RE: Latest Election Polls 2016

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Latest Election Polls 2016

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 4:36:47 AM

WhoreMods

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
In actuality, Trump didnt raise those kids.. he didnt "get them" until they were over 21 & out of college.. so she raised them to be “very balanced, articulate, and well-educated" kids, then Trump turned them into the "scum sucking pigs" they are today.. They are just as bad as their daddy with the barefaced lies, con games and shite..

“Trump's ex-wife: I raised the kids
"Ivana Trump is taking credit for rearing her three children with ex-husband Donald Trump, saying “I really raised them.”

“I decided on their schooling and everything they did,” Trump, who was married to the GOP presidential front-runner from 1977 until the early '90s, says in an interview this week with The Daily Front Row.

Ivana Trump has three now-grown children with the real estate mogul: Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump.

“When I divorced Donald, the children were like 4, 6, and 8,” Trump tells the fashion publication. “I had full custody, and there was only one cook in the kitchen, which was me.”

The Czech Republic-born former model, 66, says she and Trump were on the same page when it came to discipline.

Donald went along with it, and if I would say ‘no’ to the kids, they would go to their father and say, ‘Daddy, Daddy can we get that and that... ?’ And he would ask, ‘What did mother say?’ They would tell him, ‘Mommy said no,’ so that meant no.”

But after her kids turned 21 and were done with college, Trump says she “gave them” to her ex, telling him, “This is the final product — now it’s your job.”"

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/269312-trumps-ex-wife-i-raised-the-kids

Now that's revenge at it's coldest, isn't it? Makes killing and butchering the brats and having the tiny-handed shitweasel eat them look positively benevolent by comparison.
Why ever would the circus peanut's ex bear him a grudge?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to tj444)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 6:38:02 AM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

In actuality, Trump didnt raise those kids.. he didnt "get them" until they were over 21 & out of college.. so she raised them to be “very balanced, articulate, and well-educated" kids, then Trump turned them into the "scum sucking pigs" they are today.. They are just as bad as their daddy with the barefaced lies, con games and shite..

That's not what the children say. If you heard all the interviews with the kids. They talk about growing up in Donald Trump's Office as kids, and spending alot of time with their dad.
Also the fact that Trump does not contradict his wife and stay united front as parents, is credit to Trump. Most parents don't even do that!
And also, you can say, he has picked really good women who is able to raise good kids.

So in another words, he has good judgement.

(in reply to tj444)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 9:24:27 AM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
In actuality, Trump didnt raise those kids.. he didnt "get them" until they were over 21 & out of college.. so she raised them to be “very balanced, articulate, and well-educated" kids, then Trump turned them into the "scum sucking pigs" they are today.. They are just as bad as their daddy with the barefaced lies, con games and shite..

“Trump's ex-wife: I raised the kids
"Ivana Trump is taking credit for rearing her three children with ex-husband Donald Trump, saying “I really raised them.”

“I decided on their schooling and everything they did,” Trump, who was married to the GOP presidential front-runner from 1977 until the early '90s, says in an interview this week with The Daily Front Row.

Ivana Trump has three now-grown children with the real estate mogul: Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump.

“When I divorced Donald, the children were like 4, 6, and 8,” Trump tells the fashion publication. “I had full custody, and there was only one cook in the kitchen, which was me.”

The Czech Republic-born former model, 66, says she and Trump were on the same page when it came to discipline.

Donald went along with it, and if I would say ‘no’ to the kids, they would go to their father and say, ‘Daddy, Daddy can we get that and that... ?’ And he would ask, ‘What did mother say?’ They would tell him, ‘Mommy said no,’ so that meant no.”

But after her kids turned 21 and were done with college, Trump says she “gave them” to her ex, telling him, “This is the final product — now it’s your job.”"

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/269312-trumps-ex-wife-i-raised-the-kids

Now that's revenge at it's coldest, isn't it? Makes killing and butchering the brats and having the tiny-handed shitweasel eat them look positively benevolent by comparison.
Why ever would the circus peanut's ex bear him a grudge?

What people see in public of these kids is the effort Ivana put in as a sole custody parent, you see how polished they are,.. until you really look and listen to how they act when challenged, then you see the effect The Donald had on them, they act just as badly as he does.. thin-skinned Ivanka has stormed out of an interview with Cosmopolitan cuz they asked a few questions she didnt like, she has been accused of stealing/copyright infringement by copying another designers work, she defends not paying contractors, not giving pregnant employees maternity leave (despite saying she is for that) and saying no to paternity leave, etc..

His kids, especially Ivanka, are much more polished & PR aware than The Donald is.. but they are mini-hims, even if The Donald loses this election, one of his kids could decide to follow him into politics and be just as much of a risk to the world as he is, but imo they would have a better chance at winning than he does with all his baggage.. now there is another scary thought..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to WhoreMods)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 11:33:29 AM

WhoreMods

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

Well, what else would you expect from Ivana Trump? If ever there was a style over substance merchant, it's her. She's all about surfaces.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to tj444)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 12:41:08 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

We are all going to have to stand up to Putin at some point.

Why? What has he done that has you upset?

For the first time in years, maybe in the entire history of Russia, the Russian government increasingly believes that it is free to do whatever it wants anywhere in the world.

At the end of ww 2 they had the most powerful military in the world and could have taken anything they wanted. Who would have stoped them? They did not so why the fear mongering?

After all the US and Europe wont lift a finger if they bomb their political opponents in Syria,

So what? We bomb our political opponents in the sand box.

invade Ukraine

So what?

or the Baltic Republics,

So what?

set up military bases in Cuba

We have one there. We ring the russians with our bases and missles. Are you aware of the f 35 program?

and the Philippines, the list goes on.

Are we talking about dominos again? been there done that

This isn't paranoia - it is happening in front of our eyes.

The cold war is over why do you want to start it all over again?

We can carry on ignoring it and trying to pacify a demagogic despot, who is president of the country with the meanest army in the world. You think a few hundred thousand US dead "won" the Second World War?

This seems to sugest that germany lost because it ran out of bullets.

No it was the several million Russians who died to bleed Hilter to death so that we could finish him off.

You havent read much about ww 2 have you?

Oh and by the way their army had nothing like the technology that Hitler or the US had.

The russians had a far superior tank.
The russians had far superior aircraft.

Just like the Russians are streets behind today - on paper.

What have we learned from history? Apparently nothing.

I have learned not to listen to war mongers.

I am clearly not a war monger. That is why what is happening is of such concern to me.

You most clearly are a war monger because you keep saying that we must stop russia from this and that.

I am concerned about appeasing Putin.

There is that word "apeasement" as if you think you have a clue what it really means.

That concern is not some extremist militarist point of view outside the US. It is mainstream thinking in Europe, where the Russian question is more than theoretical.

What part of europe has russia taken over?

He is not just a misunderstood kid. He sent an army into the Ukraine

Any Idea why he did that? Could it possibly be that russia had financed and built the industrial base there? That russia had granted soveringinty to ukraine only to have a coup against the legally elected government seek to remove that industrial base from the russian sphere of influence?

and lied about it to his own people while Russian families were getting their kids home in body bags.

Kinda like viet nam?

(Oh and let's not forget the small question of a Malaysian airliner shot down by Russian missiles.) Putin invaded Crimea when the Russians there were under no physical or existential threat.

It is pretty clear that he went there to protect the russian investment.

Europe is full of enclaves where people have different national identities to their state's national majority. There are democratic ways of dealing with that

As mentioned those "democratic" methods were bypassed by the coup were they not?

- or we can resort to ethnic war like Yugoslavia or invasion like Putin. Three cheers for the democrat Putin!

I have not sugested that he or russia is democratic any more than I have sugestged that amerika is democratic.

History is a hugely disputed subject of course and you are free to disagree with me, but a couple of thoughts on the Second World War

History is not "hugely disputed" sociology is.

- Hitler like Napoleon before him failed in Russia.

Hardly for the same reasons.

The Allied invasion of Europe was an impressive military campaign and brought the end of the war far quicker than would have been the case otherwise.

That is demonstrably untrue. The anglo-amerikan invasion of western europe was miniscule in comparison to the russian invasion of of europe from the east.

The bravery and skill of US armies was central to that campaign.

Bravery???maybe ,skill at fighting old men, children and cripples???hardly.

Hilter's ambitions however died in Stalingrad

By the time hitlers "vaunted" warriors had reached smolinsk (two months)they had filled a thousand body bags a day.when they got to moscow they had to use a quarter of a million body bags just to begin their retreat which cost them anothe 90k body bags. Hitlers "ambitions died in the snow in front of moscow.

where the Russians demonstrated their incredible capacity to fight and die. Hilter had superior weapons and a better trained army. Russia had its people.

Which tank of the german army was superior to the tu 34?
Which operational german aircraft was superior to the sturmovic
or the yak 9?

- Russia's military dead in the war at around 10 million

{b]Many sources put the number closer to 8 million.

and Germany's at over 5 million indicate where the war was fought won and lost. The US lost around 400,000

Many sources put the number closer to 250,000 on all fronts...africa,europe and the far east.

and UK territories 600,000 despite fighting in Europe, Africa and the Far East. Whatever the undoubted sacrifice of other nations, victory in WW2 was built on the deaths of up to 15% (including non-military deaths) of the Russian population. That is a sacrifice and tragedy most of us can only imagine.

The nazi snuffed about 16 million non combatants for being russian in public.

- Russia had an impressive military industrial machine but Russian geography and their lack of clear superiority in terms of hardware led to greater loss of Russian lives.

Russian equipment was not inferior and in many cases supreior to the germans, as noted above.

- At the end of the war Stalin had already managed to urge his armies to unimaginable losses and decided not to fight his own Allies. His Allies pushed their armies right into his face and later supported Berlin, not to antagonise him but because they were afraid of the consequences of appearing weak in the face of a Russian army who they could not defeat.

True

The Cold War is over, but Putin's Russia is a militarily aggressive nation more than willing to take the US on.

I dont see the military agression you speak of but I do agree he won't take any shit from uncle sugar.

He is not the friend of the US

He does sell us titanium by the mega ton, without which we would not have an aircraft industry. We in turn sell him rock drilling bits without which he would have a tough time extracting his oil from the ground.

or Europe and he is not ever going to be. The stand off in the Cold War was only partly because the USSR had a different form of government to the US, there were far deeper strategic reasons for it.

That is obvious in their aircraft design.

Getting right back to how this relates to the current election. Putin cannot be appeased.

There is that word "appeased" that people use that do not understand chamberlains mission.
What is it that you think putin wants? If he had wanted ukiraine all he had to do was take it and put the legally elected president back in office and shoot the leaders of the rebellion...just as we would if the timmy mcveighs were to seek to unseat our president.

What are we going to do - appeal to his better nature? Fluffy him into submission? He only understands strength and power. Exercising that strength and power takes huge skill because, God forbid (and I do mean that) we cannot afford a war.

Once again what do you fear he is going to do?

The US of course has the option of letting the whole ugly saga play out in Europe, the Middle East, and South East Asia. Perhaps the US can be immune to the effects, perhaps not. Perhaps the potential re-emergence of Russian military bases in Cuba,

I am pretty sure that cuba is a soverign nation and does not need amerikas permission to do anything.
Tell me again why amerika has a military base in cuba?

which are being discussed right now, will be no cause for concern. Letting Putin do his stuff is a big gamble. He is the one with the all the moves and self-confidence right now.

Tell me why I should care what russia does?

For what it's worth, I am a dove and not a hawk and all my instincts are pacifist. It is because of those instincts that I hold the views that I do.

Appeasement however is an ugly sin, and one that led to the deaths of countless millions in the last century.

for those who's knowledge of history comes from television I would sugest a little research as to the reasons for chamberlain stratagy of "apeasement". It is quite different than the history channel portrays it.

(in reply to longwayhome)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 6:15:07 PM

longwayhome

Posts: 1035
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

[Edited to avoid excessive repetition]

for those who's knowledge of history comes from television I would sugest a little research as to the reasons for chamberlain stratagy of "apeasement". It is quite different than the history channel portrays it.

Hey thompsonx. Thanks for the dismissive and patronising response.

Let's just put this argument to bed here. It started as something vaguely relevant to the thread, but has just veered away into your being patronising about my understanding of history and international relations. You took out-takes from at least two different posts, mashed them up and quoted them out of context before suggesting that my information came from the history channel. Great job.

I disagree with you about history and international relations. That disagreement is not based on ignorance. I am more than aware of the historiography of these subjects and the current debates, and have a special interest in Russian history. I understand the thrust of your argument but I think you are mistaken.

The big difference between us is that I am willing to have a reasonable debate without resorting to be insulting. You have perfectly sincerely held views which I do not have to rubbish by dismissing your level of reading on the subject.

This isn't a competition. No-one has to win.

My contention, in response to Termyn8or's comment about a vote for Clinton being a vote for war, was to suggest that standing up to Putin was important, because he is dangerous. When you disagreed with that I told you why and said that Trump has no clear strategy to deal with him, indeed Trump's foreign policy pronouncements have deeply concerned the friends of the US around the world.

That contention was fairly peripheral to theme of the thread to start off with, and I probably shouldn't have gone so far off topic to explain my point.

Whilst I would love to debate the history behind all this with you, including the relevant sources and documentary evidence (if you could refrain from wrongly suggesting that my main source of information is a low budget TV channel), I fear that this is all getting increasingly irrelevant to the thread.

With apologies to the other contributors, I am therefore gracefully withdrawing from discussing this subject further on this thread.

If it makes you feel better you can tell yourself that you won.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 6:39:42 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

[Edited to avoid excessive repetition]

for those who's knowledge of history comes from television I would sugest a little research as to the reasons for chamberlain stratagy of "apeasement". It is quite different than the history channel portrays it.

Hey thompsonx. Thanks for the dismissive and patronising response.

When you or anyone constantly refers to "appeasement" as a policy one can only refer to the most comon source of that phrase. It is bullshit and therefore easy to dismiss. Should you choose to bring facts and not rhetoric to the discussion I will be less dismissive.

Let's just put this argument to bed here. It started as something vaguely relevant to the thread, but has just veered away into your being patronising about my understanding of history and international relations. You took out-takes from at least two different posts, mashed them up and quoted them out of context before suggesting that my information came from the history channel. Great job.

That is not true. I took the two consecutive post re: our discussion. There were no outtakes. The post are continuous.

I disagree with you about history and international relations. That disagreement is not based on ignorance.

Your post express a gross ignorance of the weaponry used by the russians and germany.
Your post express a gross ignorance of the timeline of russian dominance over the germans.

I am more than aware of the historiography of these subjects and the current debates, and have a special interest in Russian history. I understand the thrust of your argument but I think you are mistaken.

If you feel that I am mistaken all you need do is cite your objections with some sort of validation.

The big difference between us is that I am willing to have a reasonable debate without resorting to be insulting.

I am not interested in debate, I discuss. Debate has no concensus only constant disagreement.

You have perfectly sincerely held views which I do not have to rubbish by dismissing your level of reading on the subject.

When you find errors in fact please feel free to rubbish away.

This isn't a competition. No-one has to win.

My contention, in response to Termyn8or's comment about a vote for Clinton being a vote for war, was to suggest that standing up to Putin was important, because he is dangerous. When you disagreed with that I told you why and said that Trump has no clear strategy to deal with him, indeed Trump's foreign policy pronouncements have deeply concerned the friends of the US around the world.

Trump vs. bills wife is little more than a choice between syphliss and ghonoreah.

That contention was fairly peripheral to theme of the thread to start off with, and I probably shouldn't have gone so far off topic to explain my point.

Whilst I would love to debate the history behind all this with you, including the relevant sources and documentary evidence (if you could refrain from wrongly suggesting that my main source of information is a low budget TV channel),

All you need to do to accomplish that is to disabuse me of my ignorance in that area. Thus far you have not offered any substantive rebuttle except cold war rhetoric.

I fear that this is all getting increasingly irrelevant to the thread.

With apologies to the other contributors, I am therefore gracefully withdrawing from discussing this subject further on this thread.

"A man has got to know his limitations"

(in reply to longwayhome)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/15/2016 9:20:31 PM

longwayhome

Posts: 1035
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline

Just one point thompsonx and then I really am stopping banging my head against a brick wall.

I wrote:

You took out-takes from at least two different posts, mashed them up and quoted them out of context before suggesting that my information came from the history channel.

You wrote:

That is not true. I took the two consecutive post re: our discussion. There were no outtakes. The post are continuous.

You removed parts of what I wrote and instead of offering insight, repeatedly referred to things like "gross ignorance", lack of reading etc. You make it appear that you are answering each point carefully, often just to misrepresent what I have just said. That is not discussion or debate, however you choose to mis-define either term. At least I am clear where I have edited something someone has said.

I'm not ignorant and badly read, I just disagree with you. The fact that you disagree with me I can respect, but not the fact that you seem incapable of doing so without insulting me.

Why you feel you have to take that tone only you can answer.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/16/2016 3:03:06 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

Just one point thompsonx and then I really am stopping banging my head against a brick wall.

Educate yourself and your head will not bruise so easily.

I wrote:

You took out-takes from at least two different posts, mashed them up and quoted them out of context before suggesting that my information came from the history channel.

You wrote:

That is not true. I took the two consecutive post re: our discussion. There were no outtakes. The post are continuous.

You removed parts of what I wrote and instead of offering insight, repeatedly referred to things like "gross ignorance", lack of reading etc.

Your position that the germans had superior weaponry is the example of gross ignorance. The germans had no tank that was even in the same zip code of the tu 34. The tu 34 was 20 mph faster, had longer range, curved armor that german 70mm cannon shells bounced off of and was repariable in in the field. The yak 9 was capable of 400+ mph. An me 109 or fw 190 could not go that fast if you threw it out of a 747 at 30,000'. The strumovik was refered to as a flying tank. It could fly circles around a stuka. It hit harder, flew faster and was almost impossible to damage beyond repair.
Rudell the "ace"(yes with a phoquing stuka he shot down 5 aircraft) stuka pilot (knights cross with crossed swords and diamonds) comments in his autobiography that the russians could rebuild rail road tracks almost as fast as he could destroy them. That their ability to construct river crossings for tanks that were all but invisible by the nature of them being submerged. Stalin's pipe organ scared the living shit out of all german troops.
Model, who was famous for his extremely effective defensive constructs (battle of warsaw being one of his best) was astonished at the simple but effective manner in which the russians neutralized his carefully laid mine fields by stampeeding pigs through them.
Only someone who is grossly ignorant of the history of the eastern front would be unaware of just these few items.

You make it appear that you are answering each point carefully, often just to misrepresent what I have just said. That is not discussion or debate, however you choose to mis-define either term. At least I am clear where I have edited something someone has said.

I'm not ignorant and badly read,

Your post do not substantiate that claim.

I just disagree with you. The fact that you disagree with me I can respect, but not the fact that you seem incapable of doing so without insulting me.

Thus far I have not insulted you. As long as you continue in this civil manner of discourse I will continue to refrain from insulting you.

Why you feel you have to take that tone only you can answer.

Thus far I have been civil in pointing out your ignorance.

(in reply to longwayhome)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/16/2016 8:21:04 AM

longwayhome

Posts: 1035
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline

Civil - hardly.

Ho hum.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: Latest Election Polls 2016 - 10/16/2016 8:39:02 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: bondageerone

in my opinion if He wins,
he will milk the country clean,
you will end up, even more broke.
Fort Knox will disappear into his pockets,
to pay his debts off.
VOTE CLINTON.

And a vote for Clinton is a vote for war. She wants to antagonize Putin, do more intervention over there and she also has the illusion like many USians that the US military is so far ahead of the whole rest of the world they can take everybody all at once. If that is so how come MIGs always seem to outperform US fighters ? How come they got a missile that goes twice as fast and twice as far as anything the US has ? They even THINK about fucking with Russia then Moody's will speak again and you might see ten buck a loaf bread alot sooner. Or at east we will, you don't care.

T^T

Where do you get this stuff about the MIG vs our planes ? A dog fight (1 on 1) just isn't going to happen especially given that F-22's, 15's and 16's fly in pairs. I've given you one link a few weeks ago,,,here's another answered by pilots and the military.

A few highlights:

The F-22 is the most advanced air-superiority fighter in the world. This is not an exaggeration.

The MiG-29 is the "budget" version of no-expenses spared air-superiority fighter Su-27, the answer to the F-15.

.....the F-22 is a Generation 5 fighter; there are currently no other Generation 5 fighters in service. The most updated version of the MiG-29 is considered as a Generation 4+ fighter. The F-22 first flew in 1997, and the MiG-29 first flew in 1977.

At long range (BVR), beyond visual range, the F-22 can shoot down enemy aircraft without being detected. Better radar, better missiles, better at not being picked up by enemy radar. The MiG-29 would likely not be able to see what shot it down.

.....the F-22 carries a lot more rounds for its guns than the Mig-29, so if it gets down to a gunfight, the F-22 still has the advantage of having more ammo, i.e., chances for a kill. Finally, the F-22 can loiter around longer than the MiG-29, and has a faster top speed. The MiG-29 either has to win quickly or it would run out of fuel.

F15 Eagles (made in 1975) have shot down 13 Mig29's (made in 1983) with no losses to themselves. We hear about the Mig's dreaded maneuverability. Yet during desert storm an F15 was behind a 29 ready to shoot and from 4000 ft the MIG Split-S'd straight into the ground where the F15 easily executed the maneuver. That being said, what do you think an F22 would do to a Mig 29 flown by the same quality pilot.

The F-22 is a generation ahead of the Mig-29 and it has one crucial advantage that the Mig lacks, namely stealth. If memory serves correctly, when the F-22 Raptor first went to Red Flag, the most realistic aerial training exercise in the world, the Raptor had a 300:1 kill ration in their favour.

Shall I go on ? HERE

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 51