Yeah, Clinton is not a great speechmaker, but she can think on her feet, she’ll be fine in the debates.
Trump is like Sarah Palin on steroids, in drag, with 20% more coherence.
Even the one that’s ON the cap isn’t well-thought out.
I think Trump will not debate. Debating Hillary can only weaken him, because he cannot match her intellectually (and I think his bully-survival instinct knows this). Whereas REFUSING to debate her will have his followers cheering, because they will see that as “standing up to her.” No one can MAKE him debate. He’ll take the position, “Debating is for losers.”
Which was what, exactly?..
Agreed. But you thought the empty chair left with Clint Eastwood, didn’t you? 
I agree he should avoid the debates, there’s nothing but traps to walk into.
I think Hillary has an advantage in that she can basically say the same thing every day and nobody will care. Trump has to keep ratcheting things up a little bit every day, and he himself can never walk anything back. It’s going to be like watching an elephant wander around a minefield for 100 days or however many are left.
Voting for Trump will be like pissing your vote. And then there are the international consequences. As a commentator in the Hillary Reddit site pointed out: “Trump wants to leave NATO, keep Assad, let Russia annex Crimea, remove troops from Japan, Germany, South Korea. Why WOULDN’T Putin help him?”
Trump can claim that he is joking, (on all his campaign promises? :dubious: ) but in reality he does want to piss all our allies and make Putin happy for 4 or more unstable years.
As pointed before, better make his just a hypothetical presidency.
#43 was an excellent post, GIGO. The case against Trump is not complicated, and it is not partisan. Trump is not a Republican, and he is not a Democrat, he is just Trump – a self-serving con artist who has migrated into the political realm and become a dangerous demagogue. He has no ideology, no principles, no decency, cares for no one but himself, and knows absolutely nothing about even the most basic rudiments of either domestic or foreign policy. Literally, nothing.
He didn’t even know what “Brexit” was until it was explained to him, and then flew into Scotland after the vote and managed to insult everyone there by not realizing that the majority of Scots were against it. He just insulted the mother and the memory of a fallen soldier, he’s insulted Mexicans, Latinos, Muslims, and women. His image as a “successful businessman” is a bought and paid-for fabrication by a ghostwriter, who Trump is now suing for telling the truth, much as Trump universally sues anyone that criticizes him. How anyone could support this blundering, ignorant, obscenely offensive and dangerous buffoon boggles the mind. And if claims like “Hillary has a grating voice” are supposed to be the explanation for why voters prefer Trump, then maybe the worst cynics are right, and America really is incapable of governing itself.
U.S. law prohibits torture (and conspiracy to commit torture) in 18 U.S.C. § 2340A and defines it as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control…” It goes further to provide examples of what might comprise severe physical or mental pain or suffering. While waterboarding has not been expressly added as an example, it would likely fall under this since one of the examples is “the threat of imminent death” and waterboarding of course simulates drowning.
There is no exception to this law to allow law enforcement or anyone else to commit torture if they feel that the circumstances, whatever they may be, warrant it.
There is no formal, universally accepted definition of non-combatant, but Geneva Convention I, Article 3 and Convention IV, Article 3 require nation-states which are parties to the Convention to treat humanely all persons not taking an active part in the hostilities and forbids the taking of hostages. Whether someone is actively taking part in hostilities is entirely a fact-specific determination. Generally, it does not include civilians who are simply co-located with combatants in the same structure if that structure is a house or another type of structure that was originally built with a civilian-only purpose in mind, without some kind of evidence to show that the civilians in the structure are voluntarily providing some kind of warfighting assistance to the combatant.
This man has gone bankrupt 4 times. Once, ok, a businessman can get overextended and get some bad breaks. Maybe even twice.
But 4 times? That’s not a mistake, that’s a strategy, one to take advantage of the bankruptcy laws and hang your creditors out to dry. It might even be a good strategy for a businessman like him.
However, it’s an impossible strategy for a government, and having it as the centerpiece of your business experience is a terrible thing to tout as a reason to be elected to public office.
What I can’t figure, is that most people with brown hair start to push 70, they get grey. He got blonde! Electric blonde! Da fuq?