So he can shoot somebody in public and not loose support, but he can’t not pander to Bible-thumpers. Ah, America.
Given the join date, I’m guessing it was serious.
And while I’m thinking about it, I interpreted the “polka dot” comment to mean that she was so uncovered that the different pictures would use a black dot to cover up pink parts, and that it would look like she’s covered in dots. Not terribly funny, but that’s how I took it.
Interesting that you look at it that way. I have admitted not knowing who is new and who is a longtime poster. So I interpreted your statement as meaning that you knew them for a long time and thus knew them to post things like that seriously. But then when I looked them up, I saw that they have only posted that one comment. I had originally thought it was probably someone new but still did not take it as intended to be serious. When I said satire or snark, I didn’t mean Doper inside joke style, but just sort of nihilistic prank-y generic Internet style. But you may well be right.
Scary, innit?
Very pithy comment. Thank you.
I think if anybody could pull the rug out from under the now-required “I’m really a thumper in disguise” pledge it’d be Trump. The fact that even he decided not kick that can of worms wide open says an awful lot about how deep this false adulation of false Christianity has gotten.
Oh come one. “Effectful”? Really?
Plenty of Trump supporters use words like effectful. And they say it loud so people are scared to correct them. 
As for Trump shooting people, if he shot the right one, I might end up voting for him. Is he taking suggestions?
…and DeBlasio endorsed Clinton over Sanders. The Trump candidacy as a Clinton dirty tactic theory gets more support!!!
A few snips;
He goes to church “when I can.”
“Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there’s a major occasion,” Trump said in 2012.
Although he currently claims to attend Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan — a congregation affiliated with the Reformed Church in America (RCA) — that church issued a statement in August clarifying that Trump is not an “active member."
If we were discussing the next president of the Hell’s Angels, then looking at this man’s quotes or statements would make a whole lot more sense. And that is troublesome, because he is such a loose wire I wouldn’t want him within 10 miles of the red button in the Oval.
If Bloomburg runs as an Independent, and he says he will spend a billion to run as the 9th wealthiest man in America, Trump and the RNC are going down. About 45% of America are Independents, if he gathers them up he will win the election for president. There maybe a radical shift by republicans into the DNC vote to defeat him if they can. IMO
Bloomberg is far more likely to draw votes from the Democrats, who currently are running on an “at least our candidates aren’t insane” ticket, than the Republicans and their “party over reality” approach. He’s much closer to Clinton than to any of the GOP candidates, and will likely harm her chances rather than Trump’s.
Well, if Clinton is the nominee, Bloomberg probably stays out. He’s been polling Trump-Sanders, although I suspect he’d be willing to try if Sanders is the nominee in any case, counting on being the guy the Democratic power brokers back. Democrats have been perfectly happy to back independents at the state level over their own. See: Bernie Sanders. Would be ironic for him to be defeated that way.
I like your snark about the Hell’s Angels, which is actually pretty accurate.
I believe (hope) that the unspoken secret is that the nuclear red button (the codes in the briefcase or “football” an aide carries around) is not actually as straightforward as is described. That is, if some president just decided to launch a first strike out of the blue, with no provocation, I think there are layers of military brass in between who would not allow it to happen.
On the last point regarding Michael Bloomberg, I see multiple issues. One is that most of the people who call themselves independent are not really independent in practice. I doubt Bloomberg gets more than ten percent.
But if he did, it would likely result in keeping any candidate from getting 270 electoral votes. Which would throw the election to the House. And they would elect the GOP nominee, even if he is a distant third place in the popular vote.
Which states would he be likely to win?
I doubt he would win any states. But in the hypothetical case advanced that he wins a plurality of the popular vote nationwide, he certainly would win states but almost certainly not 270 + electoral votes.
IOW, what I meant to say is that he cannot win the presidency even if he wins the most votes, but he can throw it to the Republicans even if they win the least votes.
The POTUS does not have a button to launch missiles, nor does any aide. The red button is to summon aides at a moment’s notice. Any launch or attack must be confirmed by the DoD first.
Another good fact that Trump supporters will never believe. Or if they do believe it, they’ll say, “Trump will change that! His missile launching button will be GOLD!”. :rolleyes:
A third party candidate cannot throw the election to the House unless he gets some electoral votes. He cannot get any electoral votes unless he gets a plurality in a state (Maine and Nebraska notwithstanding). So Bloomberg cannot deny 270 votes to anyone unless he gets some himself, an impossibility.
And . . . would you believe there’s more?
How does that contradict what I said? To refresh your memory:
I guess the only way in which we really disagree is that what you call an impossibility I call possible but very unlikely. After all, George Wallace got some electoral votes. Is it truly impossible to conceive that Bloomberg might have a nonzero chance of getting 35% of the vote in New York State, against Sanders and Trump?