Random Politics & Religion #00

Mmmm.

Nope.

so you're going to be one of those whiners with the "don't blame me... I voted for bernie sanders" bumper stickers sulking for eight years... pissing... moaning

so kinda like the last eight only 135% more snarky

can't wait

Maybe I'll write-in trump.

Conservative Magazine lines up against Trump


Read all National Review essays

GOP responds by banning National Review from debate

Looks like its getting testy over there.

The Establishment GOP is starting to back Trump

Look, we hate Ted Cruz. We talk about it often. Democrats hate him, not because he’s threatening in the electoral way, but because he’s a pompous sack of Canadian goose droppings with absolutely no breeding, the kind of man who thinks it’s funny to make “jokes” about Joe Biden the same week his son died.

What’s funnier is how all his fellow Republicans hate him too. John McCain, how would you like to defend your “friend” Ted from charges that he is a Cuban infiltrator from Calgary intent on ruining our American way of life? Haha, the Panamanian John McCain will PASS. Mitch McConnell? *** no. Carly Fiorina? She wishes Ted Cruz actually loved America, THAT’S ALL.

So let’s pile on some more. Here is former Republican presidential candidate and Viagra eater Bob Dole, to explain what happens to his medically induced erection when he sees Ted Cruz’s punchable face:

Dole added that Hillary Clinton would “win in a waltz” against Ted Cruz, which either means he thinks she would beat him for president, or maybe it means old people like Bob Dole have waltzing competitions while they’re waiting for the *** pills to kick in. Regardless, it means Ted Cruz *** sucks.

Of course, this is not the first time Dole has said things like this. He has made his hatred for Ted Cruz just about as public as every other human being in America does.

What’s even HILARIOUS-er about it is that Republican establishment old timers like Dole are absolutely terrified of Donald Trump too, but they’re willing to take a chance, as long as it means the long form douchebag birth certificate of Rafael “Ted” Cruz doesn’t get anywhere near the Oval Office:

Oh yes it is, Bob Dole. But we’re still enjoying reading all these words about Cruz being a piece of ***!

Let’s hear from a Republican operative, who would like to say Donald Trump may be gross and nasty and terrible, but at least he’s not that foreign-born cow turd Ted Cruz:

Whew boy, this is fun.

It’s not that we’re quoting a bunch of people saying they hate Ted Cruz just because we loathe him and think it’s funny, though that’s part of it. The actual point is that if Ted Cruz were on fire, Republicans would roast marshmallows wrapped in Canadian bacon and feed them to Donald Trump, out of spite.

The Establishment GOP is starting to back Trump and that is giving Cruz the opportunity to claim the Conservative position. Gonna be an interesting next few weeks.

I think it would be more accurate to say that... they aren't willing to spend the kind of money they realize would be necessary to beat trump.

and don't want to be running for the caboose when the train leaves the station

What establishment GOPer is backing Trump? One senator compared the two as being shot or being poisoned. Not really an endorsement. Seems more like the establishment thinks they are both terrible candidates.

Chanti didn't answer it at all, Bob Dole doesn't support Trump and one other former politician said he would take Trump over Cruz but didn't say he supported Trump. So no, we haven't seen anyone from the establishment come out and endorse Trump.

The Establishment GOP is starting to back Trump

I've never seen a state of politics where the republican party is actively trying to sabotage the top two front runners.

I'm not sure how you glean "the establishment is starting to back Trump" after the National Review, a hardcore establishment magazine, releases a full issue dedicated to rallying against Trump, 22 different vetted conservatives each writing a manifesto as to why Trump is terrible for the GOP. But I'm sure there is an explanation.

5 dead in a Canadian school shooting, shooter has been caught

He's a student at the high school (Dene High School) in La Loche

The gunman who opened fire at a high school in La Loche, Saskatchewan yesterday killed his two brothers first, according to the remote town's acting mayor, who lost his own daughter in the shooting. "He shot two of his brothers at his home and made his way to the school," Kevin Janvier tells the AP. "I'm just so sad." He says 23-old teacher Marie Janvier, who was shot dead at La Loche Community School, was his only child. At a Friday night press conference, a police spokeswoman confirmed that the death toll is four and a male suspect is in custody, though she didn't confirm the number of wounded or the identities of the victims, the CBC reports.

Janvier tells CTV that the alleged shooter, who was arrested outside the school 45 minutes after police were called at around 1pm Friday, is under 21. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reports that according to a student, the suspect made a chilling post on social media before the shooting. "Just killed 2 ppl," he wrote. "Bout to shoot ip the school." A crisis team of tribal elders and professionals is on its way to the aboriginal community, reports the StarPhoenix, which notes that La Loche and the surrounding area has the highest suicide rate in the province, with 43.4 suicide deaths per 100,000, more than triple the Saskatchewan average. According to the National Post, Friday's incident is believed to be the worst-ever shooting at a high school in Canada.

5 dead in a Canadian school shooting, shooter has been caught

He's a student at the high school (Dene High School) in La Loche

Is this true?

Its true that the federal gov't owns that land but its not illegal.

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is reportedly weighing a third-party presidential bid in the light of missteps by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the surge in support for Bernie Sanders, and the unanticipated rise of Donald Trump in the Republican party.

Bloomberg has directed advisers to draw up plans for an independent campaign, according to the New York Times, a repeat of the exploratory moves the billionaire and former Salomon Brothers trader made in 2008. At that time, Bloomberg concluded he could not win. Sources “familiar with his thinking” confirmed the report about his plans to the Associated Press and Reuters.

However, he has recently indicated to Times’ sources that he is willing to spend at least $1bn of his $37bn fortune on a campaign – should the indications of a win are positive.

Last summer, aides told the Guardian of a similar plan but said that it had gained little traction and had been shelved.

Bloomberg, 73, has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, according to the report. The deadline would put his decision close to the cut-off for an independent candidate to qualify for the ballots in all 50 states.

Rumors about a Bloomberg campaign have swirled for years, most prominently when he wound down his third term as mayor of New York. He switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent in 2007.

In December, Bloomberg, who is known to rely highly on data to make policy decisions, commissioned a poll to gauge support for him against Trump and Clinton. Another poll is due after the New Hampshire primary on 9 February.

Early plans for a campaign include presenting himself as a bipartisan problem-solver in a series of policy speeches and a massive TV advertising campaign. A member of Bloomberg’s advisory team told the paper the former mayor believes voters want “a non-ideological, bipartisan, results-oriented vision” that is not being offered in the race to date.

An independent candidate has never won the presidency, though they have shaped elections for their rivals. In 1912 former president Theodore Roosevelt ran a popular campaign but split the votes of progressives and Republicans, helping Democrat Woodrow Wilson to victory.

More recently, Texas businessman Ross Perot has been credited with helping Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992, and Ralph Nader has been accused of siphoning off votes for Democrats and helping turn the 2000 election in Republican George Bush’s favor.

In private, Bloomberg has vented his frustration with the current candidates, according to the report, and expressed the view that a Sanders-Trump match-up would present a clear opportunity for a third-party candidate. In 2012, he endorsed Barack Obama, and sources told the Associated Press that Bloomberg has a cordial relationship with Clinton despite his doubts about her campaign’s strength.

Bloomberg has apparently described Clinton as a flawed politician whose campaign is in jeopardy from the continuing investigation into emails on her home computer server while she served as secretary of state.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Edward Rendell, told the paper a Bloomberg candidacy would be competitive in the event that wild-card candidates like Trump and Sanders prevail in the primaries.

Bloomberg’s success, he said, rests “on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders”. But he also predicted Bloomberg would not enter the race if Clinton, despite shifting to the left, wins the Democratic nomination.

“Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission,” he said.

But there are already fears that a Bloomberg insurgency would likely damage a Democrat candidate more than a Republican.

Last weekend, Trump described Bloomberg as “friend” and “a great guy”. Bloomberg, who established strict gun control as one of his mayoral policy positions, has not returned the compliment. He is said to find Trump’s positions on immigration unpalateable.

Aides also told the paper any decision would not be dependent on Clinton’s fortunes alone but “the fact is Hillary Clinton is behind in Iowa and New Hampshire. That should scare a lot of people – and it does.”

Has this been posted yet? lol

So I heard you guys like billionaires running for prez

Is this true?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

Clause 17 establishes the District of Columbia as exclusively federal territory for the purposes of national governance. The part about the states having to agree refers to Maryland and Pennsylvania, who both had to give up land in the process. There's actually very good reason why DC exists, federal laws supersede state laws, and it would be impossible to legally govern all states while within the jurisdiction of a single state.

Federal land ownership has existed since the US has. Most of that time, nobody wanted the land, anyway. The government was giving it away to anyone who would make improvements to it (homesteading), and until the formation of the national park system, there wasn't even a mechanism for retaining it if someone wanted it unless it was developed for some purpose like an army base.

Basically, anything you find in an infographic on Facebook is ***. It's not even clause 17.

Childless single men that masturbate to anime... sounds like Random Thoughts thread.