the canadian dollar is worth .75 of the american dollar. yup he's nailing it
Dumbest comment on the boards today. Bravo. Know why the loonie fell? Because Stephen Harper made Canada's economy way too dependent on oil and didn't diversify enough, like the jackass with no foresight that he is.
The media creates the charade. They're not going to end it when their consumers endlessly recycle their stories by sharing the links, re-tweeting, posting, etc. That's how they make their money, for God's sake. Why would they stop reporting the way they do when their current model is making them filthy rich?
Just like with the clown story. The police have asked the public to quit sharing the threats because 1. It makes it almost impossible for them to get to the real source 2. It creates unnecessary hysteria That's what I've seen as the major themes in this campaign. Mass hysteria. People saying shit but having no idea where it came from.
The election of either candidate is not going to stop that when we have an entire nation scientifically proven to be addicted to their devices and the rush of adrenaline they get when they click the buttons. Heck, we have members of this thread who think that with every link they share, they are going to take down our current system of government. That is some really interesting thinking, to say the least.
Every candidate has a durable floor of support. Basically no matter what they do, the votes are locked. Hillary's is probably 43/44%. I was thinking Trumps was about 40%. He is close to that now. I am very curious to see if Trump can consistently shatter down into the 30's. If this doesn't do it, then he literally could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it.
I'm not so sure yet he's going to lose much support from Joe Public. My sister-in-law, a Trump voter, told me last weekend that what upsets her the most is that the "establishment" is abandoning party voters who chose Trump. She feels that if the party voters picked Trump, the leaders need to honor their wish. Time will tell how many feel the same way. At best, I predict Trump will lose votes because people stay home, not because people will switch candidates.
Aside: my sister-in-law is a really good person. Misguided maybe, or guided by her small business owning perspective, but not a Trump stereotype. She's actually a Trump voter I can listen to.
Check back in with us and let us know if this changes anything with your sis in law. I think the net result won't be voters going from Trump to Hillary. It certainly can't help him with undecided voters (how are there any of those??), but maybe more importantly is how it hurts the 'get out the vote' effort for the % of non-motivated voters that make up his total. For example, if your sister is towing the party line, rather than a passionate Trump person, is she as motivated to go on election day?
Yes, I do wonder what she will say in response to current events. I predict she will be disgusted, but I also think she will still vote for him. As a voter, she is highly motivated by tax policy.
I think voter turn out is going to be low for both candidates, though. I have no data point to confirm that hunch, but I will be canvassing Fairfax Democrats the final two weekends before the election to get the vote out. I'm curious to hear what people say. (They wanted me to take the 9 AM shift on a Sunday, and I said no way am I knocking on voters' doors at 9 AM. Hahaha)
I've seen this written elsewhere today...
"If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, Would it be better for the country to have a President of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a President of poor character who will be given a pass and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what they say or do (Hillary)."
A lot of Trump voters will still be asking themselves this question.
The media creates the charade. They're not going to end it when their consumers endlessly recycle their stories by sharing the links, re-tweeting, posting, etc. That's how they make their money, for God's sake. Why would they stop reporting the way they do when their current model is making them filthy rich?
Just like with the clown story. The police have asked the public to quit sharing the threats because 1. It makes it almost impossible for them to get to the real source 2. It creates unnecessary hysteria That's what I've seen as the major themes in this campaign. Mass hysteria. People saying shit but having no idea where it came from.
The election of either candidate is not going to stop that when we have an entire nation scientifically proven to be addicted to their devices and the rush of adrenaline they get when they click the buttons. Heck, we have members of this thread who think that with every link they share, they are going to take down our current system of government. That is some really interesting thinking, to say the least.
Every candidate has a durable floor of support. Basically no matter what they do, the votes are locked. Hillary's is probably 43/44%. I was thinking Trumps was about 40%. He is close to that now. I am very curious to see if Trump can consistently shatter down into the 30's. If this doesn't do it, then he literally could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it.
I'm not so sure yet he's going to lose much support from Joe Public. My sister-in-law, a Trump voter, told me last weekend that what upsets her the most is that the "establishment" is abandoning party voters who chose Trump. She feels that if the party voters picked Trump, the leaders need to honor their wish. Time will tell how many feel the same way. At best, I predict Trump will lose votes because people stay home, not because people will switch candidates.
Aside: my sister-in-law is a really good person. Misguided maybe, or guided by her small business owning perspective, but not a Trump stereotype. She's actually a Trump voter I can listen to.
Check back in with us and let us know if this changes anything with your sis in law. I think the net result won't be voters going from Trump to Hillary. It certainly can't help him with undecided voters (how are there any of those??), but maybe more importantly is how it hurts the 'get out the vote' effort for the % of non-motivated voters that make up his total. For example, if your sister is towing the party line, rather than a passionate Trump person, is she as motivated to go on election day?
Yes, I do wonder what she will say in response to current events. I predict she will be disgusted, but I also think she will still vote for him. As a voter, she is highly motivated by tax policy.
I think voter turn out is going to be low for both candidates, though. I have no data point to confirm that hunch, but I will be canvassing Fairfax Democrats the final two weekends before the election to get the vote out. I'm curious to hear what people say. (They wanted me to take the 9 AM shift on a Sunday, and I said no way am I knocking on voters' doors at 9 AM. Hahaha)
I've seen this written elsewhere today...
"If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, Would it be better for the country to have a President of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a President of poor character who will be given a pass and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what they say or do (Hillary)."
A lot of Trump voters will still be asking themselves this question.
That is a good and true observation. We know Hillary's term at presidency will expand power for the elites and globalists, but we can't say that for Trump. That is the only reason to vote for Trump. The chance that the power grab of the elites and globalists is put on hold for a little while.
The media creates the charade. They're not going to end it when their consumers endlessly recycle their stories by sharing the links, re-tweeting, posting, etc. That's how they make their money, for God's sake. Why would they stop reporting the way they do when their current model is making them filthy rich?
Just like with the clown story. The police have asked the public to quit sharing the threats because 1. It makes it almost impossible for them to get to the real source 2. It creates unnecessary hysteria That's what I've seen as the major themes in this campaign. Mass hysteria. People saying shit but having no idea where it came from.
The election of either candidate is not going to stop that when we have an entire nation scientifically proven to be addicted to their devices and the rush of adrenaline they get when they click the buttons. Heck, we have members of this thread who think that with every link they share, they are going to take down our current system of government. That is some really interesting thinking, to say the least.
Every candidate has a durable floor of support. Basically no matter what they do, the votes are locked. Hillary's is probably 43/44%. I was thinking Trumps was about 40%. He is close to that now. I am very curious to see if Trump can consistently shatter down into the 30's. If this doesn't do it, then he literally could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it.
I'm not so sure yet he's going to lose much support from Joe Public. My sister-in-law, a Trump voter, told me last weekend that what upsets her the most is that the "establishment" is abandoning party voters who chose Trump. She feels that if the party voters picked Trump, the leaders need to honor their wish. Time will tell how many feel the same way. At best, I predict Trump will lose votes because people stay home, not because people will switch candidates.
Aside: my sister-in-law is a really good person. Misguided maybe, or guided by her small business owning perspective, but not a Trump stereotype. She's actually a Trump voter I can listen to.
Check back in with us and let us know if this changes anything with your sis in law. I think the net result won't be voters going from Trump to Hillary. It certainly can't help him with undecided voters (how are there any of those??), but maybe more importantly is how it hurts the 'get out the vote' effort for the % of non-motivated voters that make up his total. For example, if your sister is towing the party line, rather than a passionate Trump person, is she as motivated to go on election day?
Yes, I do wonder what she will say in response to current events. I predict she will be disgusted, but I also think she will still vote for him. As a voter, she is highly motivated by tax policy.
I think voter turn out is going to be low for both candidates, though. I have no data point to confirm that hunch, but I will be canvassing Fairfax Democrats the final two weekends before the election to get the vote out. I'm curious to hear what people say. (They wanted me to take the 9 AM shift on a Sunday, and I said no way am I knocking on voters' doors at 9 AM. Hahaha)
I've seen this written elsewhere today...
"If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, Would it be better for the country to have a President of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a President of poor character who will be given a pass and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what they say or do (Hillary)."
A lot of Trump voters will still be asking themselves this question.
The media creates the charade. They're not going to end it when their consumers endlessly recycle their stories by sharing the links, re-tweeting, posting, etc. That's how they make their money, for God's sake. Why would they stop reporting the way they do when their current model is making them filthy rich?
Just like with the clown story. The police have asked the public to quit sharing the threats because 1. It makes it almost impossible for them to get to the real source 2. It creates unnecessary hysteria That's what I've seen as the major themes in this campaign. Mass hysteria. People saying shit but having no idea where it came from.
The election of either candidate is not going to stop that when we have an entire nation scientifically proven to be addicted to their devices and the rush of adrenaline they get when they click the buttons. Heck, we have members of this thread who think that with every link they share, they are going to take down our current system of government. That is some really interesting thinking, to say the least.
Every candidate has a durable floor of support. Basically no matter what they do, the votes are locked. Hillary's is probably 43/44%. I was thinking Trumps was about 40%. He is close to that now. I am very curious to see if Trump can consistently shatter down into the 30's. If this doesn't do it, then he literally could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it.
I'm not so sure yet he's going to lose much support from Joe Public. My sister-in-law, a Trump voter, told me last weekend that what upsets her the most is that the "establishment" is abandoning party voters who chose Trump. She feels that if the party voters picked Trump, the leaders need to honor their wish. Time will tell how many feel the same way. At best, I predict Trump will lose votes because people stay home, not because people will switch candidates.
Aside: my sister-in-law is a really good person. Misguided maybe, or guided by her small business owning perspective, but not a Trump stereotype. She's actually a Trump voter I can listen to.
Check back in with us and let us know if this changes anything with your sis in law. I think the net result won't be voters going from Trump to Hillary. It certainly can't help him with undecided voters (how are there any of those??), but maybe more importantly is how it hurts the 'get out the vote' effort for the % of non-motivated voters that make up his total. For example, if your sister is towing the party line, rather than a passionate Trump person, is she as motivated to go on election day?
Yes, I do wonder what she will say in response to current events. I predict she will be disgusted, but I also think she will still vote for him. As a voter, she is highly motivated by tax policy.
I think voter turn out is going to be low for both candidates, though. I have no data point to confirm that hunch, but I will be canvassing Fairfax Democrats the final two weekends before the election to get the vote out. I'm curious to hear what people say. (They wanted me to take the 9 AM shift on a Sunday, and I said no way am I knocking on voters' doors at 9 AM. Hahaha)
I've seen this written elsewhere today...
"If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, Would it be better for the country to have a President of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a President of poor character who will be given a pass and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what they say or do (Hillary)."
A lot of Trump voters will still be asking themselves this question.
I'm really starting to believe that we to enact standards on voting based on these two candidates.
That sounds Constitutional.
It's in there, right next to gun control.
Right after "well-regulated"? What kind of twisted logic ignores those words printed explicitly and inserts some imaginary ones about voting control?
heller disagrees with you
Heller isn't in the Constitution.
So we shouldn't respect Supreme Court decisions?
We're confusing arguments. Unsung argued for a literacy test. I said that was addressed in Harper and it was clearly illegal under the 14th Amendment. He said "it's right in there next to gun control".
So yes, I think we all respect the SCOTUS decisions. That's why our gov't works still. 1. Poll taxes and literacy tests are clearly illegal (Harper) 2. It's unconstitutional for the District to ban firearms (Heller) 3. Gov't can constitutionally limit ownership (Heller)
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I'm really starting to believe that we to enact standards on voting based on these two candidates.
That sounds Constitutional.
It's in there, right next to gun control.
Right after "well-regulated"? What kind of twisted logic ignores those words printed explicitly and inserts some imaginary ones about voting control?
heller disagrees with you
Heller isn't in the Constitution.
So we shouldn't respect Supreme Court decisions?
We're confusing arguments. Unsung argued for a literacy test. I said that was addressed in Harper and it was clearly illegal under the 14th Amendment. He said "it's right in there next to gun control".
So yes, I think we all respect the SCOTUS decisions. That's why our gov't works still. 1. Poll taxes and literacy tests are clearly illegal (Harper) 2. It's unconstitutional for the District to ban firearms (Heller) 3. Gov't can constitutionally limit ownership (Heller)
For me, nothing beats Giordano's stuffed pizza. It's good they quit delivering to my area.
A couple of months ago I went to a place in Bucktown that had amazing deep dish. I'd rival it with Giordano's. Same with a place a couple hours south of Chicago in Bloomington. Stolfa's...good shit.
Comments
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/news/economy/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/news/economy/canadian-dollar-falls-below-69-cents-loonies-longest-losing-streak-since-1971-portends-more-losses
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/8925320
"If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, Would it be better for the country to have a President of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a President of poor character who will be given a pass and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what they say or do (Hillary)."
A lot of Trump voters will still be asking themselves this question.
What kind of twisted logic ignores those words printed explicitly and inserts some imaginary ones about voting control?
Read into Heller. It also clearly states that gun ownership is NOT unlimited. The gov't can regulate it.
Why it is being tied to this is a bit unclear to me.
So yes, I think we all respect the SCOTUS decisions. That's why our gov't works still.
1. Poll taxes and literacy tests are clearly illegal (Harper)
2. It's unconstitutional for the District to ban firearms (Heller)
3. Gov't can constitutionally limit ownership (Heller)
If you have a three headed snake how can I expect one head to keep the other two in line? They are all the same snake.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
For me, nothing beats Giordano's stuffed pizza. It's good they quit delivering to my area.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm