We Will NEVER Forget the Terrorist Tragedy at Bowling Green!!

[Nitro Express]

Ted Cruz was a theocratic dominionist "Christian shariah law" type of fascist, so that's different from Cheeto who seems to be a Mussolini-Hitler hybrid. Though Pence is certainly closer to the Cruz model - except he's Opus Dei Catholic rather than 7 Mountains Protestant. (ironic that the Cuban isn't the Catholic, but whatever.....)

Ha! ha! I actually went and heard Ted Cruz's dad talk. He was one real creepy dude. I couldn't not vote for the product of his loins.

[Nitro Express]

What drives me nuts is the whole abortion issue being politicized. My mom was a nurse when abortions were illegal and she saw the results of enough botched self and illegal abortions to know making it illegal was not solving anything. Also she always said the government doesn't need to go there. My mom was pro choice and would catch lots of flack for it. We really do need a libertarian movement where you don't have to fall in with the uber right wing dorks but you don't have to fall in with the left wing crazies either. You got crazies on either side and when you are in the middle, there is some shit you just don't want to support. I think a lot of the country is in the middle but oddly there is no party that can win the presidency that we can join.

[Nitro Express]

Don Jr. campaigned here for his dad. I went to that too. Nothing like his dad at all. Maybe Donald is not the real father. Ha! ha! He was more down to earth than I thought he was going to be.

[cadaverdog]

What beach? I spent my summers in Newport Beach and they had little places that would send out their own fishing boats and you could get fresh fish. Always had good fish and chips.

I referred somebody here to Neptune's Net near Camarillo last year. Damn good seafood there. Hamburger Hamlet was probably closer to Redondo on PCH. They have a couple good seafood joints in Redondo Marina too. When I was in my mid 20s (mid 80s) I visited Newport and Huntington quite often. Spent a lot more time at Zuma. Venice is cool if you want to check out the weirdos. Last time I went there there was a pot dispensary ever 50 feet. They sold pot cards as well. You could catch a contact high just walking down the boardwalk.

[Nitro Express]

I referred somebody here to Neptune's Net near Camarillo last year. Damn good seafood there. Hamburger Hamlet was probably closer to Redondo on PCH. They have a couple good seafood joints in Redondo Marina too. When I was in my mid 20s (mid 80s) I visited Newport and Huntington quite often. Spent a lot more time at Zuma. Venice is cool if you want to check out the weirdos. Last time I went there there was a pot dispensary ever 50 feet. They sold pot cards as well. You could catch a contact high just walking down the boardwalk.

In the 70's Newport was a family oriented place. It started to get a bit more freaky in the 80's. Orange County was more conservative and LA County was more freaky. My dad hated freaks. I wanted him to take me to Hollywood and he's like there's nothing up there. I go there must be something up there. He goes there is nothing up there but freaks. I later made it to Hollywood on my own and dad was right. Lot's of freaks to be found. Ha! ha!

My dad was like Ted Knight in Caddy Shack. Ha! ha! He was a country club Republican.

[Nickdfresh]

Probably because he's in a suit and doesn't want to risk having grease from the pizza drip on his tie. You kind of eat different when you are dressed nice than you do if you are in a T-Shirt and shorts. No wonder New York has problems. They vote according to how you eat pizza and not the person's actual accomplishments.

Horse shit@!

[Nickdfresh]

Some people love Five Guys. I think it's ok but don't see what the big deal is....

Yeah, Five Guys is okay, but nothing special. I ate at the original one in Springfield, VA. the charm of eating peanuts while waiting is lost at the franchises....

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Yeah, Five Guys is okay, but nothing special. I ate at the original one in Springfield, VA. the charm of eating peanuts while waiting is lost at the franchises....

Most of the time people want to argue about Five Guys vs. In-n-Out....

Burger-wise, Five Guys has a narrow edge....

Fries-wise, Five Guys in a landslide.... The cajun fries at Five Guys are really good, while the fries at In-n-Out are absolutely lousy.... In fact, their fries are are lousy enough to negate the entire comparison discussion....

Actually, my oldest son lives in Vegas, they're all excited because they finally opened up two Chick-fil-A restaurants....

[Terry]

Nobody bitched about a lot of things because you don't bitch against your own team. Partisan politics is about as sophisticated as a sports rivalry or a religion. It's human psychology. In many ways we haven't evolved much further than the witch hunts. Putin did it. Yeah right. Hillary Clinton had to be one of the most incompetent campaigners I have ever seen. She blew it and she blew it with so much on her side. The media, the financing, most the big corporations. All Trump had was his deplorables, some of his own money, and a Twitter account. He thought outside the box and ran a new strategy and Hillary never adapted. She ran her old strategy and lost. Now they come up with all sorts of excuses and now they obstruct and smear. They can't articulate anything new because they can't adapt to a new environment. It's big fund raising, get the celebrities out, get the old dusty media out, slag, obstruct, throw some tantrums, cry for a coup. I mean it's entertaining as hell. I mean the Obama Administration had it all set up for Hillary to come in. The Justice Department wasn't going to prosecute her. Loretta Lynch had the red carpet out for her and she still failed.

Well, some of that I think falls into that longstanding retroactive reasoning which deems all winning campaigns to have sprung from a genius-level strategy and all losing campaigns to have been hopelessly inept from the get-go.

I won't deny that Trump won with a comparatively meager level of campaign staff, campaign media expenditure and what passes as a traditional approach to modern campaigning. He had universal name-recognition from the day he announced and didn't need to do spend any real money on getting himself on television by virtue of who he was and what he said. I mean, I couldn't deny any of that with a straight face, because it is the reality of what happened. Trump also benefitted from appealing to just enough people in what turned out to be crucial states that the Democratic Party in error thought they couldn't lose. The ability of him being able to make that appeal can arguably be ascribed to economic forces that have been in play for decades.

It's quite possible (and maybe probable looking back) that Hillary just wasn't the right candidate for the Democratic Party this year if they wanted to win, although she surely was right in line with what the majority of the Democratic Party (with a big D) now represents. It's certainly less soul-searching to look for external reasons for her loss (Putin, Comey) than to actually analyze what the Democratic Party has morphed into since the early 1990s along with Hillary's own flaws as a candidate. Even just in terms of her past victories when her name was on the ballot, those basically amount to 2 Senate races she won against 2 very weak opponents. I also think the DNC and the Clinton Campaign engaged in a mistaken groupthink that the Republican field as of the beginning of 2015 before Trump announced was very weak and easily beaten. Then they thought Trump was initially a novelty. Then they failed to be sufficiently rankled by the Michigan Primary results and underestimated the sentiment behind the support Sanders had. Then they thought the Republican Party wouldn't coalesce around Trump even after he won the nomination. Above it all - and this is where pretty much every (with a few exceptions) other political pundit, pollster and publication agreed virtually all the way up until the election - in the end they believed some form of deus ex machina would get Hillary the votes she needed: in the period between the last debate and the election, watching and listening to the body language of Conway, Priebus and even Trump one could tell they all thought there was a strong possibility they would lose.

In the end, the ultimate blame for Hillary's loss must be firmly applied to her and her alone. Death by a thousand cuts or not, as the candidate it was her responsibility to persuade the amount of voters needed to go out and vote for her. She failed to do so. Plain and simple. Trump beat her. Not by a resounding, overwhelming margin even when strictly referencing (by 10,000 votes) Michigan, (by 22,000 votes) Wisconsin, and (by 44,000 in) Pennsylvania. One can't make the case however, that unlike Michigan and Wisconsin she didn't compete in Florida or Pennsylvania. Or Ohio.

As to when the die was cast for the ultimate result, it may well be impossible to know with anything approaching certainly. The majority of the pre-election polling certainly wasn't indicative of anything useful in terms of the ultimate result. Even with that, was the disparity due to the polling methods, or were enough people being polled lying about who they would and wouldn't vote for to throw the result off? What was the voter breakdown about who had made their minds up regarding the candidates and how far back they did so? Is that even knowable?

Hillary ran a traditional campaign, and considering who she is and the things she and the DNC were involved in, the campaign could have been a lot worse. I mean, not by much I suppose considering the end result. I suppose the campaign did about the best it could with the candidate they had. It would be pretty dismissive about the concerns voters in the states I mentioned had if the only reason they didn't vote for Hillary came down to her not campaigning harder in those states. I tend to doubt her presence there would have persuaded those who voted for her opponent to do the opposite.

[Terry]

Most of the time people want to argue about Five Guys vs. In-n-Out....

Burger-wise, Five Guys has a narrow edge....

Fries-wise, Five Guys in a landslide.... The cajun fries at Five Guys are really good, while the fries at In-n-Out are absolutely lousy.... In fact, their fries are are lousy enough to negate the entire comparison discussion....

Actually, my oldest son lives in Vegas, they're all excited because they finally opened up two Chick-fil-A restaurants....

Five Guys is pretty tasty. Miles above McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's. Both in initial tastiness and digestive qualities after eating. Simply put, my taste buds regarding those three chains I mentioned have morphed over the last 20 years. It went from 1) enjoying how the food tasted and having no ill after effects to 2) still enjoying the taste of the food but having occasional stomach discomfort to 3) kinda craving the taste once in awhile and submitting to that despite feeling like shit after eating it to 4) the present day where I no longer even enjoy the taste of it. I used to love the taste of Big Macs and Whoppers. Now, even the thought of eating one makes me wince.

Five Guys has a tasty burger for a reasonable price. I would say the French fries are of a pretty high quality save for the one aspect that they aren't properly drained of the cooking oil long enough before being served. By the nature of the operation, the fries are pretty much cooked to order so they have come out of the fryolator moments before being served. It's also clear that they use quality cooking oil and quality potatoes. I applaud them for that. The downside is that the fries are absolutely dripping in that oil when they are served. I am hard-pressed to see a way out from that conundrum, because if they are cooked and then thoroughly drained, the serving time will increase and turnover will slow.

At least with Five Guys I can get tasty fast food for a reasonable price reasonably quickly when I'm in the mood, and it won't sit in my stomach like a lump of cardboard and leave a foul after taste in my mouth. The one near me now serves shakes as well, and the shakes are better than any I've ever had at a McDonald's or Burger King.

I've never had an In-n-Out, but have heard nothing other than great things about those. I've also heard a lot of good things about Chick-fil-A's, and they must be doing something right by their customers, because the one that opened up near me a couple of years ago is consistently packed whenever I drive by it. I doubt I'll bother eating at one, but their business has been booming for two years straight at the one I see. Sustained much longer than some initial curiosity wave.

[Nitro Express]

Well, some of that I think falls into that longstanding retroactive reasoning which deems all winning campaigns to have sprung from a genius-level strategy and all losing campaigns to have been hopelessly inept from the get-go.

I won't deny that Trump won with a comparatively meager level of campaign staff, campaign media expenditure and what passes as a traditional approach to modern campaigning. He had universal name-recognition from the day he announced and didn't need to do spend any real money on getting himself on television by virtue of who he was and what he said. I mean, I couldn't deny any of that with a straight face, because it is the reality of what happened. Trump also benefitted from appealing to just enough people in what turned out to be crucial states that the Democratic Party in error thought they couldn't lose. The ability of him being able to make that appeal can arguably be ascribed to economic forces that have been in play for decades.

It's quite possible (and maybe probable looking back) that Hillary just wasn't the right candidate for the Democratic Party this year if they wanted to win, although she surely was right in line with what the majority of the Democratic Party (with a big D) now represents. It's certainly less soul-searching to look for external reasons for her loss (Putin, Comey) than to actually analyze what the Democratic Party has morphed into since the early 1990s along with Hillary's own flaws as a candidate. Even just in terms of her past victories when her name was on the ballot, those basically amount to 2 Senate races she won against 2 very weak opponents. I also think the DNC and the Clinton Campaign engaged in a mistaken groupthink that the Republican field as of the beginning of 2015 before Trump announced was very weak and easily beaten. Then they thought Trump was initially a novelty. Then they failed to be sufficiently rankled by the Michigan Primary results and underestimated the sentiment behind the support Sanders had. Then they thought the Republican Party wouldn't coalesce around Trump even after he won the nomination. Above it all - and this is where pretty much every (with a few exceptions) other political pundit, pollster and publication agreed virtually all the way up until the election - in the end they believed some form of deus ex machina would get Hillary the votes she needed: in the period between the last debate and the election, watching and listening to the body language of Conway, Priebus and even Trump one could tell they all thought there was a strong possibility they would lose.

In the end, the ultimate blame for Hillary's loss must be firmly applied to her and her alone. Death by a thousand cuts or not, as the candidate it was her responsibility to persuade the amount of voters needed to go out and vote for her. She failed to do so. Plain and simple. Trump beat her. Not by a resounding, overwhelming margin even when strictly referencing (by 10,000 votes) Michigan, (by 22,000 votes) Wisconsin, and (by 44,000 in) Pennsylvania. One can't make the case however, that unlike Michigan and Wisconsin she didn't compete in Florida or Pennsylvania. Or Ohio.

As to when the die was cast for the ultimate result, it may well be impossible to know with anything approaching certainly. The majority of the pre-election polling certainly wasn't indicative of anything useful in terms of the ultimate result. Even with that, was the disparity due to the polling methods, or were enough people being polled lying about who they would and wouldn't vote for to throw the result off? What was the voter breakdown about who had made their minds up regarding the candidates and how far back they did so? Is that even knowable?

Hillary ran a traditional campaign, and considering who she is and the things she and the DNC were involved in, the campaign could have been a lot worse. I mean, not by much I suppose considering the end result. I suppose the campaign did about the best it could with the candidate they had. It would be pretty dismissive about the concerns voters in the states I mentioned had if the only reason they didn't vote for Hillary came down to her not campaigning harder in those states. I tend to doubt her presence there would have persuaded those who voted for her opponent to do the opposite.

Well it was a historical campaign because it was one of the nastiest in US history. Trump won the presidency without holding a previous political office or serving as a general in the military. FDR was the first president elected by radio. JFK was the first president elected by television. Trump was the first president elected by social media and alternative media on the internet. It's an inflection point. People will be studying this election and it will change how things are done in the future. This election will go down in the history books like Truman vs Dewey.

[Nitro Express]

Five Guys is pretty tasty. Miles above McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's. Both in initial tastiness and digestive qualities after eating. Simply put, my taste buds regarding those three chains I mentioned have morphed over the last 20 years. It went from 1) enjoying how the food tasted and having no ill after effects to 2) still enjoying the taste of the food but having occasional stomach discomfort to 3) kinda craving the taste once in awhile and submitting to that despite feeling like shit after eating it to 4) the present day where I no longer even enjoy the taste of it. I used to love the taste of Big Macs and Whoppers. Now, even the thought of eating one makes me wince.

Five Guys has a tasty burger for a reasonable price. I would say the French fries are of a pretty high quality save for the one aspect that they aren't properly drained of the cooking oil long enough before being served. By the nature of the operation, the fries are pretty much cooked to order so they have come out of the fryolator moments before being served. It's also clear that they use quality cooking oil and quality potatoes. I applaud them for that. The downside is that the fries are absolutely dripping in that oil when they are served. I am hard-pressed to see a way out from that conundrum, because if they are cooked and then thoroughly drained, the serving time will increase and turnover will slow.

At least with Five Guys I can get tasty fast food for a reasonable price reasonably quickly when I'm in the mood, and it won't sit in my stomach like a lump of cardboard and leave a foul after taste in my mouth. The one near me now serves shakes as well, and the shakes are better than any I've ever had at a McDonald's or Burger King.

I've never had an In-n-Out, but have heard nothing other than great things about those. I've also heard a lot of good things about Chick-fil-A's, and they must be doing something right by their customers, because the one that opened up near me a couple of years ago is consistently packed whenever I drive by it. I doubt I'll bother eating at one, but their business has been booming for two years straight at the one I see. Sustained much longer than some initial curiosity wave.

I used to eat at Chick-fil-A all the time when I was getting my master's degree. The place was spotlessly clean and the sandwiches were great. They have one on campus where my daughter is going to school. Five Guy's buy the best ingredients regardless of price and charge enough to make a profit and so they figure people will pay a little more for the quality but McDonald's isn't cheap and their food is lousy and it's a no brainer why the golden arches are imploding. To many alternative places that are better.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

I've also heard a lot of good things about Chick-fil-A's, and they must be doing something right by their customers, because the one that opened up near me a couple of years ago is consistently packed whenever I drive by it. I doubt I'll bother eating at one, but their business has been booming for two years straight at the one I see. Sustained much longer than some initial curiosity wave.

Their chicken sandwiches are addictive...

The franchise is run by evangelicals and takes a pretty controversial anti-LGBT stance... In fact, all of their franchises are closed on Sundays... There were massive protests (both pro and anti) about 5 years ago....

[Terry]

Well it was a historical campaign because it was one of the nastiest in US history. Trump won the presidency without holding a previous political office or serving as a general in the military. FDR was the first president elected by radio. JFK was the first president elected by television. Trump was the first president elected by social media and alternative media on the internet. It's an inflection point. People will be studying this election and it will change how things are done in the future. This election will go down in the history books like Truman vs Dewey.

Depends on if one thinks the general tone, rhythms and outcome of the election resulted from the specific candidates and the way they were perceived prior to the election than external factors. Simplistic to say, but would the tone and campaign strategies have been remotely the same if had been, say, Jeb vs. Sanders?

Trump is unprecedented in all sorts of ways. No doubt about it. No snarky undertone to that comment, either: he broke the mold of what was thought possible.

As to going down in the history books like Truman vs. Dewey, 1) historical interpretations and opinions are always subject to change and 2) which candidate in that scenario was Truman?

Yeah, it was a nasty campaign. Sadly, a nasty campaign that centered on personalities over policies. I knew what Trump was about in terms of character long before he declared, and the Clintons were never afraid of playing for keeps either. So it was a given going in that it wasn't going to be pleasant. Even with that being said, and even not being naïve myself, I'd be lying to say I was never a bit shocked at times over how nasty it got. Even more so from the supporters of the candidates than the candidates themselves.

[Von Halen]

Their chicken sandwiches are addictive...

The franchise is run by evangelicals and takes a pretty controversial anti-LGBT stance... In fact, all of their franchises are closed on Sundays... There were massive protests (both pro and anti) about 5 years ago....

I've eaten at them in my travels. I didn't think they were anything special.

They have recently expanded into Michigan. My Son was approved for a Franchise, but they only allow you to own one. He wanted something that he can have as many stores as he wants. They feel like it spreads the wealth, and forces the owner to focus his attention on keeping one location performing optimally.

It's looking more and more like he'll be bringing Chronic Taco out of California, to Michigan.