlling vote. [B]A Supreme Court including Judge Garland would contain a five-member liberal bloc[/B] and put either him or perhaps Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the most conservative liberal, in what had been Justice Kennedy’s pivotal spot." ([URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html[/URL])

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51103418]and dont forget the choice of SCOTUS chief justice which is within his purview. He'll wreck every effort the Democrats managed to put into putting moderate judges on the bench.[/QUOTE] No matter who wins in November, they will have no reason to put moderate judges on the bench. Justice Scalia's seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old Kennedy is 79 Breyer is 77 Thomas is 67. [URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_odds_of_another_supreme_court_justice_dying.html"]Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.[/URL] That's 5 vacancies that more than likely will be created and filled in the next 5-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology. Think about that. 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it [I]will[/I] guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation or more. 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions, which are viewed as lacking in mandate. I should remind you that both candidates have displayed an active interest in making extracongressional policy choices via the SCOTUS. [editline]I'm sorry I edit my posts so much. Greyhounds are the best dogs.[/editline] I think Flowers has every reason to go ahead and show up at the debates anyway.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51106803]No matter who wins in November, they will have no reason to put moderate judges on the bench. Justice Scalia's seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old Kennedy is 79 Breyer is 77 Thomas is 67. [URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_odds_of_another_supreme_court_justice_dying.html"]Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.[/URL] That's 5 more vacancies that more than likely will occur in the next 5-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology. Think about that. 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it [I]will[/I] guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation or more. 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions, which are viewed as lacking in mandate. I should remind you that both candidates have displayed an active interest in making extracongressional policy choices via the SCOTUS. [editline]d[/editline] I think Flowers has every reason to go ahead and show up at the debates anyway.[/QUOTE] really depends on who you ask if he was a moderate or not I'm not even that much of a "leftie" and I don't think he was moderate and I've read and heard a lot of his discussions that we've been able to.

I wonder if seeing her would make Hillary choke. (Voluntarily I mean.)

[QUOTE=Secrios;51107247]I wonder if seeing her would make Hillary choke. (Voluntarily I mean.)[/QUOTE] I doubt she would care at all to be honest.

Wouldn't this just be ammo for her? She could straight up point out "Hey look, Trump invited one of the women my husband slept with to this debate. Even if he tries to claim he had other reasons the intent is pretty clear and obvious and that's really, really immature of him!" This election.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;51108601]Wouldn't this just be ammo for her? She could straight up point out "Hey look, Trump invited one of the women my husband slept with to this debate. Even if he tries to claim he had other reasons the intent is pretty clear and obvious and that's really, really immature of him!" This election.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how showing up how she's stuck with Bill despite repeated cheating is going to look good for her in any way. If this woman turns up Hillary's only choice is to just ignore it.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;51108601]Wouldn't this just be ammo for her? She could straight up point out "Hey look, Trump invited one of the women my husband slept with to this debate. Even if he tries to claim he had other reasons the intent is pretty clear and obvious and that's really, really immature of him!" This election.[/QUOTE] "I'm not sure what you're talking about, Mrs. Flowers is a very lovely woman. [sp]Just ask your husband[/sp]."

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;51103330]"Hilary is a mess" should be a space too.[/QUOTE] Just replace the lower right corner space with it. Why would anyone in their right mind want to pay attention to stream chat?

They already announced this was another Trump lie and that she will not be attending, he just got triggered because Cuban obviously has some brains and is as rich as him. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51101333]trump won't instantly ruin everything, he won't have the power to, even if he wins by a landslide in his contest to move into the presidential palace (which he'll probably refurbish to suit his vanity) but if he is a reflection of a new trend in american politics then i foresee only a decline for the nation as its voters get exactly what they voted for - which is a slow decay under candidates who publicly announce they don't care for the laws nor principles of the nation they are ruling[/QUOTE] He will have the power to.. It's stupid that people are thinking this way. The president represents our country and if he hurts our relations with other countries then everything will collapse, the world is only become more globalized and we have to work with countries to stay ahead. Not to mention the world can not afford to have a 5 year old child hold the nuke codes, who at any given moment might have a temper tantrum. Between nuke codes, executive actions, and appointing hundreds of judges. The U.S has the potential to be left behind for decades if not forever.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51108683]"I'm not sure what you're talking about, Mrs. Flowers is a very lovely woman. [sp]Just ask your husband[/sp]."[/QUOTE] A big meme zinger like that would just play up the point that Trump is immature for doing this. Don't think it'd be a wise thing for him to do. [QUOTE=Hick2;51108623]I'm not sure how showing up how she's stuck with Bill despite repeated cheating is going to look good for her in any way. If this woman turns up Hillary's only choice is to just ignore it.[/QUOTE]I don't disagree with you that a lot of people traditionalist or otherwise probably look at Clinton's married life as a mark against her, but at the same time, it's not like that's a big secret.

Trump called her all the way to the debate to watch Hillary humiliate him. How nice of the guy.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;51100414]The time for kid gloves has long passed. If people are still dead set on burning the country down, I will treat them with endless fucking scorn. They had their chance, and they blew it spectacularly.[/QUOTE] God damn that's edgy