Election 2016

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:57 am

Is anybody even vaguely surprised that Trump's finances for his campaign appear to be a garbage fire?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:23 am

No. I never thought he was doing anything other than funneling money to himself with his campaign.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:47 am

I'm a little surprised that the campaign isn't operating with bigger piles of cash on hand with secret clauses in the loans Trump gave himself to take all the monies at the end. Having his campaign pay rent to his casinos is not only legal, it's legally required for fear that rich people might try to be corrupt in the opposite direction by using all the shit they own as campaign platforms. But really, while funneling six million dollars or more back into his own companies and family's companies is not a surprise, I really thought that at this point there'd be tens of millions of dollars in the Trump campaign and the big theft would be the final act when the campaign was over.

-Username17

Post by **fbmf** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:47 pm

Kaelik wrote:You know, come to think of it, I regret murdering Lago in cold blood...

I asked what happened to Lago in ATGD. Is this the story I've been waiting for?

Game On,
fbmf

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:10 pm

fbmf wrote:
Kaelik wrote:You know, come to think of it, I regret murdering Lago in cold blood...

I asked what happened to Lago in ATGD. Is this the story I've been waiting for?

Game On,
fbmf

Obviously not, can you imagine Kaelik doing anything in cold blood? He could be in the most relaxing situation on Earth and he would still be simmering with rage.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:17 pm

TiaC wrote:Obviously not, can you imagine Kaelik doing anything in cold blood? He could be in the most relaxing situation on Earth and he would still be simmering with rage.

You make a compelling argument. Perhaps I was innaccurate.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:46 am

"FUCK THIS BED IS SO COMFORTABLE! WHAT COCK SUCKER FLUFFED THESE PILLOWS?!"

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:12 pm

Kaelik wrote:
TiaC wrote:Obviously not, can you imagine Kaelik doing anything in cold blood? He could be in the most relaxing situation on Earth and he would still be simmering with rage.
You make a compelling argument. Perhaps I was innaccurate.

I believed that your original statement was not figurative, and that Lago's demise was the result of some manner of drowning.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 8:07 pm

What happened with Lago, anyway? This board is less fun without his overly-earnest predictions.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:00 pm

nockermensch wrote:What happened with Lago, anyway?

No one knows.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:24 pm

Except for Kaelik, who seems to have backpeddled away from his prior confession.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:59 am

I want to say that I'm loving the GOP shenanigans over the convention, as the party tries to ratfuck itself to somehow avoid making Trump the nominee. Despite Trump's success during the primaries, it's clear that a majority want someone - anyone - else.

Which is the problem, really, and the reason why I don't think ratfucking the delegates with a "conscience clause" or leaving people off the first ballot is actually going to work. "Anyone But Trump" might be familiar to Republicans whose rallying cry for most issues is "No!", but it's still not an actual movement to nominate a more electable candidate - it just means that the nomination becomes a free-for-all. And while that would be fun to watch, without greater organization, some Nixonian criminal mind to find them all and in the darkness bind them, I don't think the delegates are going to manage it.

Morat · Post by **Morat** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:10 am

Ancient History wrote:...I don't think the delegates are going to manage it.

If the GOP establishment was organized, united, and powerful enough to ratfuck Trump out of the nomination *now*, Trump would not be the nominee, they would've stopped months ago when it was much easier.

Same reason you know that the guy with 1/4 as many pieces as his opponent is going to lose their chess game. If he was good enough to miracle a win in that position, he wouldn't be in that position.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:53 pm

Their best bet right now to to ram through a Constitutional Amendment allowing naturalized citizens to be president and nominate Schwarzenegger.

Failing that, I'd go with Martin Sheen. He's not actually a Republican, and he's not seeking any nomination but he has 7 years of Presidential experience.

Or Johnny Depp, but that divorce thing is going to be an even bigger sandal if he were nominated, so the timing is terrible.

And yes, I'm just throwing out famous and popular actors, because the Republican party would be better off throwing a dart at TMZ than they would going with any of their own people.

But people would actually vote for Arnold.

Hadanelith · Post by **Hadanelith** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:29 am

Does Martin Sheen even want anything to do with Republicans? I ask because he played a pretty seriously Democrat pres during West Wing, and I figure if he had strong right-wing inclinations, he wouldn't have played that part. But I could be totally wrong.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:59 am

Hadanelith wrote:Does Martin Sheen even want anything to do with Republicans? I ask because he played a pretty seriously Democrat pres during West Wing, and I figure if he had strong right-wing inclinations, he wouldn't have played that part. But I could be totally wrong.

The Republican lineup is bad enough that they'd be better off nominating a Democrat.

Hell, they'd be better off nominating Hillary before the Democrats do.

"You can't nominate her, we nominated her, first."

But yes, Martin Sheen is a really outspoken extremely liberal Democrat. Though he's also pro-life.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:15 am

And 538 has its first projection... http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:19 am

Ancient History wrote:And 538 has its first projection... http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

Polls this far out don't mean very much, but it's worth noting that Trump could win every state that's projected to be close and also Florida (which isn't) and he'd still lose by a comfortable margin. So that'll help me sleep nights.

shau · Post by **shau** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:50 am

Only a one in 5 chance the short fingered one wins. That is honestly pretty depressing.

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:20 am

Well, what that really means is that there's a 1 in 5 chance that something significantly shifts in Trump's direction in the next 4 months, something big. If the election were held tomorrow with the same polling his percentage would be much closer to zero. Essentially for every week that passes without Donald showing a significant improvement in the polling average he functionally loses ground.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:25 am

hyzmarca wrote:
Hadanelith wrote:Does Martin Sheen even want anything to do with Republicans? I ask because he played a pretty seriously Democrat pres during West Wing, and I figure if he had strong right-wing inclinations, he wouldn't have played that part. But I could be totally wrong.
The Republican lineup is bad enough that they'd be better off nominating a Democrat.

Hell, they'd be better off nominating Hillary before the Democrats do.

"You can't nominate her, we nominated her, first."

But yes, Martin Sheen is a really outspoken extremely liberal Democrat. Though he's also pro-life.

The Republican lineup is so bad right now, they would be better off with a literal garbage fire, rather than the figurative garbage fire they're looking at right now.

Also, reminded of his existence by the 538 projection, I would laugh my ass off if Gary Johnson performs better than Trump.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:12 pm

Prak wrote: Also, reminded of his existence by the 538 projection, I would laugh my ass off if Gary Johnson performs better than Trump.

It's possible. Anecdotally, I know several conservatives who hate Trump and keep name dropping Johnson in conversations. If enough never-Trumpers coalesce behind Johnson, he might do surprisingly well for a third party candidate.

I'm sure 538 included a third candidate for a reason.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:30 pm

"Surprisingly well for a third party" is a bar so low that it can be surpassed without winning even a single electoral vote.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:45 pm

Some of the Bernie Bros crowd are making noises about Gary Johnson and the Libertarians - and if the "anybody except Clinton or Trump" crowd is strong enough, the Libertarians could indeed get a bump, but it's not like either Trump or Clinton are going to debate Johnson.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:55 pm

Why would a libertarian appeal to socialist voters?