DescentBB

Try the new president elect Rodrigo Duterte who is telling the population at large to shoot drug dealers. Come to think of it maybe he should have a talk with Trump about this:

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippine president-elect has encouraged the public to help him in his war against crime, urging citizens with guns to shoot and kill drug dealers who resist arrest and fight back in their neighborhoods.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58fc2315 ... ug-dealers

Maybe this is the sign of the times. People getting fed up with weak leaders like Obama and turning to strong men. This is a violent world and people are seeing the value of tough people to run their countries.

scared, weak, weak-minded people always succumb to the appeal of strong men. May those type never dominate the US electorate.

Is that a veiled warning slick?

callmeslick wrote:scared, weak, weak-minded people always succumb to the appeal of strong men. May those type never dominate the US electorate.

Is that why you have the Dems promoting violence at Trump rallies...because the anti-Trump protestors are weak minded?

woodchip wrote:Maybe this is the sign of the times. People getting fed up with weak leaders like Obama and turning to strong men. This is a violent world and people are seeing the value of tough people to run their countries.

Shockingly enough most of us managed to mature beyond those sort of 10-year-old playground dick-waving antics. I hear the head upstairs tends to think much better than the one downstairs if you attempt it.

Equally shocking is navel gazing only gets you enlightenment...but not food on the table nor keeps drugs off the street.

woodchip wrote:Maybe this is the sign of the times. People getting fed up with weak leaders like Obama and turning to strong men. This is a violent world and people are seeing the value of tough people to run their countries.

We did well enough with Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien, John Turner, Pierre Trudeau, Lester B. Pearson, etc. Special nod goes to Kenneth D. Taylor. None were "strong", but all were smart.

The cavemen don't run the world anymore.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Maybe this is the sign of the times. People getting fed up with weak leaders like Obama and turning to strong men. This is a violent world and people are seeing the value of tough people to run their countries.

We did well enough with Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien, John Turner, Pierre Trudeau, Lester B. Pearson, etc. Special nod goes to Kenneth D. Taylor. None were "strong", but all were smart.

The cavemen don't run the world anymore.

If it weren't for cavemen, where do you think we'd be.

What life requires of a man (or a woman), and what either one is capable of becoming, is so much more than most people settle/allow for. The necessity of strength has not diminished in the 21st century, but it's foolish to hold it over intelligence as a quality--a man needs to excel at both or he is deficient.

woodchip wrote: If it weren't for cavemen, where do you think we'd be.

appeal to tradition. dismissed, and subsequent responses will be dismissed.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:scared, weak, weak-minded people always succumb to the appeal of strong men. May those type never dominate the US electorate.

Is that why you have the Dems promoting violence at Trump rallies...because the anti-Trump protestors are weak minded?

prove, in any way, that the Democrats have ANYTHING to do with that violence, please, or go back to your review of children's movies.

to the original post, I find it amusing to note that the Drumpf camp is now down to comparisons with dictators, strongmen and wannabe tyrants in order to make their boy look palatable.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:scared, weak, weak-minded people always succumb to the appeal of strong men. May those type never dominate the US electorate.

Is that why you have the Dems promoting violence at Trump rallies...because the anti-Trump protestors are weak minded?

One thing you're missing woody is that the Dems aren't promoting the violence. Trump is the one who's fomenting the anger all by his little self and I think he's relishing it because it put's him in the spotlight. It's happening because most of those protestors are disillusioned young people with nothing to lose and the youthful lack of control to match. Trump is nurturing that youthful hormone-fueled anger by using racially charged rants and directing personal attacks on people he dislikes, all to amp up his deluded base. Trump is deliberately feeding that anger to further his agenda and notoriety. Trump is dumping gasoline on the fire, on purpose. That by itself makes him unfit to be president because he's acting just like those same irrational protestors, stupid idiots. What did he, and you, expect? A love fest?

By the way, have you forgotten all those hormone-fogged mistakes and decisions you impulsively made in your youth woody, or were you a perfect little conservative all your life?

tunnelcat wrote:
By the way, have you forgotten all those hormone-fogged mistakes and decisions you impulsively made in your youth woody, or were you a perfect little conservative all your life?

wow. congratulations. that's a nice zinger.

tunnelcat wrote:

By the way, have you forgotten all those hormone-fogged mistakes and decisions you impulsively made in your youth woody, or were you a perfect little conservative all your life?

My hormone fogged mistakes were rapidly corrected after boot camp and 3 years of the Marine corp. Too many of us came out old men.

woodchip wrote:My hormone fogged mistakes were rapidly corrected after boot camp and 3 years of the Marine corp. Too many of us came out old men.

you never did that.

You were there or are you calling me a liar?

woodchip wrote:You were there or are you calling me a liar?

well, you've lied about pretty much everything else. why would this be different?

woodchip wrote:Equally shocking is navel gazing only gets you enlightenment...but not food on the table nor keeps drugs off the street.

It's all good so long as the trains run on time, then?

A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage? Pretty much sums it up.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

By the way, have you forgotten all those hormone-fogged mistakes and decisions you impulsively made in your youth woody, or were you a perfect little conservative all your life?

My hormone fogged mistakes were rapidly corrected after boot camp and 3 years of the Marine corp. Too many of us came out old men.

Before Boot Camp.

and, returning to the original question, my answer is a definitive YES, I do.

woodchip wrote:A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage? Pretty much sums it up.

Well there goes that point a mile over your head...

ad dropping in 6 states starting this weekend:
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/06/07/ ... l=facebook


this sort of thing will push middle America to send the orange baboon into an historic defeat.

And the book Crisis of Character will drive middle America right back to Trump:

no, it won't. It's yet another warmed-up rehash of whining about the Clinton White House, and will do nothing to affect this race, nor reduce the likelihood of another Clinton White House.

Lets see, number 1 book and that is just based on pre-orders. Yeah, won't make a speck of difference. And I look for a goodly percentage of Bernie voters going to Trump.

I'm quite sure the right-wing talk show circuit and the anti-Clinton forces have pushed those pre-sales up.Let's see how fast that one makes it to the remainder bins.

Well unlike Hillaries book that immediately went to the discount bin, I suspect the secret service agents book will do well.

suspect away. It's old news, lapped up by the same folks who have hated the Clintons for a couple decades.

callmeslick wrote:suspect away. It's old news, lapped up by the same folks who have hated the Clintons for a couple decades.

The defense of Hillary is strong in this one.

that is the response one typically sees(ask Guiliani) to repeatedly rehashing the Clinton White House years.

Whats the old saying? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I guess slick, being a fool is ok in your book.

speaking of fools, and being too lazy to resuscitate the thread we actually agreed on something about, Woody, I note, in the past 24 hours, one nitwit in Yellowstone got badly injured by approaching a wild bison, another apparently fell in a paint pot type hot spring. Apparently, the migration of idiots to our National Parks continues unabated.



back to topic, I'm no one's fool, and am hardly inspired by the prospect of Ms Clinton as President, likely for 8 years. However, the concept of some loony longstanding con artist as President is far, far, more repugnant. Further, I relish the fact that the GOP has hooked the wagon to him. A well needed thrashing might get them back to being a functional second party.

and while Woody and the other Trumptards try to reheat 20 year old leftovers, we return to the here-and-now:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnbcA1

your guy is a scam artist, Woody.

callmeslick wrote:that is the response one typically sees(ask Guiliani) to repeatedly rehashing the Clinton White House years.

Aaaaand, if she gets elected, we'll have yet another 4 years of the same old Clinton politicking and business dealings as usual with the added bonus of her having to deal with the pure seething Clinton hatred of every Republican currently in government. Unless she taps Bernie as VP, she's going to have an uphill battle just to get his supporters, despite what she says. I'm even having trouble getting the will to vote in the general. NONE of the candidates are worth the load of crap they're pushing. Even the Libertarian guy is pretty much a tea party shill with their same crazy fiscal policy ideas.

I don't think she will tap Bernie as a VP. That might well go to either Sherrod Brown(helps in Midwest) or Elizabeth Warren(extremely popular nationwide,although Woody would retch at the suggestion, she is around 70 percent positive), either of whom would demand a relatively progressive agenda, especially around economics.

That said, you saw tonight what Trump has walked into. As I suggested a week or two back, the Dems waited until the GOP leadership was inextricably linked to the Trump locomotive and then opened fire on the bridge ahead with heavy guns. As one wag noted tonight when I was in watching with my wife: when your list of surrogates has Bill Clinton coming off the bench 5th or 6th, you have a strong set of surrogates. Hillary won't have to trifle with Trump's little attacks, folks like Warren have been eviscerating and emasculating him in almost ruthless fashion, and they're just warming up to the task. The sitting President is more popular that EITHER of the two candidates by about 6%, and he along with his wife(also massively popular) will, along with the natural assistance of Trump himself, produce the Obama coalition on steroids, and while Trump will maintain his odd little pockets of support, he's going to get overwhelmed in the general and likely limited to those pockets, which just can't take the electoral college, and will result in down-ticket debacle, especially with the Dems seemingly coming together quickly and seemigly pretty strong.

callmeslick wrote:...the Obama coalition on steroids...

I've had a few friends say they would rather have 4 more years with Obama than Hillary or Trump, and this is from people who don't like Obama. He has shown time and time again that even with his low popularity on the left he can still get the base excited. Really, if Mrs Clinton can keep her missteps to a minimum she'll be able to walk into the Oval Office with little resistance.

callmeslick wrote:speaking of fools, and being too lazy to resuscitate the thread we actually agreed on something about, Woody, I note, in the past 24 hours, one nitwit in Yellowstone got badly injured by approaching a wild bison, another apparently fell in a paint pot type hot spring. Apparently, the migration of idiots to our National Parks continues unabated.

Apparently, that guy was from Portland, Oregon and the park rangers think that in all probability the guy's body has been pretty much dissolved into little pieces. He essentially fell into a boiling acid bath and no one can approach the pool to retrieve any remains because of the dangerous crumbling ground. He's now a part of the park for eternity.

vision wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...the Obama coalition on steroids...

I've had a few friends say they would rather have 4 more years with Obama than Hillary or Trump, and this is from people who don't like Obama. He has shown time and time again that even with his low popularity on the left he can still get the base excited. Really, if Mrs Clinton can keep her missteps to a minimum she'll be able to walk into the Oval Office with little resistance.

I'm kind of in the camp as well and Obama's popularity ratings are higher than Hillary's anyway. Plus, if Hillary selects a woman as her VP, even if it's Elizabeth Warren, I'm predicting that decision will probably be a mistake. One female leader may be possible, as long as a man is at her side. But 2 in both the top slots may not be palatable for a lot of men, especially older men. I think that misogyny would rear it's ugly head like a giant pimple on someone's nose. If a lot of people don't think a black man is capable of running the country, a woman doesn't stand a better chance, even in this day and age.