Danny Bateman

Glad you're interested, Landlord. There's a "Goldwater rule" that ordinarily prohibits mental health professionals from making such speculations without personally examining the patient and getting a real read on the state of the mental health. After all, Trump could just be acting. But he's so over the top that said rule hasn't stopped a variety of mental health professionals from speculating anyway.

I don't know if anyone cares, but I have my bachelor's in neuroscience, a great deal of which involved psychology coursework. I've a very, very strong inkling that Trump is has an undiagnosed case of narcissistic personality disorder. Here's the list of symptoms from the latest DSM, if anyone's interested. I can't ascertain how much of this is just an act, but they're literally all there. Right down to the intimacy ones with his multiple wives.

What the hell is Ted Cruz trying to accomplish? He must surround himself with people just as greasy as he is.

Here's my issue with issues like gay marriage. I am perfectly fine with people changing their minds on issues. Heck, I have changed my mind on many issues throughout my life. Other politicians have changed their minds on issues. So.....it is clear that at some point, Hillary changed her mind on gay marriage. That isn't that big of a deal. BUT....when she now comes out and says...."I have supported gay marriage all my life"....That is absolute total BS and is just an example of a politician saying whatever it takes to get votes even if it clearly can be seen as a total lie. And...no, she is not the only one that does that. I just wish a politician would come out and say "hey, at one point in my life I was against gay marriage. However, since then, I have listened and learned more about the issue and have changed my mind." That would garner one heck of a lot more respect from me than the crap she (and others) spew. Do you have a source for the bolded? I'm a big Hillary supporter this go around, I follow her campaign pretty closely, and I'm not familiar with her ever having represented the situation that way. On the Issues seems to tell a different story: Then you're either incapable of trying to understand perspectives other than your own, or you're unwilling. I can easily understand and grasp why someone would honestly vote for any candidate running on either side. It's not that at all. The reason I can't understand is because she's a lying, manipulative criminal who should be locked up in a penitentiary but somehow isn't because of political favor. With pretty much every other candidate, I can understand why they'd potentially vote for them. For example: Bernie - If they don't understand finance and don't believe in free enterprise. If they believe in taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven't. People who vote for Sanders view him as a Robin Hood-type figure. Trump - If they believe that he will get the wall built, bring back thousands of jobs, leverage China to order North Korea to stand down, shut down Obamacare, etc. Someone who will be firm on issues both at home and abroad and won't back down. Cruz - Another one that I'm really not sure about, honestly. He comes across to me as a liar and will say whatever he thinks will get him votes. Rubio - Lots of people - If they're impressed with his stances on Christianity and religion in general. If they like the smooth talking, intelligent sounding spokesperson that he could potentially be. Jeb - If they're not appalled by the idea of the Bush family being back in the office, and if they agree with his stances on issues that differ with Trump. Carson - If they want a person who will be (in my opinion) the best person at delegating responsibility. I think he's in over his head and would get pushed around a lot, but I think his intelligence and being very level-headed are a great strength of his. Kasich - I'll honestly defer on him and say that I honestly don't know much about him. So as you can see, I can absolutely see why people would vote for a majority of candidates. Just not Hillary (and Cruz). I'm going to assume that when you talk about Hillary being a criminal that your complaint is about the ongoing email server thing. We can't make people care about her sending classified data from unsecured email servers and plenty of people simply don't understand what the big deal is. There are also a lot of people that simply see it as a smear campaign and after hearing about Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi for the last 18 months it's hard to not fault them. Hey...it has to be a "Vast right wing conspiracy" right? I'm curious why nobody seems to be sending the wolves after Colin Powell or Condi Rice, because they were guilty of the exact same thing as Clinton. The majority of Dems do not care about the email issue. Obviously the vast majority of the GOP does. Independents seem to as well at about a 50% clip. We'll see how that plays out in the general. Email stats from poll (p.7) I swear, I'm not going after you today, BRB. Just a couple thoughts.

Keep on dreamin', boys.

I seriously don't get what anyone could possibly see in Hillary Clinton to think she'd ever be a quality president. Other than some idiot rooting for history being made with the first female president, I have no idea why anyone would vote for this slimy piece of trash... It's all relative. This is how most on the left view Trump, so it goes both ways.

The gay one is the major one I've heard and it annoys me but offhand I don't know of the others. Trump seems a lot worse in this regard. It's hard to to consider Trump a flip-flopper when the man won't adopt a firm stance on anything until he realizes who's in the room in front of him. Frankly, I just don't believe a word the guy says from the get-go, and Politifact backs this up.They rate his statements 93% Half-False or worse. I'm not making excuses for Hillary, but she came from a conservative household in Chicago and thus I could see her having traditional marriage views from the outset. It does make me cringe when I see clips of her vehemently defending traditional marriage from past years, but I also don't like the fact that somehow because politicians jobs involve their various ideologies, they're somehow chiseled into stone and it is somehow inappropriate for politicians to change their personal opinions on such matters like any other person. If Joe Schmo can go from being faithless to practicing a religion, being racist to renouncing their ways, or adapting from liberal ideologies as a young'un to more conservative ones as they age, I don't see why it's such a revelation for Hillary Clinton to accept the LGBT mantle at some point after having opposed it in the past. My views on the candidates are more akin to zoogs'. I will vote for Hillary because she is the most qualified candidate to be the next president, she most closely matches the ideologies I view as important, is the most pragmatic person I see running, and I cannot force myself to care about any kind of attack narrative that the right-wing machine or anyone else seems to conjure up against her. Sanders is a very interesting candidate ideologically, and he tugs on the heartstrings of many working class Americans. He brings up some very important issues that I think otherwise would go unmentioned in a typical election cycle. However, I feel that while he excels at firing up his base (largely white, liberal, young males with a good dash of young females sprinkled in), most of America's more aged population largely either distrusts his policies' feasibility, or in some cases, gets a bit itchy when they hear any variant of the term "socialist" being bandied about. His naivete regarding foreign policy is also a dealbreaker for me. Thus far (one state, but getting crushed in SC polls), he cannot attract the African American vote at all, and the Democratic nod runs through that. As for the GOP... well! Cruz is a madman, deriving his power mainly from evangelical energy and children's tears. He'll never be able to drum up the amount of support needed from moderates to be competitive. Thank goodness. The guy is a new level of greasy. Rubio is probably the most palatable of the serious candidates. I actually feel that Carson is very intelligent, but he struggles to express himself on the big stage and some of his ideologies are nuts. The longer Kasich and Carson stay in the race, the worse it is for Rubio and the better it is for Trump. Personally, I hope that they hang around for a good long while so Trump can somehow force his way to the nod. I'd love nothing more than to see Hillary and the Dems smack Trump down with the righteous hand of God during the general.

It's pretty obvious that you all have missed the most important underlying detail in all of this... The Pope is obviously a Jeb! guy.

A thread like this needs it's own poster.

This is the first time I can remember a Sanders supporter openly shooting themselves in the foot in this manner. You're right when you say that if it had been from the man himself, it would've been much more open for criticism.

I don't see it as sexist. Just really crass. Testicles don't qualify a person to be president either. *shrug* Also, it's kinda hard to see what he's getting at. That people shouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's female? I guess? Any time either side tries to politicize the gender thing either way, it seems to blow up in their face. It seems to be a sticky issue for people.

Shick was on his weekly segment with Bahe on 1620 and said this kid was supposed to announce live on ESPN the school of his choice and then 30-60 minutes before he was to come on this announcement video dropped, so ESPN dropped him from the segment. Man, if you thought a pre-campus sense of entitlement was bad before... Bleacher Report is singlehandedly turning that up to 11 and breaking off the knob.

Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own. I would redefine this chart. 1. Socialist-Sanders 2. Far Left-Hillary 3. Center-left-Trump (I don't believe he's truly a Republican) 4. Center-Kasich, Bush 5. Center right-Rubio 6. Far Right-Cruz (and maybe Carson) There's no way to consider Trump left of center if one of his central tenants is to deport 11+ million illegal aliens and build a wall. I don't believe he really is a Republican either, though. His political views are really best described as a hodgepodge. I'd probably slide him into the Center category along with Bush and Kasich, ideologically. I just put him Center-right since he's running as a GOP. I agree with most of that, though. I'd argue that Clinton is more a Center-left candidate who's been pushed farther left as the election has worn on by Sanders. For the majority of her time in politics, she's had some strong centrist views on things. But she also veers to the far left on others. It could go either way to me, I guess.

Abstaining from the vote, because I'm too young to know anything of Scalia's legacy, but regardless, in for some education. Very interested to learn what people think of him.

Nothing like some good old fashion confirmation bias to brighten up your day. Ignorance is bliss, my friend. Being enlightened takes too much work.

Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own.

Are we talking NES only? If not the scope of this thread could get pretty wide. I'd say if it's NES only my shortlist is: SMB1 SMB3 Battletoads (pure sadism) Galaga (fond memories of playing this with my old man) Legend of Zelda

This has been a very hot topic with the people I've been talking to this cycle. Unfortunately, it's going to take a MASSIVE effort because the two existing parties will fight tooth and nail to not let it happen.

That is probably more of a temporary thorn in Rubio's side than anything. It's rather obvious the establishment still wants to coalesce behind Marco. Bush and Carson are clinging to life... Jeb has oodles of money but would have an easier time falling out of a boat and missing water than gaining traction. Personally I'm hoping Trump wins the nomination and gets waxed by the Dems in the GE.

I dad-ified it for y'all.

ITT:

Someone in your town is suspected of being a terrorist. How many people in your town are you OK with having tortured to find out who the terrorist is? Are you OK with your mom being tortured? Your dad? Sister? Brother? Wife? Son? Daughter? Best friend? Neighbor? Even if they're all innocent, but eventually we get to the bad guy, is it OK that we tortured all your loved ones? This is the epitome of putting a face on the faceless.

No, it's just that instead of debating the issues, both sides try to paint the other as using some issues as "fear mongering". Like....OMFG.....that is just horrible what those people are saying trying to create fear to get votes..when....if they would just look in the mirror, they probably did it two sentences ago. Plz provide an example of the Left utilizing fear mongering as a standard political tactic. Take all the time you need. I mean, I'd say the left goes about it in a different way. They just have a kinder, more "I'm concerned about you, we need you to do this" narrative. Ex.: Hillary: "We can't afford to let the Republicans rip away the White House and destroy all the progress we've made." Bernie: "This is a rigged economy that only works for the top one-tenth of one percent. Big money controls politics." Both make an emotional appeal to people that incentivizes them to get behind them. It's less direct fearmongering, but both call people to action by promoting a worldview that is unfair or detrimental to them.

Didn't get to watch any of the debate last night. But from the highlights I've seen this morning, it looks like Christie embarrassed and flustered Rubio up there. And Jeb finally snapped back at Donald in a noteworthy way.

lol nice word play there. Not just DBs, but it's on Langsdorf to get him matched up with OLBs who won't be able to keep up with him crossing the middle. Reminds me of our LBs who can't keep up with the speedier backs on other teams. It's also how McDaniels/Brady nickel and dimed the Seahawks LBs across the middle all game long in last year's super bowl. Run the DBs off and create space underneath to let them run wild in the open field. Can confirm. Do this in Madden all day long.