Pidesco

Everyone that has ever played a game with a RNG has experienced this. It's usually all in your head.

My problem with Trump isn't him in and of himself, but rather the people that support him. He rose to political prominence on a platform of fascism and racism, and a scary percentage of the American population says that that is what they want for their country. Look also at the Brexit vote, which instantly brought the racists out of the woodwork in the UK. I hope you understand that Trump doesn't make "off color" comments. He makes straight up horrible statements as part of his political platform. Calling Mexicans rapists and murderers is absolutely abhorrent and not an "off color comment"

My question is, given that Trump has repeated sexist, racist, and fascist statements to his name, and he is a cartoon example of an evil 1 percenter, who the hell doesn't hate him, and why?

And she replied that men belong on the dining room table?

You seem to forget that this is Ted Cruz that you're talking about. Few people display such dishonest character traits such as he does. Which is why I included the word "appear".

It certainly is a calculated move. After Trump crashes and burns, the GOP will double down and say that Trump just wasn't conservative enough. Cruz will take the opportunity to point to this moment and say "look how conservative and morally principled I am!" However it still was kind of the moral thing to do and I that strikes me as completely against character for a guy like Cruz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuGd-N1aBkc Trump made Ted Cruz appear to take a moral stand. Is this an accurate measure of how vile Trump is?

The bit that seems to be plagiarized appears to be too big of a train of thought and with too many of the same the words to be a "speech template" or a sound byte like "world peace". In any case, the point isn't that this woman stole the other woman. The question is rather one of competence regarding the Trump campaign. Why would they let something like this through any kind of vetting process? Again, it appears that everything in the campaign is being run off the cuff.

I always proofread what I write and always miss a bunch of things anyway. I'm pretty damn good at proofreading other people's writing, though.

The Republican "strategy" has been to double down on everything for a long time. "This thing we did didn't work? We'll do it again like children throwing a tantrum, then." See Benghazi, for example.

Given the rickroll I can only assume Trump's campaign managers are taking the opportunity to troll everyone.

What the speech wasn't missing was plagiarizing of a speech by Michelle Obama. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/melania-trump-republican-convention-plagiarism-michelle-obama Also, they took care to include a Rickroll.

Doesn't matter. By your philosophy you could simply turn even $1000 into more than a million, just by investing in an index fund. I assume any index fund will do, as you don't need to be intelligent or successful to realize which one of those you'd even need. As WoD said a page or two back: Successful people are not afraid to fail. I'll go one further and say that successful people also don't make up BS excuses for why they weren't successful before they are. Either put your money where you mouth is, or realize you're full of it. Or, continue to bask in your willful ignorance, thinking things that are patently untrue and ignoring the realities all around you that prove such. It's not a philosophy, it's a fact. If you start life rich enough to live off interest, getting richer is easy.

Unfortunately, I don't have 100 million dollars to invest. https://www.ifa.com/calculator/?i=sp500&g=100000000&s=1/1/1978&e=6/30/2016&gy=true&af=true&aorw=false&perc=false

Lots of people inherit a million or two dollars. Lots of people get fronted similar amounts of money by their parents when they start out. Extremely few turn that money into billions as Trump has. You are uninformed or a fool if you don't see that. He didn't inherit 1 or 2 million dollars, he inherited a lot more. The money Trump got from his dad was enough to net him billions of dollars as long as he invested it in some index fund back in the 70s.

The idea that Clinton is more corrupt than any other politician is hopelessly naive. Seems to me like Barnes is a guy with an agenda if he singles out Clinton for corruption. She is a politician in a major party, of course she is corrupt. Stating that she is more corrupt than any other politician is either stupidity or a deliberate attack. Given that her opposition is a textbook example of corruption, I also don't see a point in singling out Clinton for corruption.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963/donald-trump-index-fund http://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune%3A_inheritance_from_dad_and_the_government's_protection_mostly_did_the_trick Here ya go.

Trump isn't particularly successful. He was just born really rich.

Ubisoft killed the Rainbow Six style tactical shooter, and no one cared.

Trump seems to me like someone who has demonstrated the power of winging it when you have billions of dollars behind you. I don't know if he is intelligent or not but his success in business doesn't seem to corroborate his intelligence. I also don't think the way he behaves is an act he has been performing for the past 30 years.

Was Trump/Pence's logo commissioned by Cornholio?

A Trump victory could make everywhere a very interesting place. As in "may you live in interesting times" special kind of interesting.

Revolting to whom? “I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding." "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." “Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy. Really bad guy,” Trump begins. “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights, they didn’t talk. They were a terrorists - it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism.” "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families” Fun stuff.

Must mean every white guy born in the US is technically a Native American. Those tricky definitions. They're hard for everyone to nail down just right, even the left. That's a gigantic fallacy if I ever saw one. Native Americans are, these days, a specific ethnic group with the USA. Unless you are actually arguing that almost the entire population of the USA is not "home grown".

I fear we're all underestimating the rapidly growing discontent of the western middle class with the status quo.. To the point that I fear both Trump and Le Pen have a very real chance to win in their respective elections. Immediately after the Brexit vote I thought that there was that risk, but Trump seems to be intent on staying within his primary talking points, which appeal to the Republican base and almost literally no one else in the US. His VP pick appears to be dire, and has already been lambasted even before it has been officially announced.