Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

Out NATO ally:

Turkish jets and artillery struck U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish fighters in northern Syria Thursday, and Turkey's state-run news agency said as many as 200 militiamen were killed, in a major escalation of Turkey's offensive in northern Syria.

Turkey Unleashing Fury Of Airstrikes Against Us-Backed Syrian Kurdish Forces

 

Yes.

Clinton did say elsewhere in the speech that losers of elections should accept the outcome in order to help maintain “a strong democratic system.”

“Now, I know a little bit about running in elections,” she said, according to a State Department transcript.

“And I have won some elections and I have lost some elections. And in a democracy, there have to be winners and losers. And part of creating a strong democratic system is that the losers, despite how badly we might feel, accept the outcome because it is for the good of the country that we love.”

 

So, what's the moral of her story, that even if elections are corrupt, we should accept them?

 

Corruption of the 2016 presidential election process has not been in any way proven.

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58085172e4b0b994d4c46953?

Some funny stuff, including:

 

Define corruption, process, and proven.

 

Did I say it was?

Trump is being criticized by folks for not saying unilaterally that he would accept the election results.

Hillary seems to be complementing Al Gore for accepting the results of the 2000 election, despite the corruption.

Is this what we want? If an election is corrupt, should we accept the results? Should the losing candidate?

 

Tom Brady probably gets thumped by Trump on the golf course*.

http://deadspin.com/tom-brady-probably-gets-owned-by-donald-trump-when-they-1787930641

* - Because Trump cheats at golf, of course.

 

Some very terse facebook rants and a couple yahoos yelling in front of a Waffle House will be the total.

 

You're putting the cart ahead of the horse, just as Trump is.

If there is evidence of tampering, of course you pursue it.

But you don't fire a preemptive strike. And that is what he has been doing, not just last night.

 

I sure hope you are right. I remain unconvinced and concerned.

 

@Dick Whitman, please tell me you're embarrassed by this answer.

At least she mentioned the Constitution in this answer, as opposed to her answer at the previous debate. But, of course she only mentioned it as it relates to the process of confirming a nominee.

You know, I think when we talk about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election, namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have?

And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.

I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country's history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say: The Supreme Court should represent all of us.

That's how I see the court, and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans.

And I look forward to having that opportunity. I would hope that the Senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that President Obama has sent to them. That's the way the Constitution fundamentally should operate. The president nominates, and then the Senate advises and consents, or not, but they go forward with the process.