Donald Trump Thread aka End of Days

[NightWolve]

His name is Trump; saying otherwise makes you look pretty silly.

Like the time he made fun of Jon Stewart for changing his last name? It's a cultural joke, bud. The only thing that's silly is that people are could even entertain the thought of him as president.

Yes, about that... Of course there's more to the story. Jon Stewart threw the first punch picking a fight with Trump by renaming him to "F--kface Von Clownstick..." Good ole Stewart, elevating the political discourse in the country, right ? So Trump retorted by reporting that his last name, Stewart, is fake, it was changed from Leibowitz.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-unleashes-fury-on-phony-jon-stewart-for-fkface-von-clownstick-nickname/





So it was OK for Jon Stewart to insult Trump by renaming him to "F--kface Von Clownstick" but Trump responding to this attack by pointing out the guy calling him a f--kface actually changed his name was so wrong ? Who's the victim here, poor Jon Stewart, the attack dog of the Far Left that spent ~16 some years trashing republicans for a living ?

And here comes this John Oliver, who worked for Jon Stewart some years back, crying for his poor boss having his name "attacked" and using that as disingenuous justification to play "white knight" to go back ~400 years to discover some Trump ancestor changed their family name from Drumpf, and this somehow is hypocrisy on Trump for having responded to a troll christening him as "F--kface Von Clownstick" in 2013... Rrrrigggghttt.

Jon Stewart chose to change his name, a choice he made himself and making a judgement on that after he christens you "F--kface the F--kstick" or whatever is fair game if you ask me! But any decision by an ancestor in the 1600's in no way reflects on Donald Trump, much like how a Ben Affleck ancestor was discovered to be a slave owner reflects NOTHING on him either, unless you wanna be a dick, that is!

This looks like classic bullies getting indignant after punching someone in the face and the target daring to punch them right back... How dare you Trump, you were supposed to take that "F--kface" insult with class, not report the troll attacking you changed his own name... Not fair, not fair!! Oh yeah, well hah, in the 1600's an ancestor of yours changed Drumpf to Trump, so f--k you!!

[jtucci31]

I don't give a fuck what the guy's name is/was/will be and I don't care how big his dick is. He's still an asshole

[Emerald Rocker]

I don't give a fuck what the guy's name is/was/will be and I don't care how big his dick is. He's still an asshole

I agree!  Jon Stewart is an asshole!  I don't want to know anything about Jon Stewart's dick!

[jtucci31]

I don't give a fuck what the guy's name is/was/will be and I don't care how big his dick is. He's still an asshole

I agree!  Jon Stewart is an asshole!  I don't want to know anything about Jon Stewart's dick!

[NightWolve]

I don't give a fuck what the guy's name is/was/will be and I don't care how big his dick is. He's still an asshole

I agree!  Jon Stewart is an asshole!  I don't want to know anything about Jon Stewart's dick!

Yeah and so apparently his birth name is Jon Leibowitz, but pointing this out after he christens you "F--kface Von Clownstick" in front of a million plus of his "Daily Show" viewers is a low class, hurtful "attack" according to him and John Oliver so they were more than justified to dig for dirt on Trump's ancestry going back 400+ years... Guess he dodged a bullet not having some ancestor that was a slave owner like say Ben Affleck, as they would've been more than happy to tie something like that in their KKK smears...

#MakeJonStewartLeibowitzAgain2016

[esteban]

I also don't agree with defunding the military.  I don't have an issue with welfare programs for people that actually need them or need short term help.  I can't stand the welfare lifers that work the system so they don't have to work.  I go in to plenty of these peoples' homes as my company does work for local government housing projects.  Many of these people don't work and get benefits and cheap or free housing yet they have nicer TVs, electronics etc. than I do.  If welfare could be policed better or have some sort of a limitation of benefits over a lifespan (this would obviously not include folks with mental or physical disabilities) I would stand behind it even more.  As it is now it sickens me.

A great example is an entire neighborhood of 2000 sq. ft. homes that were built 12 years ago (we did the HVAC work in all of them).  Today only half of them still stand.  The city has already had to bulldoze many because they were so neglected and run down by the people that got to live in them at little to no cost.  This type of waste of my tax money makes me sick.  These people got a newer larger home than I own and just destroyed it.  This is what happens when you just give something to someone without them having to actually earn it.  People in general are stupid lazy turds but, when you actually have to work your ass off to get something you're more likely to take care of it.

How is the local economy? Does it suck? Then the problem is clearly far greater than individual laziness.

Also, you do realize that generalizing huge swaths of poor folks as "lazy" is the oldest, and frankly, most *intellectually lazy* way to attack a group that has been demonized and scapegoated by (intellectually) lazy politicians for decades?

How many fewer missiles could have funded an aggressive education program for all of the families?

How many fewer gallons of jet fuel could have provided healthcare?

How might an emphasis on a Life Corps instead of a Death Corps help rebuild the infrastructure of America (think of it as a new Public Works initiative, but with expanded effort to teach skills over a LONG-TERM)?

Sorry folks, our government could be doing a much better job at teaching skills/providing jobs than the model provided by the MILITARY (surely you understand this).

Please note what I am saying: we need an aggressive shift to providing education, skills and public works (infrastructure).

The problem is that we need to think LONG-TERM (we can provide some band aids for 20+ year olds) but real stability and strength require a commitment starting *today --> next few decades*... YOUTH OF TODAY need food, education, healthcare, safety, stability in their lives.

Personally, the role of the military (policy/budget) is but one of many areas that I would re-define. 

I think it is fundamentally short-sighted to think that we should keep existing military policy/budget because it "provides jobs"....the government can (and should!) provide jobs...but I would never suggest that the military is the ideal model to follow (it isn't).

War on Drugs = failed policy. For decades. Plainly. DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THAT.

[VenomMacbeth]

I also don't agree with defunding the military.  I don't have an issue with welfare programs for people that actually need them or need short term help.  I can't stand the welfare lifers that work the system so they don't have to work.  I go in to plenty of these peoples' homes as my company does work for local government housing projects.  Many of these people don't work and get benefits and cheap or free housing yet they have nicer TVs, electronics etc. than I do.  If welfare could be policed better or have some sort of a limitation of benefits over a lifespan (this would obviously not include folks with mental or physical disabilities) I would stand behind it even more.  As it is now it sickens me.

A great example is an entire neighborhood of 2000 sq. ft. homes that were built 12 years ago (we did the HVAC work in all of them).  Today only half of them still stand.  The city has already had to bulldoze many because they were so neglected and run down by the people that got to live in them at little to no cost.  This type of waste of my tax money makes me sick.  These people got a newer larger home than I own and just destroyed it.  This is what happens when you just give something to someone without them having to actually earn it.  People in general are stupid lazy turds but, when you actually have to work your ass off to get something you're more likely to take care of it.

How is the local economy? Does it suck? Then the problem is clearly far greater than individual laziness.

Also, you do realize that generalizing huge swaths of poor folks as "lazy" is the oldest, and frankly, most *intellectually lazy* way to attack a group that has been demonized and scapegoated by (intellectually) lazy politicians for decades?

How many fewer missiles could have funded an aggressive education program for all of the families?

How many fewer gallons of jet fuel could have provided healthcare?

How might an emphasis on a Life Corps instead of a Death Corps help rebuild the infrastructure of America (think of it as a new Public Works initiative, but with expanded effort to teach skills over a LONG-TERM)?

Sorry folks, our government could be doing a much better job at teaching skills/providing jobs than the model provided by the MILITARY (surely you understand this).

Please note what I am saying: we need an aggressive shift to providing education, skills and public works (infrastructure).

The problem is that we need to think LONG-TERM (we can provide some band aids for 20+ year olds) but real stability and strength require a commitment starting *today --> next few decades*... YOUTH OF TODAY need food, education, healthcare, safety, stability in their lives.

Personally, the role of the military (policy/budget) is but one of many areas that I would re-define. 

I think it is fundamentally short-sighted to think that we should keep existing military policy/budget because it "provides jobs"....the government can (and should!) provide jobs...but I would never suggest that the military is the ideal model to follow (it isn't).

War on Drugs = failed policy. For decades. Plainly. DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THAT.

All of this.  I'm so sick of anti-Berns being all "the government already gives out free education if you enlist."  Putting one's life on the line to "defend our country" in purposeless wars shouldn't be the only way to get a "free" education.

[OldRover]

Those who want to exploit the system are going to exploit the system no matter what you do to safeguard it. Politicians and the rich do it all the time, yet nothing is ever done about it. Taking out your wrath on the poor because anecdotes is short-sighted. I don't care that a minuscule portion of my taxes may go to some poor person who didn't earn it... I care that a huge portion of my taxes go to rich fucks who don't need it. I myself live in subsidized housing and pay only a small amount each month... I have a part-time job that pays minimum fucking wage. I have nice stuff (electronics, clothes, etc) because I shop at thrift shops and pay rock-bottom prices for it. My decent phone was a gift from my ex wife. Such judgments on regular people is completely ignorant. You have no idea how they got their stuff. People don't have to dress in rags and beg on the street corner to appease your fucking prejudice.

Oh, and I should add... by shopping at the local thrift shops, I help put money into taking care of the disadvantaged people of the community... even though I don't live in said community. The thrift shop I spend the most money at has a dining hall where they give free dinner every night to the poor and homeless. My voluntarily-spent money from my part-time minimum-wage job helps feed the hungry. What the fuck have all the judgmental pricks of the world done for society lately aside from bitch and moan about shit they don't understand?

[EvilEvoIX]

First of all, drop the superfluous apostrophes. It's "Reagan Democrats" and "Latinos." Second, look again at your statement: "People that actually work for a living and pay taxes are fiscal conservatives no matter the race." See anything glaringly wrong about what you wrote? Third, plenty of high ranking Reagan-era Republicans have disavowed the current Republican party, which, I might add, isn't really fiscally conservative. In fact, it was Reagan under whom debt grew the fastest.

But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorant circle jerk.

When you are angry at " superfluous apostrophes", you are grasping at straws to make a point.  It is true that people who work very hard and pay their own way plus taxes are fiscal conservatives.  That does not mean that they are Republicans or very religious, they are just very conscious on how their money is spent and who is collecting it.  If you wana argue DEBT, well, you need to only look at the past 8 years under Obama.

Ahem..

Since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased by $8.4 trillion. On January 20, 2009, it stood at $10.6 trillion; on Monday, it was at $19.111 trillion.  Listen, the issue is government spending, and on both sides, but when one side is arguing massive tax increases and spending, well that leaves little choice now does it?  Me being a jerk has no impact on Government spending and taxes.  I don't believe that you are ignorant of these facts, however I believe you are too biased or one sided to even take note.  Just take your head out of the sand, the Government simply taxes and spends and lies, why deal with another career politician promising change but more taxes and spending and debt and collapse of middle class and more poverty and more food stamps and free benefits/education to people coming here illegally.  How about we get a guy in the drivers seat and jerk the wheel.

Evo: STFU

I work hard and I would pay even more taxes if they were spent on increasing social welfare programs.

I want significantly less tax money subsidizing  corporations (corporate welfare) and military. Let's have better schools, less bombs.

So: taxes are good. I just don't want my tax money supporting death or corporate greed.

I want my taxes helping folks, even if I don't directly benefit. In the grand scheme of the cosmos, we should be helping folks.

A lot of people are like me.

We can think beyond our own selfish, personal interests.

You are very ignorant.  You know the Government makes waste and doesn't spend properly, 19 Trillion in debt is overwhelming evidence of this.   The Government is a child with their parents credit card maxing it out on a daily basis, crying, throwing fits, until the bill is paid only to do it again.

I 100% agree on Corporate Welfare, no argument, but then you must agree people on permanent welfare who get better benefits and free homes, food, healthcare than the hard workers who must foot the bill for this.  You can't have it both ways, sorry.  You must work and provide.

Calling me selfish is a lark at best.  I care very much how my taxes are spent, simply forking money over to the government and saying you care is extremely ignorant.  You should care how that money is spent, do you even know how it's spent?  Have you even looked?

[DeshDildo]

How is the local economy? Does it suck? Then the problem is clearly far greater than individual laziness. 

Not the best, not the worst, I would consider it average for the midwest.  Toledo is Detroit light as our economy rises and falls with the auto industry.  Many Chrysler plants, a GM powertrain plant, Jeep Cherokee and Wrangler are built here.  There also used to be a lot more auto industry businesses (Champion Spark Plug being the biggest) that were chased away about 20 years ago.  This is about the time that there was a large exodus from the city.  In any event, finding a decent paying job in the area, even with no skills, is not difficult.  Heroin addiction locally is a MAJOR problem.

Also, you do realize that generalizing huge swaths of poor folks as "lazy" is the oldest, and frankly, most *intellectually lazy* way to attack a group that has been demonized and scapegoated by (intellectually) lazy politicians for decades?

Nowhere did I generalize "huge swaths of poor folks" as lazy.  I made a specific comment about a specific area that I am familiar with as I not only personally completed the work originally but, also have returned to perform repairs and maintenance (on the government's dime) and see how many of them live.  I never said that ALL of them live like this but, in this particular area MOST do.

How many fewer missiles could have funded an aggressive education program for all of the families?

Not much of an argument from me here as this can be looked at through multiple wars in our history... not just the liberal public enemy #1 George W.  However, I would like to ask what good does an aggressive education program provide if folks don't attend?  In my area the drop out rate of the public school system is sickening.

How many fewer gallons of jet fuel could have provided healthcare?

Indeed!  Not only on the war front but also on the homeland.  How much is wasted on jets in the private, corporate and political sectors?  With today's technology certainly travel could be reduced correct?

How might an emphasis on a Life Corps instead of a Death Corps help rebuild the infrastructure of America (think of it as a new Public Works initiative, but with expanded effort to teach skills over a LONG-TERM)?

Again, no disagreement from me other than getting a willingness to attend for it to be effective.

Sorry folks, our government could be doing a much better job at teaching skills/providing jobs than the model provided by the MILITARY (surely you understand this).  Agreed!  I am simply against defunding the military because we do need to defend ourselves.  If we did not have a powerful military what would happen if we were attacked?  Ask the aggressor to please stop?  In the same token I wish we could stay out of other world affairs more and worry about what is going on here.  Why does the U.S. always have to be the "world police"?

[/quote author=OldRover] Those who want to exploit the system are going to exploit the system no matter what you do to safeguard it. Politicians and the rich do it all the time, yet nothing is ever done about it. Taking out your wrath on the poor because anecdotes is short-sighted. I don't care that a minuscule portion of my taxes may go to some poor person who didn't earn it... I care that a huge portion of my taxes go to rich fucks who don't need it. I myself live in subsidized housing and pay only a small amount each month... I have a part-time job that pays minimum fucking wage. I have nice stuff (electronics, clothes, etc) because I shop at thrift shops and pay rock-bottom prices for it. My decent phone was a gift from my ex wife. Such judgments on regular people is completely ignorant. You have no idea how they got their stuff. People don't have to dress in rags and beg on the street corner to appease your fucking prejudice.

I agree, the exploitation on the corporate level is more costly but the exploitation of public welfare systems shouldn't be viewed as a problem?  I'd love if both problems could be solved.  Again, I was not making a general prejudice to "poor" people (based on my yearly income I would be considered below middle class), I sited a specific instance that I am VERY familiar with.  When I say nice stuff I mean the latest OLED 4K 70" TV's with a PS4 and XBOX One hooked to it.  I have not seen any of these pop up at my local thrift shops yet.  I also mentioned in my previous post that I am 100% for welfare for people that need it.  When my wife and I had our first child we were not married yet and I was working 2 low paying jobs 7 days a week.  We could not afford the medical costs for all of the doctor visits and delivery.  At that time we did get government assistance.  It really helped us as we couldn't have survived without it.  My 2nd and 3rd child we had "good" coverage as my wife was working for the local school system.  I am still paying off those bills.  This is a great example  that healthcare is broken (mainly because the costs for even simple things are more than ridiculous) but if you have government assistance it doesn't cost a dime.  This is where some people realize that it costs more to work hard than just not work and get it for free.  The system is broken on both sides.

Oh, and I should add... by shopping at the local thrift shops, I help put money into taking care of the disadvantaged people of the community... even though I don't live in said community. The thrift shop I spend the most money at has a dining hall where they give free dinner every night to the poor and homeless. My voluntarily-spent money from my part-time minimum-wage job helps feed the hungry. What the fuck have all the judgmental pricks of the world done for society lately aside from bitch and moan about shit they don't understand?

I am happy about this.  There aren't but a couple places within driving distance from me that do this.  We mainly have Goodwill, Savers and a few Salvation Army stores.  Look it up and see where that money goes.

P.S. in all of my posts in this thread I don't believe I have mentioned how much I loathe Trump.  I certainly consider myself to be more conservative so I agree with SOME of his policies I don't think I could bring myself to vote for him based on his demeanor alone.  The guy is a loud mouth slandering jerk.  He is literally the epitome of what the rest of the world would view as a "stupid american".  How can you hold the office of President and present yourself in the way that he does?

[o.pwuaioc]

Yes, about that... Of course there's more to the story. Jon Stewart threw the first punch picking a fight with Trump by renaming him to "F--kface Von Clownstick..." Good ole Stewart, elevating the political discourse in the country, right ? So Trump retorted by reporting that his last name, Stewart, is fake, it was changed from Leibowitz.

Ah, yes, and of course there's precedent for presidential candidates stooping to the level of comedians. We all remember how when George Washington was heckled by a comedian, the president flipped him the bird and shouted, "Don't be a douche, shithead!" He then shot his pistols in the air and rode off on his chopper horse blaring Mötley Crüe's Girls, Girls, Girls.

Calling Jon Stewart a bully for calling out Trump's bullying with an insult is just pure desperation.

When you are angry at " superfluous apostrophes", you are grasping at straws to make a point.

I wasn't making a point, I was asking you to spare us the eyesores of your trite garbage. If we have to read the concocted bullshit you spew, at least make it pretty.

It is true that people who work very hard and pay their own way plus taxes are fiscal conservatives.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the real life example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

That does not mean that they are Republicans or very religious, they are just very conscious on how their money is spent and who is collecting it.  If you wana argue DEBT, well, you need to only look at the past 8 years under Obama.

So you didn't even read the article. Cool. Glad to know I can ignore your verbal diarrhea since you've dropped the pretense at actually having a conversation, rather than just functioning as a broken record from the 1994 mid-term election talking-points series.

[o.pwuaioc]

[double post, please delete]

[Emerald Rocker]

We all remember how when George Washington was heckled by a comedian........

You have no idea how George Washington did or didn't respond to satirical writings of his time.

(stuff)

Predictably, I disagree with a lot of what you've written.  But I agree with some of it, too!

Interestingly, the two candidates who have most strongly advocated for two of your points -- improving the infrastructure and re-defining the role of the military -- are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  The "how" is very different between them, but both advocate for an inwards-looking model.

[o.pwuaioc]

We all remember how when George Washington was heckled by a comedian........

You have no idea how George Washington did or didn't respond to satirical writings of his time.

(stuff)

Predictably, I disagree with a lot of what you've written.  But I agree with some of it, too!

Interestingly, the two candidates who have most strongly advocated for two of your points -- improving the infrastructure and re-defining the role of the military -- are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  The "how" is very different between them, but both advocate for an inwards-looking model.

Guarantee you he didn't talk about the size of his penis or brag about being able to shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave.

[EvilEvoIX]

Yes, about that... Of course there's more to the story. Jon Stewart threw the first punch picking a fight with Trump by renaming him to "F--kface Von Clownstick..." Good ole Stewart, elevating the political discourse in the country, right ? So Trump retorted by reporting that his last name, Stewart, is fake, it was changed from Leibowitz.

Ah, yes, and of course there's precedent for presidential candidates stooping to the level of comedians. We all remember how when George Washington was heckled by a comedian, the president flipped him the bird and shouted, "Don't be a douche, shithead!" He then shot his pistols in the air and rode off on his chopper horse blaring Mötley Crüe's Girls, Girls, Girls.

Calling Jon Stewart a bully for calling out Trump's bullying with an insult is just pure desperation.

When you are angry at " superfluous apostrophes", you are grasping at straws to make a point.

I wasn't making a point, I was asking you to spare us the eyesores of your trite garbage. If we have to read the concocted bullshit you spew, at least make it pretty.

It is true that people who work very hard and pay their own way plus taxes are fiscal conservatives.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the real life example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

That does not mean that they are Republicans or very religious, they are just very conscious on how their money is spent and who is collecting it.  If you wana argue DEBT, well, you need to only look at the past 8 years under Obama.

So you didn't even read the article. Cool. Glad to know I can ignore your verbal diarrhea since you've dropped the pretense at actually having a conversation, rather than just functioning as a broken record from the 1994 mid-term election talking-points series.

Obviously you are too liberal biased with knee-jerking MSNBC talking points.  Instead of attacking the issues you name call and attack punctuation.  When you can't make any valid point you resign yourself to sticking your head into the sand and say you will ignore more.  This is what spoiled children do.   It sounds really desperate on your part.

[Emerald Rocker]

Guarantee you George Washington didn't talk about the size of his penis or brag about being able to shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave.

George Washington actually did shoot people.  Did he brag?  I don't know.  And neither do you.

As for the other bit, Donald Trump isn't the first president who ever engaged in innuendo... especially when someone else brought it up first.  I kind of like presidents who act like real human beings.

[EvilEvoIX]

We all remember how when George Washington was heckled by a comedian........

You have no idea how George Washington did or didn't respond to satirical writings of his time.

(stuff)

Predictably, I disagree with a lot of what you've written.  But I agree with some of it, too!

Interestingly, the two candidates who have most strongly advocated for two of your points -- improving the infrastructure and re-defining the role of the military -- are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  The "how" is very different between them, but both advocate for an inwards-looking model.

Guarantee you he didn't talk about the size of his penis or brag about being able to shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave.

1836: Martin Van Buren prevailed despite Whig candidate William Henry Harrison's backers hammering the aristocratic Van Buren's style of refined dress. "Van Buren is laced up in corsets, such as a woman in town wear," read one hit piece.

1840: With another crack at Van Buren four years later, a Harrison congressman crony, Charles Ogle, upped the attack, claiming the president "slept on fine French linens and ate from silver plates with forks of gold."
Modal Trigger
Abraham Lincoln's democratic foe called him a "horrid-looking wretch."Photo: Getty Images

1844: James Polk overcame the shenanigans of Henry Clay, who in trying to up the tally from the sizeable Irish population in New York City claimed that he himself was also an immigrant whose real name was "Patrick O'Clay."

1856: James Buchanan was afflicted with a congenital palsy that caused his head to tilt slightly to the left. Opponent John Frémont's supporters spread the mistruth that the tilt was the result of Buchanan once trying to hang himself.

1860: Abe Lincoln was not the easiest on the eyes. Democratic foe Stephen Douglas' backers at the Charleston Mercury newspaper even called Abe a "horrid-looking wretch" who was "sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper, and the nightman."

1876: In an attempt to ruin Rutherford B. Hayes, Democrats spread the rumor that he once shot his own mother "in a fit of insanity" after a night of drinking in Ohio. Poor old Sophia Birchard Hayes was deceased, so she wasn't around to debunk the claim. Hayes still defeated Samuel Tilden, though narrowly.



1896: The New York Times not only endorsed Republican William McKinley, the Gray Lady also published an article about his opponent William Jennings Bryan with the headline: "Is Mr. Bryan Crazy?" The piece interviewed so-called experts from the psychiatric field that concluded he suffered from megalomania, delusions of grandeur and quarrulent logorrhea, which is basically complaining too much. One expert said, "I should like to examine him as a degenerate."

1908: Of course, Jennings could sling some mud, too. Consider this hit piece from a Midwestern paper on William Taft, a Unitarian in faith. "Think of the United States with a president who does not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but looks upon our immaculate Savior as common bastard and low, cunning imposter."

1928: Speaking of playing the religious card, Herbert Hoover's backers said Democrat Al Smith, a Catholic, engaged in "card-playing, cocktail drinking, poodle dogs, divorces, novels, stuffy rooms, evolution . . . nude art, prize-fighting, actors, greyhound racing and modernism." Poodle dogs?

1952: Adlai Stevenson's chances of beating Dwight Eisenhower weren't great to begin with, and it didn't help that a leaflet distributed in the US heartland claimed that Stevenson had once killed a young girl "in a jealous rage."

Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign had a team put out a kids coloring book where his opponent was dressed in a Ku Klux Klan robe.Photo:

1964: In Lyndon Johnson's campaign against GOPer Barry Goldwater, he set up a secret 16-member team dubbed the "5 o'clock club" that wrote anonymous letter to columnist Ann Landers slamming Goldwater; secretly fed hostile questions to reporters on the Goldwater campaign trail; infiltrated headquarters to swipe advance texts of speeches; and even wrote books with titles like "The Case Against Barry Goldwater" and a kids book in which tykes could color in with crayons Goldwater dressed in a Ku Klux Klan robe.

1972: And then there was Richard Nixon. Watergate was the coup de grâce, but as anyone who's seen the film "All the President's Men" knows, Nixon operative Donald Segretti and his team of "ratf – – kers" started small. In the Democratic primary season, they ruined Edmund Muskie, whom they considered a strong potential opponent for the general election. In New Hampshire, voters began getting late-night phone calls from rude people pushing for Muskie. To play on racist fears, many callers were either black or pretended to be and added that they'd been bused up from Harlem to work for Muskie.



There are a ton more of course but these were of note.  Nothing has changed really.

[o.pwuaioc]

Guarantee you George Washington didn't talk about the size of his penis or brag about being able to shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave.

George Washington actually did shoot people.  Did he brag?  I don't know.  And neither do you.

As for the other bit, Donald Trump isn't the first president who ever engaged in innuendo... especially when someone else brought it up first.  I kind of like presidents who act like real human beings.

He fought in a war, not boast about being able to murder someone, and Donald Trump was not engaging in innuendo. Were you even watching when he said that?

re: Nulltard, that never gets old. Please post that more often!

[Emerald Rocker]

Donald Trump was not engaging in innuendo. Were you even watching when he said that?

Trump said: "He referred to my hands: 'If they're small, something else must be small.'  I guarantee you there's no problem."

That's textbook innuendo.

[Psycho Punch]

null that spoiler gets me everytime

DO THE MUSCLE.

[esteban]

Donald Trump was not engaging in innuendo. Were you even watching when he said that?

Trump said: "He referred to my hands: 'If they're small, something else must be small.'  I guarantee you there's no problem."

That's textbook innuendo.

Trump = clown
Other Republican hopefuls = clowns
Hillary = clown

One of my favorite films by Fellini, by the way, is <I>I Clowns</I>

I'm not teasing you. It is magnificent. For me, anyway.

It is a better way to spend a Sunday evening than arguing about the political buffoonery in U.S.America.

[OldRover]

Nothing else brings out the fangs quite like politics, religion, and video games.

[BigusSchmuck]

This is why I'm voting third party this cycle. Too much finger pointing and no one wants to work together. United we stand, divided we fall.

[NightWolve]

In the interest of chronology, Trump shot first. He didn't like something or other Stewart said and tweeted his real name with some insults: https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/327076720425451523

It was in response to that Stewart shared the F--kface von Clownstick name, and Stewart did not take credit for it. He said it was on twitter immediately after sharing it. He didn't "steal" it.

The sleazy/disingenuous/hypocritical part is where Trump accused Stewart of being ashamed of his heritage. Stewart changed his name to take on that of his mother (guess he wasn't fan of dad at that time), whereas Drumpf changed his name because.... ?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-unleashes-fury-on-phony-jon-stewart-for-fkface-von-clownstick-nickname/

* You're correct, Trump used his real name in a previous Tweet and that led to the rename game. That mediaite article misled me on how this particular skirmish in their grudge began. Not sure how it was proportional to go with "F--kface von Clownstick" on the TV show, but he's part republican on some days, so that justifies just about any kind of insult.

* However, I stand by my initial guess that a Far Left hack troll like Stewart started the feuding all along, HE picked the fight against Trump and that's why Trump was insulting him back in some way. The "first shot" goes further back and Stewart fired first as a simple search yields.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/08/jon-stewarts-10-greatest-daily-show-beefs/donald-trump

There are number of other great Stewart Trump-busting moments. Each time Trump made the news, whether it be for the controversial comments, the Birther movement, or his reality show, Stewart has been there to mock his fellow notable New Yorker.

The most civil moment of this feud was back in 2004, when Trump was first a guest on The Daily Show.

The feuding goes back at least as far as when Sarah Palin was running as VP, and Stewart started using him as a punchline, disrespecting, mocking, attacking, bashing, etc. him with things like "Captain Combover," "Son of a bitch!", dumb jokes like you'll contract gout from eating at some Trump joint, etc. That's just what I can find right now, don't care to search for more.

* The reason Trump thought he took credit for "F--kface" is because he went by news media reports saying Stewart invented it:

On Wednesday evening, Jon Stewart invented a new nickname for real estate mogul and noted birther Donald Trump: "F--kface von Clownstick."

Not Trump's fault if he sees news media reports saying that Jon Stewart "invented" a new birthname for him, and then replying "No, it was actually a moron on Twitter." That explains that.

* Claiming "hypocrisy" over what an ancestor did ~400 years ago is absurd... Really ? Did I misunderstand you here ? Does Ben Affleck have to answer for a slave owner ancestor ?

* I don't think it's sleazy/disingenuous to report a guy attacking/mocking/insulting you from his TV show for years has a stage/fake name, ask why he changed it, and form a response given the most popular reason people change their last names which is typically to Americanize it, to hide their heritage.

Most of all, I'm not buying John Oliver's portrayal of his boss Jon Stewart as the "poor victim" in this feud (along with all the other feuds Jon started first!) after dropping "F--kface von Clownstick" and all the previous attacks he lobbed at Trump from his show years back, but yet OH BOY, that one tweet REALLY crossed the line and 3 years later Oliver had to "teach him a lesson..."

* Only reason people like Trump would know his real name is because lots of other people like right-leaning commentators would use it given how when it was learned that any republican changed their name, it was thereafter a "fake name" by a "faker." He used the same standards Far Left hacks apply to us... He didn't "out" it and I suspect he listens to talk radio on occasion as that's where I learned him as Leibowitz. Larry King, also another one with a "fake name."

Yes, about that... Of course there's more to the story. Jon Stewart threw the first punch picking a fight with Trump by renaming him to "F--kface Von Clownstick..." Good ole Stewart, elevating the political discourse in the country, right ? So Trump retorted by reporting that his last name, Stewart, is fake, it was changed from Leibowitz.

Ah, yes, and of course there's precedent for presidential candidates stooping to the level of comedians. We all remember how when George Washington was heckled by a comedian, the president flipped him the bird and shouted, "Don't be a douche, shithead!" He then shot his pistols in the air and rode off on his chopper horse blaring Mötley Crüe's Girls, Girls, Girls.

He wasn't a presidential candidate in 2013. His campaign began in 2015. And I don't see the equivalence of "Hey, Trump's birthname is 'F--kface Von Clownstick'! Haha, I'm funny!" versus "Hey, isn't *your* birth name actually Jon Leibowitz ? Why'd you change it ?" and then pointing to the most popular reason why people change their last name. I see no attack or mocking of his real last name, just questioning on his decision to change it.

Regardless, I admit he doesn't have the typical cautious presidential temperament and you can find comments in the present as a candidate that make me cringe. As such, he's not my first choice. You really wouldn't like my first choices, but if he wins the primary, I'd still take him over ANY Far Left lawyer/"community disorganizer" hack that democrats offer up that never built a damn thing in their lives and simply specialize in imposing wealth re-distributive policies to corrupt/bribe the citizen to maintain/grow their power.

Calling Jon Stewart a bully for calling out Trump's bullying with an insult is just pure desperation.

I didn't call Jon Stewart a bully just for his "F--kface Von Clownstick" insult by itself and Oliver then reusing that incident some 3 years later as if it was some great unfair wound that needed further retort. I call him a bully for his ~16 years bashing republicans or other celebrities that don't share his Far Left political views. Using his show/platform over the years to intimidate, humiliate, distort, embarrass, mock, etc. targets is in line with tacit attempts to bully them into proper compliance with what you want them to say/think/do/etc. and if not, to shut them up to avoid being targets.

Nothing "desperate" about it. He's a piece of shit, like Stephen Colbert is a piece of shit. At least Stewart could be funny though and I've laughed at his jokes at times even when they were directed at people like me, but never once found Colbert's shtick funny and am really surprised they chose a partisan hack like that to take over CBS' Late show.

Nothing else brings out the fangs quite like politics, religion, and video games.

Funny, I was gonna bring that up minus videogames. Since we like to hang out with each other here, politics and religion are divisive subjects that'll really bring out differences, create grudges, put people in their battle stations - typically little good comes of it. In that sense, you wonder just how much you should engage with people in a thread like this, since it's guaranteed to make enemies.

I've never met anybody that was mature enough to discuss these issues without antagonism, and I include myself in that. I mean, look at the thread's title, it's a hysterical, hyberbolic smear from the start which has been used for decades... I don't think the solution is to never talk about such subjects though, but just to be aware of what it can lead to.

[o.pwuaioc]

@Nightwolve, In fact, Trump was certainly considering a presidential career path in 2013, and earlier.

PS. Jon Stewart has bashed plenty of Democrats, too. And a hearty "LOL" at the "far left wing" - there hasn't been one since Clinton killed it off in 92. That's why Bernie is very lonely in higher up endorsements. It's no longer right vs. left, as it was in 78 and prior. Its far right (see my comments to Evo about many older Republican jumping ship at the suicidal Tea Party upstarts) vs. centrists like Obama (post-election) and Clinton. If Bernie gets it, it'll be the first socialist president ever, and certainly the most liberal since Roosevelt, if not ever as well. In fact, you'd have to go back to the founding fathers to see such radical views expressed (compared to the times, that is).

But even then, he's far closer to the center than any of the leading Republicans are. I'll take Bernie's view on privacy and anti-free trade globalism any day over the pro-birth, pro-murder, pro-voodoo economics, anti-charitable hypocritical "Christians" any day of the week. At least one side has a heart, while the other side is content to preach one thing and do another. Pretty easy to see who's better, and no Republican right now even comes close.

[NightWolve]

@Nightwolve, In fact, Trump was certainly considering a presidential career path in 2013, and earlier.

Yeah, I know it goes way back, just correcting the implication he had this exchange recently as an actual candidate. Not that there aren't plenty of present gaffes when it comes to him, he's still too careless and can get caught up in petty matters.

Regardless, a right-leaning republican always gets put under the microscope far more than democrats, so I'm not happy about all the negatives he's racked up as if he is the nominee, democrats will have lots of material to embarrass him with, even when they don't distort, omit facts/context to exaggerate.

PS. Jon Stewart has bashed plenty of Democrats, too.

I'm aware, that's why his audience could catch republicans wandering into it, but the way the game is played is you do 20 republicans, to 1 democrat, and then you can say, "See, see, I make fools of both sides of the aisle."

It's never a 50/50 affair 10 republicans embarrassed for every 10 democrats. Just because say Fox News has democrats come on and talk, doesn't mean you buy their "fair and balanced" motto, do you ? It's a game of triangulation.

Even the ACLU uses this tactic to claim bipartisanship or neutrality. For every say 1000 lawsuits they advanced left-wing causes, there was the time they dropped a friend-of-the-court brief when Rush Limbaugh got busted for his addiction to painkillers. Rush had his lawyer, didn't their need help, but they stuck their face in to gain publicity and it allows them to say, "See, see, we're not always commie lawyer hacks, we're bipartisan, right down the middle, we did that legal brief to help Rush Limbaugh..."

Its far right (see my comments to Evo about many older Republican jumping ship at the suicidal Tea Party upstarts) vs. centrists like Obama (post-election) and Clinton.

I am a "centrist" myself actually. He that disagrees with me is either too far to the Left, or too far to the Right.

anti-charitable hypocritical "Christians" any day of the week.

I think it's easy to sit back, vote for people to automate "charity" via the power of the state and call opponents of such an ever-expanding system of theft and redistribution hypocritical. I have a heart, but I have a brain too. Inspiring people to donate voluntarily is an actual Christian teaching, but robbing Peter to pay for Paul's welfare, his schooling, his retirement, or his sex-change operation or his condoms, etc. is something else... That becomes a system of bribery with stolen money. Democrats are primarily the party of Santa Claus (and the GOP's RINO left-wing which could fully take over in a few decades), and I recognize it's a losing battle against such a party because who doesn't love "free" stuff ? Very effective tactic and voting blocks that are socially/culturally opposite of modern democrats vote for them in majorities thanks to it.

[Emerald Rocker]

I'll take Bernie's view on privacy and anti-free trade globalism any day over the pro-birth, pro-murder, pro-voodoo economics, anti-charitable hypocritical "Christians" any day of the week. At least one side has a heart, while the other side is content to preach one thing and do another.

It's not hypocrisy.  You can't legislate charity.  The act of giving must be a personal choice or else it's not charity.

There's a faith-based reason that the Christian right opposes increased taxes to support social programs.  Christian faith is dependent on free will.  Christians must freely choose to follow Jesus, and they must freely choose to follow a path of goodness and charity.  The more that Christians are taxed, the less ability they have to make charitable contributions.  It doesn't matter whether you, I,  or anyone else thinks the money is being well-spent.  It's only charity if the giver believes in the cause and gives freely.

As for "saying one thing and doing another", the majority of charitable contributions in this country still come from people who identify as Christian.  There are a lot of things wrong with organized religion, but lack of giving isn't one of them.

[BigusSchmuck]

I wouldn't say Jon Stewart is completely against the right as he did have Rand Paul on his show a while back.

And he did endorse Ron Paul back in 2012.

Yet he also interviewed Obama as well..

Just to be fair, I'm sure a lot of people didn't realize that Larry King hosted the 3rd party debate in 2012 via youtube.

I much rather have their voices be heard instead of business as usual.

[NecroPhile]

If you wana argue DEBT, well, you need to only look at the past 8 years under Obama.

Ahem..

Since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased by $8.4 trillion. On January 20, 2009, it stood at $10.6 trillion; on Monday, it was at $19.111 trillion.

I'm no fan of Obama, but much of that debt would've accrued no matter who was president.  At least half of it is a direct result of declining tax receipts and funding two joke wars.

How about we get a guy in the drivers seat and jerk the wheel.

You know what usually happens when someone jerks the wheel, right?  You wreck.

Even if this weren't a fantastically stupid analogy, the problem I see with Trump is his inability to get along with pretty much anyone.  The presidency isn't a dictatorship and executive orders only go so far, and I don't see Trump being able to negotiate with Democrats (or even within his own party) to get a damn thing passed through congress.

[jlued686]

Plus, lest we forget: he doesn't know shit about shit. He's nothing but hot air and bluster.

[BigusSchmuck]

If you wana argue DEBT, well, you need to only look at the past 8 years under Obama.

Ahem..

Since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased by $8.4 trillion. On January 20, 2009, it stood at $10.6 trillion; on Monday, it was at $19.111 trillion.

I'm no fan of Obama, but much of that debt would've accrued no matter who was president.  At least half of it is a direct result of declining tax receipts and funding two joke wars.

Spot on. Hence the reason why none of these mainstream candidates are willing to do any kind of monetary reform. Sure Ted Cruz flirted with the idea going back to the gold standard, but do we as a country want to go backwards?
*cough* Meet the third party:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gary-johnson-2016_us_56e1df47e4b0860f99d85380

[FiftyQuid]

This goes back a few pages to the discussion on moving to Canada, but I thought it was worthy of posting.  BTW, plenty of Turbob up in Canada!  I'm just sayin'! 

wayback.cbiftrumpwins.com

[Bernie]

Nothing else brings out the fangs quite like politics, religion, and video games.

My thoughts exactly.  In my group convo on FB, we have several opinions, but nothing ever resorts to trashing each other.  Me being a Trump and Bernie supporter, a few others leaning one way or another.  But whatever, call each other retarded and morons and whatever else.

[o.pwuaioc]

Nothing else brings out the fangs quite like politics, religion, and video games.

My thoughts exactly.  In my group convo on FB, we have several opinions, but nothing ever resorts to trashing each other.  Me being a Trump and Bernie supporter, a few others leaning one way or another.  But whatever, call each other retarded and morons and whatever else.

I think at the end of the day if you can look past it and OBEY together, it doesn't really matter what happens in Fighting Street Chit-Chat.

[DeshDildo]

I actually thought this thread would really go down drain but I have to say it stayed pretty reserved.  This alone shows that even if our opinions differ nobody went to full on douche status.  Of course Evo took some shit but that's pretty much an expectation.

[Emerald Rocker]

I think it's because in our hearts, even if he's not our #1, we all respect Donald Trump to some degree.  Running for president isn't easy.

[jlued686]

I think it's because in our hearts, even if he's not our #1, we all respect Donald Trump to some degree.

Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh............

[OldRover]

Honestly, I can give a little respect to anyone with enough guts to stand up to a corrupt media darling like Shillary... but that doesn't mean I think that they would be a viable alternative.

[Otaking]

Just watching Rubio's speech live saying he is out the race.

[esteban]

Just watching Rubio's speech live saying he is out the race.

He's been out for a long time.

It just took some time for him to accept it.

[Otaking]

Waiting for Trump's live speech, apparently about to happen.
Crazy the amount of coverage it's getting (US president race) on the BBC compared to when I started this thread.


Just watching this

[Bernie]

Yeah he was caught off guard, as would anyone in that position had it happened to them.

[jlued686]

Waiting for Trump's live speech, apparently about to happen.
Crazy the amount of coverage it's getting (US president race) on the BBC compared to when I started this thread.

Yeah, I actually watched that speech last night, along with Kasich's.

After watching it, I can get why some people like him. He comes off as affable and humorous. He says a lot of things that sound good and get people fired up. But the thing is, he doesn't really say anything. He does a lot of "we don't win anymore" or "we make bad deals" stuff. He randomly, in the middle of nothing and nowhere, said, "There's 2.5 trillion outside of this country. And we're gonna bring it back." What does that mean, Donald? WTF does that mean? Where is there 2.5 trillion and how are we gonna bring it back? And his answer would probably be a meandering pile of gibberish that ends with, "We're gonna make a good deal."

Again, I get why he appeals to some people. His speech was entertaining. But he's completely full of shit, and it's alarming how easy that is to see and how many people he's suckered.

Watching Kasich, all I could think was, "Why the hell isn't this guy the nominee? Hell, I would even consider voting for him!"

As it is, I'm not excited about any of the candidates. Voting in November is going to be difficult for me. But this carnival barker will definitely not get my vote.

[DeshDildo]

Waiting for Trump's live speech, apparently about to happen.
Crazy the amount of coverage it's getting (US president race) on the BBC compared to when I started this thread.

Yeah, I actually watched that speech last night, along with Kasich's.

After watching it, I can get why some people like him. He comes off as affable and humorous. He says a lot of things that sound good and get people fired up. But the thing is, he doesn't really say anything. He does a lot of "we don't win anymore" or "we make bad deals" stuff. He randomly, in the middle of nothing and nowhere, said, "There's 2.5 trillion outside of this country. And we're gonna bring it back." What does that mean, Donald? WTF does that mean? Where is there 2.5 trillion and how are we gonna bring it back? And his answer would probably be a meandering pile of gibberish that ends with, "We're gonna make a good deal."

Again, I get why he appeals to some people. His speech was entertaining. But he's completely full of shit, and it's alarming how easy that is to see and how many people he's suckered.

Watching Kasich, all I could think was, "Why the hell isn't this guy the nominee? Hell, I would even consider voting for him!"

As it is, I'm not excited about any of the candidates. Voting in November is going to be difficult for me. But this carnival barker will definitely not get my vote.

I am not a huge Kasich fan and I even voted for him as governor.  He was the lesser of two evils which is what these elections all come down to it seems.  He does have a history of pushing more liberal policies and working with both parties.  Liberals will hate that he just defunded planned parenthood in this state.  I do not like his stance on education.  Common core is ridiculous.

[EvilEvoIX]

Waiting for Trump's live speech, apparently about to happen.
Crazy the amount of coverage it's getting (US president race) on the BBC compared to when I started this thread.

Yeah, I actually watched that speech last night, along with Kasich's.

After watching it, I can get why some people like him. He comes off as affable and humorous. He says a lot of things that sound good and get people fired up. But the thing is, he doesn't really say anything. He does a lot of "we don't win anymore" or "we make bad deals" stuff. He randomly, in the middle of nothing and nowhere, said, "There's 2.5 trillion outside of this country. And we're gonna bring it back." What does that mean, Donald? WTF does that mean? Where is there 2.5 trillion and how are we gonna bring it back? And his answer would probably be a meandering pile of gibberish that ends with, "We're gonna make a good deal."

Again, I get why he appeals to some people. His speech was entertaining. But he's completely full of shit, and it's alarming how easy that is to see and how many people he's suckered.

Watching Kasich, all I could think was, "Why the hell isn't this guy the nominee? Hell, I would even consider voting for him!"

As it is, I'm not excited about any of the candidates. Voting in November is going to be difficult for me. But this carnival barker will definitely not get my vote.

You basically described every politician ever.  Lots of talk and platitudes but almost zero substance.  Obama did the same, made all these promises, and got almost none of them accomplished.  Government is flawed by design, it prevents a dictatorship.  But if trump gets in hell have a republican congress to help him with spending cuts and other measures until the Dems get back in.  Happens every time a party changes the house then senate reacts to balance the power.

[seieienbu]

What "spending cuts"?  There might be tax breaks for the rich but I honestly doubt there will be spending cuts.  Hilariously, if you look at the last 5 presidents, the two dems cut did way more to lower the deficit than the 3 reps.

I sure do wish the conservative party was more fiscally conservative.  It'd make my choices on who to vote for a hell of a lot easier.

[NecroPhile]

It's technically true that the deficit lowered steadily under Obama, but that's due to a recovering economy and a stupid high deficit his first year in office.  Even now at it's lowest in eight years, it's still no better than any year of Bush's presidency.

[NightWolve]

I actually thought this thread would really go down drain but I have to say it stayed pretty reserved.  This alone shows that even if our opinions differ nobody went to full on douche status.  Of course Evo took some shit but that's pretty much an expectation.

I concur and wonder how Godwin's Law wasn't yet violated, but the thread is still young with November a long way out. ;)

I commented on Mike Tyson's endorsement on Facebook and I attracted a crazed anti-Trump troll whose libel can pretty much be reduced to Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Fascist Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK...

This is their magic bullet or so they feel, if that can just be repeated enough times it might help push the next democrat over the finish line...

[seieienbu]

It's technically true that the deficit lowered steadily under Obama, but that's due to a recovering economy and a stupid high deficit his first year in office.  Even now at it's lowest in eight years, it's still no better than any year of Bush's presidency.

Yeah, I really don't understand much about cause/effect in the economy.  I should probably pay more attention to such stuffs.

[NightWolve]

I really cannot see what's wrong with reinforcing immigration policies, and I still haven't heard any convincing argument against it. He's not going to make a concentration camp for mexicans, guys.

Mostly because of cost and it not being necessary.  To fulfill the shit he's claimed he'd do (export 11 million illegals, build a giant wall, secure the border, etc.) it's estimated it'd cost $1 trillion to start and with ongoing annual costs of $100 billion plus.  That's on top of what's already being spent on border security and doesn't include the economic costs of losing so many laborers.

I'd rather see such money and effort spent on roads or schools than on something that's not really a problem in the first place.

I need more people like NecroPhile and less political meme parrots dumbing down any legitimate question about US politicians at every opportunity. It really looks like Trump isn't fit for president the more I look into it.

Oh right, I did have questions about this post. Were you attacking people in this thread that posted a meme, cause I counted about ~4 at that point ? Not sure how ~4 of them somehow interfered with you and NecroPhile exchanging further info, much less "at every opportunity," if that's what you wanted to do. Does that go for any videos posted as well ? And finally, by the use of "parrot," you seem to suggest anybody that posts a meme is not sincere about its message, doesn't have enough background understanding to be doing so, it's "monkey see, monkey do," etc. is that right ?