Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[PeterMP]

Because some of us still have hope for another.

 

Yes, or rather not predictive of a future reality

 

You are talking about a current poll, and I'm talking about a current poll, and I'm talking in a head to head match up.

 

If right now, 25% of African Americans are telling one pollster they will vote for Trump, then why doesn't that show up in ANY of the Hillary vs. Trump polls?

 

Because your poll is garbage, and you knew that when you posted it.

[TheGoodBits]

I'm not a regular GOP voter. I haven't voted for them in a while.

I can't decide if I should try to vote for the one GOP person I like, or vote for Sanders in the primary tomorrow. I only get to vote in one. On election day I have no idea who I will vote for we have a ways to go.

You'd consider yourself a moderate, even lean conservative though, correct?

Would you consider voting for Trump as POTUS in Nov?

[JMS]

Here's conservative flag bearer George Will weighing in on Donald J. Trump:

George Wills big problem is.. Donald is not just the overwhelming GOP choice for the Republican nomination; he's also the candidate who most appeals to moderates and independents on the GOP side of this race. The facts are Rubio and Cruz are very controversial figures themselves, they are just more polite than Donald to people's faces..

[Predicto]

 

 

enjoy the tusks ya brought on yourselves

 

 

Who's we, kimosabe?  

 

The GOP has led the charge to degrade our political discourse for the past 20 years.   Slogans over facts, faith over science, obstruction over compromise, ideology over practicality, truthiness over truth.  the GOP has created a giant mass of angry, disaffected voters who mistrust anyone, can't be reasoned with, and just want someone to punish.  

 

It is culminating with Trump, the ringmaster of the circus, and no one is as responsible for his rise as the GOP and the Frank Luntz method of manipulative mob governance.  

 

*in before someone claims both sides are the same, both sides are to blame...  Kilmer where are you?*

[TheGoodBits]

Who's we, kimosabe?

The GOP has led the charge to degrade our political discourse for the past 20 years. Slogans over facts, faith over science, obstruction over compromise, ideology over practicality, truthiness over truth. the GOP has created a giant mass of angry, disaffected voters who mistrust anyone, can't be reasoned with, and just want someone to punish.

It is culminating with Trump, the ringmaster of the circus, and no one is as responsible for his rise as the GOP and the Frank Luntz method of manipulative mob governance.

*in before someone claims both sides are the same, both sides are to blame... Kilmer where are you?*

Two Americas.

You know, in the event Kilmer is unavailable.

[Predicto]

WAIT WAIT WAIT

 

This doesn't fit our narrative who put this on TV? Pack your **** and get out of here!

 

 

 

lol MSNBC  hahahahaha

[JMS]

Lots of people pretending that they aren't witnessing the demolition of the Republican Party as we know it.

Nixon demolished the GOP... twice.

Reagan demolished the GOP..

George W. demolished the GOP...

What's wrong with Donald demolishing it? The fact that 50% of likely GOP voters are so angry with the party that they would vote for Donald, tells you the GOP needs to be demolished and reset. And good for the GOP for sticking to their process and letting it happen.

What would be much worse for the party would be if they followed the Democratic model for revolt. 50% of the Democratic Party is also in revolt.. But what have the Democrats decided to do.. Anoint a leader and ignore the grass roots.

That's not a better solution.

[Kilmer17]

Sorry.  I agree.  This is the mess the GOP built starting in the 80s. 

 

Again I'll point out though that Hillary Clinton is about to be the Dem nominee.  So it's not as if the Dems are doing anything right either.

[mistertim]

George Wills big problem is.. Donald is not just the overwhelming GOP choice for the Republican nomination; he's also the candidate who most appeals to moderates and independents on the GOP side of this race. The facts are Rubio and Cruz are very controversial figures themselves, they are just more polite than Donald to people's faces..

 

 

Wait, WHAT? Most appeals to moderates and independents?

 

Have you SEEN the numbers for his disapproval ratings among independents and moderate Republicans? Is it opposite day in your world or something?

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

*in before someone claims both sides are the same, both sides are to blame...  Kilmer where are you?*

 

 

Two Americas.

You know, in the event Kilmer is unavailable.

 

Actions have consequences.

 

Muhahahahaha. 

[JMS]

Who's we, kimosabe?  

 

The GOP has led the charge to degrade our political discourse for the past 20 years.   Slogans over facts, faith over science, obstruction over compromise, ideology over practicality, truthiness over truth.  the GOP has created a giant mass of angry, disaffected voters who mistrust anyone, can't be reasoned with, and just want someone to punish.

Are you kidding me? You're leading argument against Donald Trump is he's a racist. An entirely made up piece of drivel. and you are charging the GOP for "degrading our political discourse"?

Please their is just as much if not more venom coming from the left in this campaign and we haven't even gotten to the general yet.

[PeterMP]

Trump explanation #1:  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSMTZSAPEC2TBIQTGK?utm_source=twitter

 

Trump explanation #2:

https://twitter.com/ZeddRebel/status/704348263839887360

 

 

He couldn't understand, but he said David Duke in 2 responses and white supremacists.

 

What part didn't he understand?

 

And this is the guy that claims he's for telling the truth.

[tshile]

You'd consider yourself a moderate, even lean conservative though, correct?

Would you consider voting for Trump as POTUS in Nov?

 

Yeah I think i'm right of center for the most part.

 

My voting preferences are: Anyone but Hillary > ?

 

And that's not even based on policy or anything. I think she's the epitome of everything wrong with politicians. She's as fake as they come.

 

So, I don't know. It's a scary thought. Trump for president. Good lord.

[The Evil Genius]

 

Again I'll point out though that Hillary Clinton is about to be the Dem nominee.  So it's not as if the Dems are doing anything right either.

 

But who should have been the nomination? The uber liberal Sanders (who, despite a few posters opinions of, doesn't represent the majority of the party - imho)?

 

Who do you feel the D party overlooked this election? 

 

*In before someone nominates a random Va senator/governor who has no chance ever of being the D party nominee. Can we get over Virginia democrats, please?

[Dan T.]

Donald Trump shows that rare ugly combination of arrogance and ignorance. It's maddening and sad to witness in a person, but it can be deadly in a Presidential candidate.

[JMS]

Wait, WHAT? Most appeals to moderates and independents?

 

Have you SEEN the numbers for his disapproval ratings among independents and moderate Republicans? Is it opposite day in your world or something?

Trumps positions in favor of Universal Healthcare, Against the Iraq War, Against starting another war, Rebuilding America's infrastructure, Taking care of Vets, raising taxes on hedge funds managers, and being critical of our one sided trade deals; all paint him as the moderate on the GOP side of this race.

Donald vs Cruz or Rubio; moderates pick Trump in every primary so far; with record turn outs. There is nothing to suggest that won't continue in the general.

Democrats are kidding themselves if they think the nations is as aghast as they are pretending to be.

[Burgold]

Sorry.  I agree.  This is the mess the GOP built starting in the 80s. 

 

Again I'll point out though that Hillary Clinton is about to be the Dem nominee.  So it's not as if the Dems are doing anything right either.

Clinton's not really a bad candidate. Senator, SOS, hands-on First Lady. She'll have more first hand experience on how the White House works if she wins than almost any of her predecessors.

 

Problem with Hillary is mainly twofold: She's dynastic and we've had plenty of Bushes and probably enough Clintons, but her biggest problem is that she just ain't cuddly. People don't like her. Qualify that, I've met two groups of people that worked with her... State people who generally spoke very well of her and remarked how kind she was and military types who said she was an asshole. Strangely, I believe both.

[Predicto]

oh holy smoke

 

[JMS]

Donald Trump shows that rare ugly combination of arrogance and ignorance. It's maddening and sad to witness in a person, but it can be deadly in a Presidential candidate.

You think Donald is more arrogant than Hillary Clinton? I don't..

As for ignorance leading to deadly consequences? How many Americans died in the Iraq War? Who again voted for that war? Who was against it again? Who stood before a crowd in SC where the military is so strong, and defended his statement the Iraq War was a mistake? When arrogance is used like that, it looks an awful lot like leadership.

[mistertim]

Trumps positions in favor of Universal Healthcare, Against the Iraq War, Against starting another war, Rebuilding America's infrastructure, Taking care of Vets, raising taxes on hedge funds managers, and being critical of our one sided trade deals; all paint him as the moderate on the GOP side of this race.

Donald vs Cruz or Rubio; pick Trump in every primary so far; with record turn outs. There is nothing to suggest that won't continue in the general.

Democrats are kidding themselves if they think the nations is as aghast as they are pretending to be.

So how are all of the independents and moderate Republicans who disapprove of him currently going to be suddenly swayed to his side once it hits the general election? There would have to be a mass turnover of people who currently dislike him. How is he going to accomplish that? He's been running on the same "platform" since he entered the race and they still don't like him. You seem to be giving him some sort of magical powers.

[Predicto]

Sorry.  I agree.  This is the mess the GOP built starting in the 80s. 

 

Again I'll point out though that Hillary Clinton is about to be the Dem nominee.  So it's not as if the Dems are doing anything right either.

 

 

you couldn't resist the "both sides are the same"  thing for one post, could ya?   hehe

[Kilmer17]

But who should have been the nomination? The uber liberal Sanders (who, despite a few posters opinions of, doesn't represent the majority of the party - imho)?

 

Who do you feel the D party overlooked this election? 

 

*In before someone nominates a random Va senator/governor who has no chance ever of being the D party nominee. Can we get over Virginia democrats, please?

I think the Dems actively and purposefully set the table for Hillary to win.

 

Sanders is a better candidate/person/leader.  Biden would be wiping the floor with them if he had entered.  Why are you opposed to Mark Warner?  He'd be a fabulous candidate.  I also think Gore or Kerry would be better choices than Hillary.

 

But it's true the Dem bench has been decimated by election losses on non Obama years for a decade.  And that coupled with having Hillary supporter Wasserman-Shultz running the nomination process made it impossible for anyone to enter the race.

So how are all of the independents and moderate Republicans who disapprove of him currently going to be suddenly swayed to his side once it hits the general election? There would have to be a mass turnover of people who currently dislike him. How is he going to accomplish that? He's been running on the same "platform" since he entered the race and they still don't like him. You seem to be giving him some sort of magical powers.

Their hatred for Trump is dwarfed by their hatred of Hillary

[Predicto]

Donald is not just the overwhelming GOP choice for the Republican nomination; he's also the candidate who most appeals to moderates and independents on the GOP side of this race. 

 

 

[Larry]

Come on Larry, you're better than that. North Korea began violating the deal almost immediately after signing it.

Here's a good timeline of the deal.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

Basically, they announced over and over that they were withdrawing, inspectors were denied access. Then they renegotiated the deal. And we kept drawing new lines in the sand.

But yes, it's all Ws fault for finally putting an end to the charade.

Didn't read your own link, did you? Here's what your link says about NK's nuclear program:

There's a whole lot of entries about NK's missile program, but very little about their nuclear one. I'm trying to just pull out the nuclear ones.

August 12, 1994: An “agreed statement” is signed that establishes a three-stage process for the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In return, the United States promises to move toward normalized economic and diplomatic relations and assures North Korea that it will provide assistance with the construction of proliferation-resistant LWRs to replace North Korea’s graphite-moderated reactors.

October 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea conclude four months of negotiations by adopting the “Agreed Framework” in Geneva. To resolve U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s plutonium-producing reactors and the Yongbyon reprocessing facility, the agreement calls for North Korea to freeze and eventually eliminate its nuclear facilities, a process that will require dismantling three nuclear reactors, two of which are still under construction. North Korea also allows the IAEA to verify compliance through “special inspections,” and it agrees to allow 8,000 spent nuclear reactor fuel elements to be removed to a third country.

In exchange, Pyongyang will receive two LWRs and annual shipments of heavy fuel oil during construction of the reactors. The LWRs will be financed and constructed through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), a multinational consortium.

Calling for movement toward full normalization of political and economic relations, the accord also serves as a jumping-off point for U.S.-North Korean dialogue on Pyongyang’s development and export of ballistic missiles, as well as other issues of bilateral concern.

November 28, 1994: The IAEA announces that it had confirmed that construction has been halted at North Korea’s Nyongbyon and

Taochon nuclear facilities and that these facilities are not operational.

1995.

No news whatsoever about anything nuclear.

1996.

No news whatsoever about anything nuclear.

1997

No news whatsoever about anything nuclear.

1998.

August 31 (paraphrasing): Japan refuses to sign off on the agreement to begin constructing the two reactors promised, above, because NK tested a (non-nuclear) missile.

December 4-11, 1998: The United States and North Korea hold talks to address U.S. concerns about a suspected underground nuclear facility at Kumchang-ni. Pyongyang reportedly accepts in principle the idea of a U.S. inspection of the site but is unable to agree with U.S. proposals for “appropriate compensation.”

1999.

May 20-24, 1999: A U.S. inspection team visits the North Korean suspected nuclear site in Kumchang-ni. According to the State Department, the team finds no evidence of nuclear activity or violation of the Agreed Framework.

December 15, 1999: Five years after the Agreed Framework was signed, KEDO officials sign a turn-key contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation to begin construction on the two LWRs in Kumho, North Korea. KEDO officials attribute the delay in signing the contract to complex legal and financial challenges and the tense political climate generated by the North Korean Taepo Dong-1 test in August 1998.

2000

May 25-27, 2000: The United States conducts its second inspection of the Kumchang-ni site. The inspection team found that conditions had not changed since the first inspection in May 1999.

June 19, 2000: Apparently encouraged by the North-South summit, the United States relaxes sanctions on North Korea, allowing a “wide range” of trade in commercial and consumer goods, easing restrictions on investment, and eliminating prohibitions on direct personal and commercial financial transactions. Sanctions related to terrorism and missile proliferation remain in place. The next day, North Korea reaffirms its moratorium on missile tests.

2001

 

No news whatsoever about anything nuclear.

2002

January 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President Bush criticized North Korea for “arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.” Bush characterized North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, as constituting an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

August 7, 2002: KEDO holds a ceremony to mark the pouring of the concrete foundation for the first LWR that the United States agreed to provide North Korea under the Agreed Framework. Jack Pritchard, the U.S. representative to KEDO and State Department special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, attends the ceremony. Pritchard is the most senior U.S. official to visit North Korea since former Secretary of State Albright in October 2000.

The United States urges North Korea to comply with IAEA safeguarding procedures for all its nuclear facilities as soon as possible, but Pyongyang states that it will not do so for at least three years, the Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports August 8. A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman also states that delays in completing the reactor project might motivate Pyongyang to pull out of the agreement.

2002

October 16, 2002: The United States announces that North Korea admitted to having a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons after James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, confronted representatives from Pyongyang during an October 3-5 visit. Kelly later explained that the North Korean admission came the day after he informed them that the United States was aware of the program. North Korea has denied several times that it admitted to having this program.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher states that "North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program is a serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Agreed Framework as well as under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

Boucher also says that the United States wants North Korea to comply with its nonproliferation commitments and seeks "a peaceful resolution of this situation."

November 14, 2002: KEDO announces that it is suspending heavy-fuel oil deliveries to North Korea in response to Pyongyang's October 4 acknowledgement that it has a uranium-enrichment program. The last shipment reached North Korea November 18.

 

December 9, 2002: Spanish and U.S. forces intercept and search a ship carrying a shipment of North Korean Scud missiles and related cargo to Yemen. The United States allows the shipment to be delivered because it lacks the necessary legal authority to seize the cargo. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says that Washington had intelligence that the ship was carrying missiles to the Middle East and was concerned that its ultimate destination might have been Iraq.

 

December 12, 2002: North Korea sends a letter to the IAEA announcing that it is restarting its one functional reactor and is reopening the other nuclear facilities frozen under the Agreed Framework. The letter requests that the IAEA remove the seals and monitoring equipment from its nuclear facilities. A North Korean spokesman blames the United States for violating the Agreed Framework and says that the purpose of restarting the reactor is to generate electricity-an assertion disputed by U.S. officials.

 

A November 27 Congressional Research Service report states that the reactor could annually produce enough plutonium for one bomb. The CIA states in a 2002 report to Congress that the spent-fuel rods "contain enough plutonium for several more [nuclear] weapons."

 

U.S. estimates on North Korea's current nuclear status differ. A State Department official said January 3, 2003 that the U.S. intelligence community believes North Korea already possesses one or two nuclear weapons made from plutonium produced before the negotiation of the Agreed Framework. The CIA publicly estimates that Pyongyang "has produced enough plutonium" for one or two weapons.

 

December 14, 2002: North Korea states in a letter to the IAEA that the status of its nuclear facilities is a matter between the United States and North Korea and "not pursuant to any agreement" with the IAEA. The letter further declares that North Korea will take unilateral action to remove seals and monitoring cameras if the IAEA does not act.

 

December 22-24, 2002: North Korea cuts all seals and disrupts IAEA surveillance equipment on its nuclear facilities and materials. An IAEA spokesman says December 26 that North Korea started moving fresh fuel rods into the reactor, suggesting that it might be restarted soon.

 

December 27, 2002: North Korea orders IAEA inspectors out of the country. They leave on December 31.

 

2003

 

January 10, 2003: North Korea announces its withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), effective January 11. Although Article X of the NPT requires that a country give three months’ notice in advance of withdrawing, North Korea argues that it has satisfied that requirement because it originally announced its decision to withdraw March 12, 1993, and suspended the decision one day before it was to become legally binding.

 

February 27, 2003: U.S. officials confirm North Korea has restarted the five-megawatt nuclear reactor that had been frozen by the Agreed Framework. 

 

April 23-25, 2003: The United States, North Korea, and China hold trilateral talks in Beijing. North Korea tells the U.S. delegation that it possesses nuclear weapons, according to Boucher on April 28. This constitutes the first time that Pyongyang has made such an admission. 

 

North Korea also tells the U.S. delegation that it has completed reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel from the five-megawatt reactor frozen under the Agreed Framework, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell during an April 30 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

 

Boucher adds that the North Korean delegation told the U.S. officials that Pyongyang “might get rid of all their nuclear programs…[and] stop their missile exports.” Powell states April 28 that North Korea expects “something considerable in return” for this effort.

 

July 15, 2003 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher tells reporters that North Korean officials at their UN mission in New York have told U.S. officials that North Korea has completed reprocessing the 8,000 spent fuel rods from its Yongbyon reactor.

 

August 27-29, 2003  The first round of six-party talks is held in Beijing. The talks achieve no significant breakthroughs.

 

North Korea proposes a step-by-step solution, calling for the United States to conclude a “non-aggression treaty,” normalize bilateral diplomatic relations, refrain from hindering North Korea’s “economic cooperation” with other countries, complete the reactors promised under the Agreed Framework, resume suspended fuel oil shipments, and increase food aid. Pyongyang states that, in return, it will dismantle its “nuclear facility,” as well as end missile testing and export of missiles and related components. North Korea issues an explicit denial for the first time that it has a uranium-enrichment program.

 

The North Korean delegation, however, also threatens to test nuclear weapons or “demonstrate the means that they would have to deliver” them, according to a senior State Department official.

 

 - - - Things really go downhill from there, and I'm going to stop trying to cut and paste every nuclear-related item from their chronology, after that, cause there's a bunch of them and I've already pasted too much of their site, anyway.  (And, at this point, the whole thing had fallen apart, anyway.) 

 

So, please, tell me some more about how your site shows that the agreement stank, and NK wasn't following it, and W just cancelled an agreement that wasn't working, anyway. 

[Kilmer17]

Didn't read your own link, did you? Here's what your link says about NK's nuclear program:

There's a whole lot of entries about NK's missile program, but very little about their nuclear one. I'm trying to just pull out the nuclear ones.

August 12, 1994: An “agreed statement” is signed that establishes a three-stage process for the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In return, the United States promises to move toward normalized economic and diplomatic relations and assures North Korea that it will provide assistance with the construction of proliferation-resistant LWRs to replace North Korea’s graphite-moderated reactors.

October 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea conclude four months of negotiations by adopting the “Agreed Framework” in Geneva. To resolve U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s plutonium-producing reactors and the Yongbyon reprocessing facility, the agreement calls for North Korea to freeze and eventually eliminate its nuclear facilities, a process that will require dismantling three nuclear reactors, two of which are still under construction. North Korea also allows the IAEA to verify compliance through “special inspections,” and it agrees to allow 8,000 spent nuclear reactor fuel elements to be removed to a third country.

In exchange, Pyongyang will receive two LWRs and annual shipments of heavy fuel oil during construction of the reactors. The LWRs will be financed and constructed through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), a multinational consortium.

Calling for movement toward full normalization of political and economic relations, the accord also serves as a jumping-off point for U.S.-North Korean dialogue on Pyongyang’s development and export of ballistic missiles, as well as other issues of bilateral concern.

 

 - - - Things really go downhill from there, and I'm going to stop trying to cut and paste every nuclear-related item from their chronology, after that, cause there's a bunch of them and I've already pasted too much of their site, anyway.  (And, at this point, the whole thing had fallen apart, anyway.) 

 

So, please, tell me some more about how your site shows that the agreement stank, and NK wasn't following it, and W just cancelled an agreement that wasn't working, anyway. 

Shifting goal posts?

 

So you don't think they broke their end of the deal at all before Bush did?