PDA

View Full Version : ONLY AUTHORIZED ELECTION NEWS THREAD--no debating allowed



Pages : [1] 2

B. de Corbin
19 Apr 2016, 02:08
Why? Because it is supposed to be impartial - they don't work for YOU.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gay-republican-good-morning-america_us_5714e983e4b06f35cb700104

MaskedOne
19 Apr 2016, 09:50
Cruz is the same brainiac who'd like to pull

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/ted-cruz-supreme-court_n_7675528.html

I'm pretty sure he fails to comprehend why Justices are so difficult to remove. Fortunately for the rest of us, a man who is currently losing a party primary is gonna have a hell of a time getting an amendment to the Constitution passed.

thalassa
20 Apr 2016, 06:59
You may notice that this thread looks a bit different.

That is because it has received a face-lift from the off-topicness, bad manners, and all-around ***hattery.

Either engage in civil discourse or GO AWAY.

Anyone that cannot manage that will have their access to this thread revoked.

anunitu
20 Apr 2016, 07:02
Not going to comment on Cruz or other candidates. There is a whole lot of crazy out there this election season..little about local races though,and those are also important.

B. de Corbin
20 Apr 2016, 07:45
What I thought was most telling was, when asked a direct question by a gay Republican about what Cruz would do to protect his and his husband's marriage, Cruz rambled on about the first sixth of the First Amendment without actually answering the question.

Cruz seems to love that bit of the Constitution.

Then, when forced back to the actual question asked, he suggested that the Supreme Court isn't qualified to make a decision about constitutionality because they do not owe their continued office-holding to a particular political agenda.

Did he miss the civics lesson where it was explained that that's the whole point of appointing the Supreme's for life????

Such a fundamental part of the American theory of government, and a candidate for president doesn't get it?

thalassa
20 Apr 2016, 08:57
What I thought was most telling was, when asked a direct question by a gay Republican about what Cruz would do to protect his and his husband's marriage, Cruz rambled on about the first sixth of the First Amendment without actually answering the question.

Cruz seems to love that bit of the Constitution.

Then, when forced back to the actual question asked, he suggested that the Supreme Court isn't qualified to make a decision about constitutionality because they do not owe their continued office-holding to a particular political agenda.

Did he miss the civics lesson where it was explained that that's the whole point of appointing the Supreme's for life????

Such a fundamental part of the American theory of government, and a candidate for president doesn't get it?

I'm not terribly surprised that one (or more) of the candidates don't get it. Most of your average citizenry don't get it (make that #101 on the list of things my 3rd grader knows that my neighbor doesn't)... And while one would hope they could be held to higher expectations, you need to have a basic understanding of what those expectations should be in the first place.

Many people (particularly so-called Constitutionalists) have a terrible understanding of how living documents work--they are no better than fundy Biblical literalists.

B. de Corbin
20 Apr 2016, 09:00
If more citizens knew this kind of stuff there'd be fewer politicians able to get away with junk.

Or maybe not.

Maybe people just don't like freedom and dignity these days.

thalassa
20 Apr 2016, 09:01
Yeah, but where are they going to learn it? Schools don't get enough funding and society doesn't value it.

MaskedOne
20 Apr 2016, 09:04
I wouldn't necessarily object to shorter supreme court terms as long as

A. They are still relatively long (minimum of 10 years)
B. They only get one term.

Once you start tying their position to popularity, you're doing it wrong.

anunitu
20 Apr 2016, 09:36
It is difficult to find a person(Judge) that can maintain neutrality in their judgments..but a person with enough integrity and honor can be just in their findings.

B. de Corbin
20 Apr 2016, 09:57
It is difficult to find a person(Judge) that can maintain neutrality in their judgments..but a person with enough integrity and honor can be just in their findings.

There's actually two problems that go on at the same time -

First, you're right. Everybody has built in biases, and, while it is possible to overcome them, one has to first become aware of them. This is why we needed a women's suffragette movement before women got to vote. The bias against women was so prevalent that most people just didn't question it.

The second problem is that the Constitution, as Thalassa said, is a LIVING document. The country's founders were better in their dreaming than they were in their life - which allowed them to talk about freedom while still holding slaves. We need to move in the direction of their dreams, not emulate their faults... So the Constitution sometimes needs amending.

Along with this, the original framers were not particularly great wizards for whom the future held no mysteries, despite what yo may sometimes hear. They could not, and did not predict many of the changes that would take place in our society in the following 220 years. The upshot of their great fault of failing to be infallible is that there are things not mentioned in the Constitution that have become of major importance today. The judges need to interpret the Constitution in these cases - but they can't go by the "letter of the law" because their IS no letter of the law.

When you add one and two together you do not always make people happy, but as long as you get three-ish, things will be OK.

MaskedOne
20 Apr 2016, 10:04
Among other things, letter of the law, would I'm relatively sure, require the Army to eat the Air Force...

Whether that's a good thing might be open to debate...

anunitu
20 Apr 2016, 10:11
All the whining about the rules in the GOP..and a tiny bit in the DNC I watched a piece on the news that mentioned these party groups are PRIVATE groups,and since they only nominate someone to run in their name,they can change the rules when ever they want. The whole people voting is more to allow the public to feel involved in the choice.

The general election is a whole other matter. That is by and for the American voters. In a technical way,the GOP,and the DNC could just pick who ever they want to run..no official government involvement in picking their candidate,except the rules as to being qualified(For Prez,being at least 35,citizen, and like that) I guess that means I can't run my pet turtle..

anunitu
25 Apr 2016, 08:05
You most likely know about the Koch brothers,and their republican backing.
Now Charles Koch has said this.

"Conservative billionaire Charles Koch says that it's possible that he could support Hillary Clinton for president over any of the GOP presidential candidates.

In an interview in Kansas that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Koch was asked if it's possible for another Clinton to be better than another Republican after he said President Bill Clinton "in some ways" was better than President George W. Bush."

Not sure an endorsement for Hillary from him is a positive.

This election year is so full of surprises.

Buckle up kids,it is going to be a bumpy ride.

ThePaganMafia
25 Apr 2016, 08:20
He's not wrong. I would take a Clinton over an orange child and the theocrat no one can stand.

Denarius
25 Apr 2016, 08:30
She is the safest pick from a big business point of view, she loves her some corporations. The only other viable candidate as far as expanding corporate interests go is Cruz, and he's iffy at best.

Tylluan Penry
25 Apr 2016, 10:21
Out of interest... how do you pronounce Koch in the US?

thalassa
25 Apr 2016, 10:22
Like Coke in Diet Coke!

Tylluan Penry
25 Apr 2016, 10:24
Good grief! Here in Wales it would probably be Cosh. ;)

anunitu
28 Apr 2016, 02:01
And here I was thinking this whole election could not get weirder,and then once again of course it does. Cruz being a bit of an a**hat,and trump being TRUMP(Thing is no one in the GOP likes ether one,but that's all they have left) I am glad Bernie has pushed Hillary to the left a little,even if he does not win.

Denarius
28 Apr 2016, 02:47
This election is super weird, the front-runners of both parties have extremely high unfavorability ratings. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/)

anunitu
28 Apr 2016, 02:58
That too.....everything you know is wrong(from a satire group back in the 70's)

- - - Updated - - -

It was/is Firesign Theatre


https://youtu.be/dAcHfymgh4Y

They were big back in the 70's

anunitu
28 Apr 2016, 05:39
Man this is getting deep.
Story here. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/former-speaker-boehner-calls-cruz-lucifer-flesh-n564081)

Boehner is a republican,and it seems NOT a fan of Cruz.
I think the repubs might need to figure things out before they have to settle for Trump.

"Lucifer in the flesh," Boehner said, according to the paper. "I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life."
To the point he is.

anunitu
30 Apr 2016, 04:37
Man,have I been sucked back into the 70's?
Really dude,back to the future.

Story here (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/donald-trump-protests-republican-convention-california/)

If you do not remember,or not born back then,this might clear it up.


https://youtu.be/Pswvi3QN_tI

It was the democratic convention back then

- - - Updated - - -

And I remember this,and will never forget...
Ohio by "Crosby,stills,Nash and Young"

https://youtu.be/68g76j9VBvM
Man it sucks to have clear memories sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Flash back attack...gets out my cool bell bottoms and my super fly shades...

https://youtu.be/TrWNTqbLFFE

Hawkfeathers
30 Apr 2016, 04:37
Amazing, isn't it? The more things change, the more they don't.

anunitu
30 Apr 2016, 04:45
I am wondering if these Millennials might be the next Boomers. Read somewhere that they are only second in population to us boomers. Is it the next wave of cultural change?

See here about them and population size. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/)

- - - Updated - - -

There is this.
Millennials have surpassed Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living generation, according to population estimates released this month by the U.S. Census Bureau. Millennials, whom we define as those ages 18-34 in 2015, now number 75.4 million, surpassing the 74.9 million Baby Boomers

anunitu
03 May 2016, 07:23
Quote from The Donald.

Take this morning, for example, when Trump, repeating a story he saw in a tabloid, alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was seen palling around with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. Politico reported this morning:

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being – you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

“I mean, what was he doing – what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”

Story here. (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-latest-conspiracy-theory-doozy-even-trump)

I am really beginning to wonder what this guy is smoking??

Denarius
03 May 2016, 08:36
It makes sense when you think about it, I mean Ted Cruz was the Zodiac Killer and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Hawkfeathers
03 May 2016, 09:08
Maybe he watched Stephen King's 11.22.63 and fell into the rabbit hole (time portal back to the 1960's).

Denarius
03 May 2016, 09:37
Ted Cruz's father is Rafael Cruz, but Ted Cruz's birth certificate says he was also named Rafael Cruz. Maybe Cruz went back in time and killed JFK and then became the Zodiac Killer and his own father.

Hawkfeathers
03 May 2016, 09:52
Ted Cruz's father is Rafael Cruz, but Ted Cruz's birth certificate says he was also named Rafael Cruz. Maybe Cruz went back in time and killed JFK and then became the Zodiac Killer and his own father.

Haha! He was also Napoleon and Grandpa Munster! They guy really gets around!

anunitu
03 May 2016, 10:03
I did not have sexual relations with that time traveling super hot tubing,bong smoking ,alien octopod with the secret ties to Doctor Hannibal Lecter,and also I never inhaled the smoke from the burning Roman and barbecue and back yard bouncy castle that was spotted at the twin towers flying up up and away... ...

- - - Updated - - -

Oh,and really bad eggs....

Hawkfeathers
03 May 2016, 10:03
I did not have sexual relations with that time traveling super hot tubing,bong smoking ,alien octopod with the secret ties to Doctor Hannibal Lecter,and also I never inhaled the smoke from the burning Roman and barbecue and back yard bouncy castle that was spotted at the twin towers flying up up and away... ...

You inhaled SOMETHING, that's for sure! I don't know if I want some of it or not. Haha!!!!

Now Cruz is saying Trump's a serial philanderer, etc., and lies all the time. These two deserve each other.

anunitu
03 May 2016, 10:09
If this is how it goes when it is just Cruz and the Donald..wondering how it is going to go with Donald and Hillary...people will be pleading for Bernie..with pleading hands and eyes..

- - - Updated - - -

That and the Republican party will be turning into a sinking ship of state.

- - - Updated - - -

Forget the sound,and imagine the images that will be the GOP.

https://youtu.be/NxC4sGpIDTw

B. de Corbin
04 May 2016, 01:32
...which means that Trump is De Man to run as RPC.

Denarius
04 May 2016, 01:43
Shh, you'll hurt Kasich's feelings.

Amadi
04 May 2016, 01:49
As someone who's never done American politics, can someone give a quick rundown of the whole situation? (please)
Like, is this bad or baaaaaad?

Denarius
04 May 2016, 02:04
Like, is this bad or baaaaaad?

Depends on how you view Trump, how you view Hillary, and which you think would win in the general election.

Cruz had little chance of stopping Trump from getting the delegates before Indiana, he needed the state. He needed the evangelical vote.

He needed a moral victory, even if it was a Pyrrhic one. What he got was absolutely steamrolled.

B. de Corbin
04 May 2016, 02:12
As someone who's never done American politics, can someone give a quick rundown of the whole situation? (please)
Like, is this bad or baaaaaad?

It's baaad. He'll be running against H. Clinton, who isn't popular.

On the other hand, as hated as Trump is by many, Cruz was actually more dangerous.

For President Trump to accomplish much of anything, he'll have to violate the US Constition, which won't fly in Washington. President Cruz may have been able to actually have been political...

- - - Updated - - -


Shh, you'll hurt Kasich's feelings.

Kasich has been dead in the water since day one.

Denarius
04 May 2016, 02:17
he'll have to violate the US Constition

How so?


which won't fly in Washington.

Didn't stop the last two presidents.

B. de Corbin
04 May 2016, 02:31
Huh... How is Trump different from the last two presidents...?

Oh! I got it!

They were backed by their own party!

thalassa
04 May 2016, 02:37
How so?

Didn't stop the last two presidents.

Please, enumerate for us a list of the ways that you feel the last two presidents have violated the Constitution, which have then been verified by the Supreme Court (since its there job to determine what is or is not Constitution) or actual Constitutional scholars in peer-reviewed law or history journals.

Otherwise, this is pointless baiting, about two steps away from trolling, and either way, decidedly off topic.

anunitu
04 May 2016, 02:38
There has been talk on the republican side of Ms. Clinton being better than having to back Trump...now think,how bad is Trump,that it would push the Repubs to think Hillary the lesser evil. Koch Brothers also kinda leaning her way..strange days indeed.

B. de Corbin
04 May 2016, 03:07
Oh looky looky! we have a new politico thread!

thalassa
04 May 2016, 03:09
Oh looky looky! we have a new politico thread!

But for news and talking about the news only...
__________________________________________
ETA/double post avoidance:

General announcement & Rules of this thread:

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE THREAD

Additionally, any post perceived as flaming, baiting, trolling, WILL BE REMOVED

Excessive off topic posting that is not related to election news, discussion of election news, or posting stuff about the election from actual news sources WILL BE REMOVED by staff discretion

Chronic offenders will be thread-banned

B. de Corbin
04 May 2016, 03:34
Trump vs Clinton, I would guess - things are already ugly, and apt to get worse:

Trump Supporters Are Peddling Disgustingly Sexist Anti-Hillary Clinton Swag (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/deplorable-anti-clinton-merch-at-trump-rallies_us_572836e1e4b016f378936c22?utm_hp_ref=pol itics)

4815

Amadi
04 May 2016, 03:41
Bad in that as a not-American I don't want Trump to have access to the nuclear codes (regardless of whether he's politically capable of using them).
Lesser of two evils sounds like most British politics stuff, welcome to the world where everyone hates the dude who actually got elected ;P

^
Wow, that's well, incredibly un-political.

anunitu
04 May 2016, 08:23
The really big question is: If Trump loses the main event,the general election,will he scream "I was cheated" as he has done a few times in the primaries.

Also,what happens if he wins...Not to mention will he stop the name calling?...like fat a** Kraut lady in addressing Angela Merkel,or another world leader...will we have to apologize every time he opens his mouth?

- - - Updated - - -

What World leaders think of Donald Trump.

Story from Fortune Magazine (http://fortune.com/2016/02/24/donald-trump-nevada-critics/)

- - - Updated - - -

Just for the record,Trump stands alone now...

Azvanna
05 May 2016, 05:17
Respectfully, is there any good reason to vote for Donald Trump to be president? Also, how much autonomy does the President have? In Australia we've had so many party leader changes in recent history because the party didn't support their leader. If trump was elected, who would be Vice-President?

B. de Corbin
05 May 2016, 06:19
Respectfully, is there any good reason to vote for Donald Trump to be president? Also, how much autonomy does the President have? In Australia we've had so many party leader changes in recent history because the party didn't support their leader. If trump was elected, who would be Vice-President?

It's funny you would ask about the VP: One Of These Tremendous People Could Be Donald Trump’s Running Mate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-vice-president_us_572a256ce4b096e9f08fdf5a?cps=gravity_ 2425_-4527083527063434985)

The truth is - anybody who decides to run with him, should he NOT win, will have committed total political suicide, from which no return will be possible.

As far as presidential autonomy... really... not that much.

For a president to accomplish anything requires a lot of support from the senate and congress, and their particular party. Despite Trump's claim to be a master at dealing, his "success" in that are has been based on his ability to bully people into doing what he wanted them to do, backed by the purchasing power of his wealth.

Washington politics doesn't work that way, though, which is why I suggested that he is more of an embarrassment than a danger.

Oh - PS... a good reason to vote for Trump? Not that I can see, unless he will pay me to do it...

anunitu
05 May 2016, 06:27
To get back to news..he has mentioned Christy...and a few he mentioned said a flat NO!

- - - Updated - - -

Here there be NO's. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/us/politics/donald-trump-vice-president.html?_r=0)

Denarius
05 May 2016, 06:43
Also, how much autonomy does the President have?

They can do quite a lot, among other things they are the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, but are limited by the judicial branch (Through the Supreme Court and [their interpretation of] the Constitution, such as by the process of impeachment) as well as congress which is what actually holds the majority of political power.

Congress can veto the president and the president can veto the senate (and especially refuse to sign bills into law) so nothing gets done, or they can work together so that they do.

Basically congress can stop him from doing pretty much anything for any reason if they want to, and the Supreme Court can kick him out of office but they have to justify it through the constitution.


If trump was elected, who would be Vice-President?

Anyone eligible to be president that he chooses, which is traditionally done at the Republican National Convention which is in July. I've seen a lot of speculation that it'll be Chris Christie, but Trump hasn't said anything that I'm aware of.

MaskedOne
05 May 2016, 07:06
Denarius, double check impeachment proceedings. You're affording them to the entirely wrong branch of government. That said, courts do have significant ability to lol-nope the President or Congress on Constitutional grounds. At least, they have the ability provided that the President can't pull off an Andy Jackson successfully. The power of the court to compel relies on agencies from other branches to do their jobs.

Hawkfeathers
05 May 2016, 07:08
Christie isn't exactly loved in NJ. I'm sure he's making every effort to salvage his career by buddying up to Donald. If the Rep. convention is contested, we'll see some of these "suspended" candidates try to come back, I'm guessing.

Denarius
05 May 2016, 07:10
Denarius, double check impeachment proceedings. You're affording them to the entirely wrong branch of government.

So I am, that's what I get for going off what I remember from middle school and Schoolhouse Rock without double checking. I also just noticed I said "especially" when I meant "essentially." Similar sounding words get me sometimes. Derp.

anunitu
05 May 2016, 07:57
All in all,it most likely will be a Bumpy ride...

Bartmanhomer
05 May 2016, 08:44
Wow I can't believe that Bernie Sanders win Indiana.

anunitu
05 May 2016, 09:14
Maybe a little off topic,or perhaps not.
Wondering if this is what we can expect in this election,
See story here. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/05/why-a-trump-backing-tow-truck-driver-says-he-refused-service-to-a-sanders-supporter/)

Short about the story.

Why a Trump-backing tow truck driver says he refused service to a Sanders supporter.

Next they will not serve you if you wear a Hillary Pantsuit. or your name is Bill....or Bernie..or you are intelligent...

Medusa
05 May 2016, 13:53
I keep watching this race like I can turn it off and it's just a bad 80s tv movie.

Hawkfeathers
05 May 2016, 14:55
Or the 70's - an Irwin Allen production like The Poseidon Adventure - you know the ship is sinking, you just don't know which of the two groups is going in the right direction. There's got to be a morning after......

Now Ryan won't endorse Trump, and Trump won't endorse Ryan's agenda. The last time I remember things being this kind of whirlwind-crazy was the late 60's.

anunitu
05 May 2016, 16:23
Roll up for the mystery tour....Best to strap in.

https://youtu.be/qM0tzshqCb4

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry in advance for the slight derail..

- - - Updated - - -

A tip...do you know what a trigger word is? 60's TV...triggers a video..it is my post LSD mind...:cool:

Medusa
05 May 2016, 20:37
Trump likes Hispanics when they are making him his taco bowl.

This? This dude thinks we are going to let him be president?

I'm hoping there are more hispanic voters then there are racists voters.

B. de Corbin
05 May 2016, 22:29
Trump likes Hispanics when they are making him his taco bowl.

This? This dude thinks we are going to let him be president?

I'm hoping there are more hispanic voters then there are racists voters.

That "Taco Bowl" thing was like a white dude putting on black face to show he understands life in the hood.

Even this guy's advisors are stoopid.

anunitu
05 May 2016, 23:18
As a cool white dude,I am really feeling ashamed of Trump,he gives us a really bad name. One thing I am really kinda enjoying is seeing the GOP trying to deal with their Frankenstein running amok..

- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting to hear from Joe the plumber......Yeh I went there...

- - - Updated - - -

Thing is there was Tito the Builder for Palin back in that other election.

You have your share to Duce...

https://youtu.be/Dv6lvACMJBo

Hawkfeathers
06 May 2016, 05:55
I'm sick of hearing "women" this and "women" that. I wasn't raised that way and it's out of my paradigm to be some kind of subset.

anunitu
09 May 2016, 07:23
It just gets deeper and deeper...Trump is doing stuff that only his weird head trip could explain

Donald Trump’s Warning to Paul Ryan Signals Further G.O.P. Discord

Story here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/us/politics/donald-trumps-warning-to-paul-ryan-signals-further-gop-discord.html)

The question is,just because he might get the nomination,he thinks he now RUNS the GOP..making demands?

In the real world,the GOP is a Private group,not really subject to Government rules except as to putting a candidate up for election. The GOP "Could" in fact dump Trump,and choose another candidate(That is my understanding from reading about parties) The rules might change..Given that the GOP is not really liking Trump..it "Might" split the part into two or more groups. That would I think sink any election hopes for the GOP.

- - - Updated - - -

Also as an after thought,Sarah Palin has it seems jumped into the fire.
Read about her here. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/sarah-palin-paul-ryan-paul-nehlen-endorsement/?iid=ob_lockedrail_topeditorial)

Quote from Palin:
"I think Paul Ryan is soon to be 'Cantored,' as in Eric Cantor," Palin said, referring to the former Republican House majority leader who was ousted in a shocking upset in 2014 when challenger Dave Brat ran to his right in a Virginia primary."

This should really put the "Shake and bake" on the elections

Azvanna
09 May 2016, 13:15
The truth is - anybody who decides to run with him, should he NOT win, will have committed total political suicide, from which no return will be possible.
The reason I asked about VP is because wouldn't that be the person taking over if Trump had to stand down? So maybe they'd be committing political suicide or maybe giving themselves the best chance at a sure promotion if he were elected?


As far as presidential autonomy... really... not that much.

For a president to accomplish anything requires a lot of support from the senate and congress, and their particular party.

This rings true... I think President Obama would have achieved a great deal more given the chance. Seems like both parties need to be on board for there to be major changes.

I keep hoping that Mr Trump is just playing an election game and saying the "right" words to keep himself going. I really can't imagine much of what he proposes to do (eg closing borders to Muslims, building a giant wall Mexico has to pay for) actually coming to fruition. Maybe if he's elected, he'll get down to business?

anunitu
09 May 2016, 14:19
At this point I am thinking he is just trying to get bounced out,but nothing he says or does is working...

Hawkfeathers
09 May 2016, 14:51
The USA can't default because we print money, according the him. I've been doing it wrong my whole life, apparently. All I needed was a good printer!

B. de Corbin
09 May 2016, 16:20
Trump - famous for his straight talk:


CHRIS CUOMO: We tried to get your campaign and the other campaigns to hold forth or whether or not they supported the current GI bill. In congress, a sneaky vote in the house — no roll call - is going to cut money from the GI bill to allow for other expenditures for vets. Vets were upset. “No, don’t take money from us and reallocate it. Find the savings elsewhere.” Do you support maintaining the GI bill the way it is and growing it instead of cutting it?

DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to hurt our vets. We treat illegal immigrants better than our vets. I’m going to help the vets. I’m going to only help them. — unlike Hillary Clinton who thinks the vets are getting too much? They’re not. I’ve traveled, seen so many vets I know so many vets now and have a lot of friends. I have developed great friendships among the vets. Our vets are —

CHRIS CUOMO: Is that a yes, “I do support the current GI bill?”

DONALD TRUMP: No. I want to bring jobs back to our country and make the country grow again. I just traveled. I won so many states in a row in massive landslides and part of the reason was trade. Not what you brought up at the beginning of the show, totally inappropriate. Part of the reason I won was because of trade and I talk trade and I’m the only one that can do anything about trade. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/donald-trump-doesnt-know_b_9872222.html)

LMAO!

Denarius
09 May 2016, 18:06
From the same interview, where he clarifies what he actually intends to do:


TRUMP: "..." But if you look at NAFTA and you take a look at what’s been done and how hard Clinton pushed it and that bill has been an absolute disaster. The passage of that has been an absolute disaster for our country. CUOMO: All right. Fair point. You want to criticize NAFTA. Doing more about trade, helping veterans.

Emphasis mine, SOURCE. (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/09/watch-cnns-cuomo-goes-after-trump-for-hillary-attacks-in-heated-interview/)

You can criticize him for not supporting the bill, but really he is VERY clear on what he wants and how he is going to get it.


CUOMO: As you know, the last time we spoke "..." we talked about how you would bring about bringing back jobs. You said, I would tax companies who don’t do the right thing. I would have a tariff imposed. I said, that’s what congress does, not a president. You said, well I’ll work with them.

He's talking about market solutions, not socialist solutions. A conservative strategy, as opposed to a liberal strategy. Again, say what you will about the effectiveness of such things but he is not beating around the bush. Which is what I interpret your post as alleging.

He's being extremely clear. What matters the most, for everybody, is jobs and the economy. Helping vets pay for job training and degrees is noble, but it's nothing more than a token gesture if you can't get a job anyway and the economy is in the tank.

It is not addressing the underlying problems: Outsourcing, corporate tax evasion, the absurd prices of colleges, the overblown importance of degrees, lack of decent job training options.

I see that interview as Trump getting to the meat of the issue, whereas most would simply spew platitudes instead of actually talking about the issue and how to resolve it.

anunitu
09 May 2016, 19:18
Pros and cons may come and go,BUT the comedians are just lapping this up like a cat with cream,or perhaps a Dog going after his own crap...

Tylluan Penry
10 May 2016, 00:19
Here's a nice addition from my side of the pond:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/10/donald-trump-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-exception-muslim-ban

B. de Corbin
10 May 2016, 01:25
Here's a nice addition from my side of the pond:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/10/donald-trump-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-exception-muslim-ban

That's good. That is a good - a good, good thing. We - we need a good leader who sets a very good example - you lead by good example. That's a good, good thing.

ThePaganMafia
10 May 2016, 02:17
That's good. That is a good - a good, good thing. We - we need a good leader who sets a very good example - you lead by good example. That's a good, good thing.


Good? You mean a GREAT example. The GREATEST example. An example so GREAT it will be the GREATEST.

Tylluan Penry
10 May 2016, 03:20
And here is the follow up... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/10/sadiq-khan-i-dont-want-ignorant-donald-trump-to-make-me-an-exception
;)

anunitu
10 May 2016, 03:34
It is not even enough that Trump is our fool..he is becoming an international clown as well...all the other countries are pointing and laughing at us....Laughing with us?? hmmm

Hawkfeathers
10 May 2016, 06:18
Trump just wants to get his Shatner on and yell "KHAAAAAAAAAN".

thalassa
10 May 2016, 09:18
Putting things in perspective:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0VD2EQ


http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conv eniently_forgotten_partner/

anunitu
10 May 2016, 09:44
Goose /Gander I think...Funny how things pop back up from the past...

anunitu
12 May 2016, 03:25
I really think Trump wants to be dumped...I mean everything he does would have canned anyone else...Now,no tax returns...with a hanging maybe...later..because they are spectacular,you will love them,but you have to WAIT

B. de Corbin
12 May 2016, 03:59
I really think Trump wants to be dumped...I mean everything he does would have canned anyone else...Now,no tax returns...with a hanging maybe...later..because they are spectacular,you will love them,but you have to WAIT

The "Teflon Trump."

Hawkfeathers
12 May 2016, 11:22
^^ Too bad the name "Teflon Don" was already taken by John Gotti! Trump's backing off his Muslim ban idea now, saying it was just a suggestion.

anunitu
12 May 2016, 23:55
Watching various people "Discuss" the Candidates on the TV news makes my brain want to drill a hole in my head. Some of the people really just keep repeating the same stuff over and over,thinking that if you repeat things enough,it will make them true. Not just a single candidate ether,this happens for all of them(Bernie,Hillary,and The Donald) Not facts or policy,just things like..so and so has cooties, or he or she has lied about the lie they never uttered. I will be so glad when this is all behind us..

Azvanna
13 May 2016, 02:00
Watching various people "Discuss" the Candidates on the TV news makes my brain want to drill a hole in my head. Some of the people really just keep repeating the same stuff over and over,thinking that if you repeat things enough,it will make them true. Not just a single candidate ether,this happens for all of them(Bernie,Hillary,and The Donald) Not facts or policy,just things like..so and so has cooties, or he or she has lied about the lie they never uttered. I will be so glad when this is all behind us..

It's a form of brainwashing. If you hear something enough, it plays in the back of your mind. It happens here too. Pollies use the same phrases or word over and over to plant ideas. If you are not on your gaurd, I could see it working. But mainly, it's just annoying.

anunitu
13 May 2016, 02:40
It just makes me want to throw things at the TV!

anunitu
17 May 2016, 08:37
Ok,I am guessing that the whole GOP is going to take that hand basket ride.

Story here. (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/280159-ryan-voters-right-to-trust-trump-more-than-me)

And the headline is:
Speaker Ryan: Voters are right to trust Trump more than me.

B. de Corbin
23 May 2016, 19:49
Brought to you by The Foundation for The Trash* Who Would Be President -


“He called me Miss Piggy,” she told “Inside Edition.” “I was very depressed.”

He also openly derided her weight in a interview with radio host Howard Stern, describing her as an “eating machine.”

Machado said Trump also made fun of her English language skills and called her “Miss Housekeeping” in an apparent jab at her Venezuelan accent.

Former Miss Universe Says Trump Called Her ‘Miss Piggy,’ ‘Miss Housekeeping’ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alicia-machado-donald-trump_us_57431d11e4b00e09e89f8aa4)

*my prefernce is for a word that sounds like "trick" and means "dick," but this is a family friendly forum.

Denarius
23 May 2016, 20:08
How corporate America bought Hillary Clinton for $21M - Michael Walsh, NYPost. (http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/)

"Follow the money," indeed.

ThePaganMafia
23 May 2016, 20:12
Brought to you by The Foundation for The Trash* Who Would Be President -



Former Miss Universe Says Trump Called Her ‘Miss Piggy,’ ‘Miss Housekeeping’ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alicia-machado-donald-trump_us_57431d11e4b00e09e89f8aa4)

*my prefernce is for a word that sounds like "trick" and means "dick," but this is a family friendly forum.

https://media.makeameme.org/created/thats-not-how-y3bndq.jpg

B. de Corbin
23 May 2016, 20:29
Trump once revealed his income tax returns. They showed he didn’t pay a cent. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-income-tax-returns-once-became-public-they-showed-he-didnt-pay-a-cent/2016/05/20/ffa2f63c-1b7c-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html)


The disclosure, in a 1981 report by New Jersey gambling regulators, revealed that the wealthy Manhattan investor had for at least two years in the late 1970s taken advantage of a tax-code provision popular with developers that allowed him to report negative income.

Today, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Trump regularly denounces corporate executives for using loopholes and “false deductions” to “get away with murder” when it comes to avoiding taxes.

“They make a fortune. They pay no tax,” Trump said last year on CBS. “It’s ridiculous, okay?”

B. de Corbin
24 May 2016, 01:56
Sanders wins more than I would have imagined!



Under an agreement the party reached with Sanders and opponent Hillary Clinton, Sanders can select five people to serve on the party’s platform committee, a third of the committee’s members. Clinton will name six members, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), the party chair, will name four, according to the Washington Post.

Typically, the chair names all 15 members to the committee, which sets the party’s agenda and guiding principles at the convention in July...

Democratic Party Gives Bernie Sanders Bigger Role In Shaping Its Platform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-platform_us_57439500e4b00e09e89fdd8f)

This should clinch it for the Democrats this election, and is most likely the best step forward for people who want to see real changes here.

Atta boy, Bernie!

anunitu
24 May 2016, 02:08
You gotta hand it to the Bern man...

anunitu
25 May 2016, 03:10
Just a FYI,and this is not good because it gives Trump fuel to rant with.


Trump protesters smash door, break through barriers (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/donald-trump-albuquerque-protesters-police/)

- - - Updated - - -

This is a little unexpected,but very interesting.

Dems worry DNC chair 'too toxic' after Sanders blast (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-democrats-clinton-sanders/)

anunitu
25 May 2016, 06:12
I really think he(Trump) is trying really hard to get dumped.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/05/25/daily-202-trump-s-attacks-on-the-gop-s-most-prominent-latina-susana-martinez-should-alarm-republicans/57447430981b92a22da97667/)
During a 65-minute speech in Albuquerque last night, Donald Trump laced into New Mexico Republican Gov. Susana Martinez. He blamed her for the state’s economic problems, for the growing number of food stamp recipients and for not doing more to reject Syrian refugees. The billionaire even mused about moving to the state to run for governor himself.

He attacked a Republican Governor(Red mine)

Hawkfeathers
25 May 2016, 06:43
He doesn't think about what he's saying. Word salad is the only thing on his menu, ever, wherever he is! What truly scares me at this point is not him but his followers. This is an incredible psycho-social insight into America, and I don't like the result so far.

anunitu
25 May 2016, 06:56
I worry that the crazy's are running the Asylum...and have been for a long time.

Denarius
25 May 2016, 09:15
He attacked a Republican Governor(Red mine)

He criticized an establishment Republican. It's also nothing new, he's been doing that all year. If he started toeing the line now, kowtowing to and brown-nosing Republicans he would lose every bit of respect I have for him. You make America great again by putting everyone to task, not through cronyism and favoritism.

It would go against everything his campaign has stood for, a fundamental betrayal of his voting base. Every bit as much as giving up on the Wall would be. That's the politician's way of doing things, and I didn't vote for a politician.

anunitu
25 May 2016, 09:36
It may be YOU will still vote for him,but really how many die hard Trump fans are there?

B. de Corbin
25 May 2016, 09:45
...It would go against everything his campaign has stood for, a fundamental betrayal of his voting base. Every bit as much as giving up on the Wall would be. That's the politician's way of doing things, and I didn't vote for a politician.

Like when he decided that a ban on Muslims and the deportation of Muslims was a mere "suggestion"?

Or the 6 million he claims to have raised an donated to veterans, but refuses to account for (maybe as a tax deduction, but he won't show his tax returns, despite every presidential candidate having done so since the 60s - in the name of government transparency, and to demonstrate at least a tiny degree of honesty).

anunitu
25 May 2016, 09:52
I do not understand Trump fans,do they really think Trump is Mr. Smith,and he is going to clean Washington up going against politicians that have been embedded there for generations?

Denarius
25 May 2016, 09:53
When did Trump say he would deport anyone other than an illegal immigrant?

anunitu
25 May 2016, 09:57
And I would also include Bernie backers..no such thing as Mr. Smith...A fictional movie.is not real life. I like Bernie,he has moved the agenda of other a little,but still windmills remain..

- - - Updated - - -

and respect the thread...no debates period!!!!!!If you have to debate,GET A ROOM!!!!!

B. de Corbin
25 May 2016, 10:18
Quietly waiting for Anunitu's name to turn a different color...

News reporting error:


(Corrects story to remove errant quote that suggested Trump would deport Muslims. When CNN asked Trump if he meant all 1.6 billion Muslims hated us, he replied “I mean a lot of them.") (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-11/trump-says-he-d-deport-a-lot-of-muslims)

That's one-of-three.

anunitu
25 May 2016, 10:45
On the color,not a chance in hell..I like my poor white trash image as is.

- - - Updated - - -

And so we go to sleep.

https://youtu.be/gBzJGckMYO4

MaskedOne
25 May 2016, 10:53
Quietly waiting for Anunitu's name to turn a different color...



It's been a relatively good day. I have other plans than finding a shade of pink that is both legible in all themes and impossible to confuse for admin red. Tomorrow maybe.

Anu, yelling at members is a staff role. In very limited conditions and on very rare occasions, we allow it to slide when non-staff infringe on this role. You are not currently within those conditions. If you make a habit of forgetting that you are not staff then eventually an admin will take steps to improve your memory.

anunitu
25 May 2016, 10:55
I just do not want to see this thread chopped again,I happen to like it.
If I am wrong,then so be it. Sorry if I offended anyone,not meant to I assure you.

MaskedOne
25 May 2016, 12:11
I just do not want to see this thread chopped again,I happen to like it.
If I am wrong,then so be it. Sorry if I offended anyone,not meant to I assure you.

There's no real crime in pointing out that staff are watching (we are) or in asking people not to conduct debates that will incur wrath of mod/admin. Just don't give explicit orders and generally avoid publicly predicting what we're going to do (there's a bit more leeway here depending on how accurate your predictions are and how you phrase them). Giving out marching orders is an open invitation to a fight that will eventually summon me and public predictions leave you looking silly if a responding mod disagrees with you.

NOTE TO EVERYONE ELSE:

Thal does have pretty stringent requirements for this thread's survival. Caution is always warranted. I'm not currently planning thread death here but if another staff member disagrees then I'm not planning to argue the point all that much.

anunitu
25 May 2016, 12:16
I am sorry Mask,truly I am. I know the reason it came to your attention so swiftly...That is in itself another matter concerning friendship. You did your job,and would have done it without any extra input.
My personal feelings are not a subject I wish to go into. Last line of my Sig explains everything.

B. de Corbin
26 May 2016, 02:08
Would love to see this:

Donald Trump Says He’ll Debate Bernie Sanders In California For Charity (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-debate_us_57467ec4e4b0dacf7ad3fc13)

Hopefully, Trump won't control the money so we'll see if it actually goes where it is said to go.

Hawkfeathers
26 May 2016, 06:55
I hear he has enough delegates now to definitely be the nominee? Angels and ministers of grace defend us.....

anunitu
26 May 2016, 21:39
This I really do not understand.

Hillary Clinton Wasn’t Adept at Using a Desktop for Email, Inquiry Is Told (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-email-inquiry.html?_r=0)

How is it harder to use a desktop to read email,than a Blackberry?

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 03:35
In class we are reading and analyzing Op-Ed articles. I try to find things which students have some interest in, and so I was working with two Op-Ed articles about Donald Trump -one for him, the other against him. I express no opinions - just look at how the writing works.

In analyzing one of them, I had to ask "Why do those who dislike Trump dislike him?"

The response I got from one student was pretty illuminating. He said "They don't like him because he is patriotic."

For those of you who don't like Trump - such as (full disclosure) myself - you are certainly aware that this has nothing to do with the reasons why Trump is reviled - in fact, it would be more correct to say that those who don't like Trump revile him because Trump is anti-American values.

But it is true that Trump has led many to believe that HE is the patriot, and it's "those others" who are anti-American values.

Here's a very good article explaining the solid reasoning behind the reasons why many people hate the man:

Fight Between Faith and Reason: Trump and the Consequences of Ignorance (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/fight-between-faith-and-r_b_10150250.html)


From the article:


Irrationality, scorn for the truth, contempt for science and the warm embrace of willful ignorance are all direct and disturbing contributors to climate change denial, the anti-evolution movement — and Donald Trump. The rise of Donald Trump as a national candidate and the denial of global warming are inevitable consequences of a political culture that embraces anti-intellectualism as a virtue. The Donald as a candidate could not exist without the suspension of reason. Trump and a political culture hostile to science are symptoms of the same malady, a society sick with extremism borne from faith-based reasoning in a population incapable of making rational choices. Faith in the absence of evidence, or continued faith when presented with conclusive contrary proof an idea has failed, is no basis for reasonable dialogue. When beliefs are divorced from reality and objective truth anything goes; we lose the ability to have any meaningful discourse to solve our very real problems. We get Donald Trump instead...

anunitu
27 May 2016, 05:01
I am truly amazed at times how the general public can be spin doctored to the max...At the moment Trump said he would debate Sanders if the stations would give a certain amount to a women health charity,and I imagine he believes this would erase all the negative words and actions that came before concerning women.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 05:37
I am truly amazed at times how the general public can be spin doctored to the max...At the moment Trump said he would debate Sanders if the stations would give a certain amount to a women health charity,and I imagine he believes this would erase all the negative words and actions that came before concerning women.

Tell people what they want to hear and they are sure to believe it, even if it is completely insane.

Denarius
27 May 2016, 11:04
I would have used the term Nationalist, myself, but that's a dirty word to some.

anunitu
27 May 2016, 11:11
Nationalist,would that be like isolationist or even in the vain of War monger kinda country...interesting term,and yes it might fit. Must ponder this.

Denarius
27 May 2016, 11:21
Isolationism is one of the extremes of the position, yes. Nationalism is the idea that the interests of the nation and its citizens take precedence over the concerns of foreign nations and their citizens. America first.

It also gets into national identity, which is usually defined either ethnically or culturally. In Trump's, and most American Nationalists', case that would be culturally.

Because some people, such as myself, believe that multiculturalism and globalism are new phenomena and do not represent traditional American values. That America is a melting pot, not a salad bowl.

anunitu
27 May 2016, 11:24
I myself would not want to wade in on the subject,because I believe it would just end up being he said/he said...with no resolution,just arguments.

Denarius
27 May 2016, 11:27
I was just answering your question, dude.

anunitu
27 May 2016, 11:36
Thing is it is VERY hard to "Prove" Ideologys

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 12:26
...Because some people, such as myself, believe that multiculturalism and globalism are new phenomena and do not represent traditional American values. That America is a melting pot, not a salad bowl.

That would lead to a very obvious question - what traditional American values?

Those of Detroit? Those of New York? Those of New Orleans? Those of China Town? Austin? San Francisco?

And when? 1776? 1863? 1900? 1968? 2015?

The phrase "traditional American values," when used as if to describe a thing in and of itself, represents a faulty understanding of the huge variety... and dynamic (constantly changing) nature... of American values.

Denarius
27 May 2016, 12:57
That would lead to a very obvious question - what traditional American values?

Those of Detroit? Those of New York? Those of New Orleans? Those of China Town? Austin? San Francisco?

And when? 1776? 1863? 1900?

Yes.


1968?


Debatable.


2015?

No.

Thomas Jefferson on the issue. (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1280.htm)

Hawkfeathers
27 May 2016, 13:00
That America is a melting pot, not a salad bowl.

More like a jar of mixed nuts, lately.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 13:37
Yes.



Debatable.



No.

Thomas Jefferson on the issue. (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1280.htm)

Where? And amongst whom? The rich? The middle class? The poor? The Bohemians?

The French imagrants? The Irish imagrants? The Italian imagrants? The Polish imagrants? Those who are 14 th generation Americans? Those who - at the times you arbitralily picked as representing "traditional" (if you think the "values" of 1776 and 1900 were the same, you ate mistaken) were naturalized citizens? Or their children?

And what is your rationale for picking THAT out of all the other possibilities available?

If "traditional" means "what has commonly been accepted for an extended period of time," your "salad bowl" metaphor is the most accurate description of "traditional American values." People have always come here for the purpose of living their lives as they see fit, not for the purpose of conforming to some specific outline of what they should be.

The idea that "traditional American values" means adapting to specific beliefs, behaviors, idiologies is actual highly radical, and in no way "traditional."

It would be less confusing if you called it what it is - a radical revision of what it means to ba an American.

That, itself, is one of the irrational lies that comes out of anti-intellectualism. There is no logic to it, there is no historical support, there are just people saying "this is so because other people agree with me."

Denarius
27 May 2016, 14:11
People have always come here for the purpose of living their lives as they see fit, not for the purpose of conforming to some specific outline of what they should be.

Which is exactly my point. When I say traditional American values, I mean traditional American values. Liberty, Democracy, Exceptionalism, Independence, Capitalism, the American Dream.

Not ghettos, segregation, and racial tension.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 14:50
Which is exactly my point. When I say traditional American values, I mean traditional American values. Liberty, Democracy, Exceptionalism, Independence, Capitalism, the American Dream.

Not ghettos, segregation, and racial tension.

There ARE no "traditional" American values. There ARE American values. The two things are very different... I can explain, if you like, but I feel like I am beginning to lecture, and I don't wanna do that, unless you'd like me to...

Denarius
27 May 2016, 15:12
There ARE no "traditional" American values. There ARE American values.

I am specifically defining them in opposition of contemporary international values like globalism and multiculturalism. That's why I stressed traditional and American, as I don't seem them as that.

ThePaganMafia
27 May 2016, 16:18
American exceptionalism has always been a myth. Exceptional in imperialism, maybe. Ghettos, segregation, and racial tension have been American "values" since it's inception. We built an economy on slaves.

This "values" nonsense is simply nonsense. We talk about about these abstract values but I have seen little of them practice. We preach values in place of our ignorance of how this country is operated.

But, you're right this country was built on traditional values. Traditional white, European Imperialist values.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 16:29
I am specifically defining them in opposition of contemporary international values like globalism and multiculturalism. That's why I stressed traditional and American, as I don't seem them as that.

For clarity, don't call them "traditional American values," which implies a long history of common acceptance - they don't have it. Call them instead "the values I, an American, have," which is accurate.

If you want to talk about American values, those would be the values on which America was founded - despite the fact that they have never been commonly accepted, they have never been fully realized, and through American history they have been selectively used by one group while being denied to another. However, they are the values on which this country was founded, ergo: they are The American Values. You can find them clearly enunciated in The Declaration of Independance.

They are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

When I was still able to call myself a "conservative," these are the conservative values I held in highest regard.

I can no longer call myself a conservative because the term has been twisted out of all recognition - it has, in fact, come to mean "radical extremist" - one who claims to be returning this country to a previous state which never existed, and has been constructed out of fancy, completely rejecting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the highest Of American values.

This position, as uncomfortable as some might find it, is both historically accurate, and logically consistent.

Denarius
27 May 2016, 16:30
American exceptionalism has always been a myth. Exceptional in imperialism, maybe. Ghettos, segregation, and racial tension have been American "values" since it's inception. We built an economy on slaves.

If you hate everything America stands for, why do you live here? I'm assuming because you actually know that it is a great place to live. Largely because of the things I stated. You also realize that the problems you pointed out are human problems, that you find everywhere.

Every country has skeletons in their closet.

I have spent my whole life on a reservation, when I talk about integration and ghettos that is coming from personal experience. I live it every day.

edit:

I am not a conservative. I'm an Alt Right libertarian. I also see just as much a problem with progressive extremism. Extremism is not a partisan issue, or even an ideological issue, it's a human issue.

ThePaganMafia
27 May 2016, 16:48
That ol' "like it or leave" logic. I'm from Alabama. I've heard it all before. Members of my family marched in Selma. You can't say these issues don't exist and call progress extremism because people fight back when they have nothing.

Economic segregation most certainly still exists. I went to an all white school. Across town it was all black. We can call it different names and blame personal responsibility for economic injustice but it's segregtion all the same. The issues haven't changed. You may be able to conviently ignore these problems and blame a ficticious progressive extremism.

Suddenly, when it comes to equality the value of American exceptionalism means nothing to you. Strange.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 17:04
"Liberty" indicates that even those who hate America, and all things American, can still be Americans. They have every right to hate whatever they want, and to voice that hatred in an appropriate manner.

Denarius
27 May 2016, 17:22
Suddenly, when it comes to equality the value of American exceptionalism means nothing to you. Strange.


I don't even know what you are trying to say. Did you even read anything I posted? I am against segregation, against ghettos, against dividing ourselves. We are all Americans, all human beings. Black, white, hispanic, native.

We all deserve the same rights, the same opportunities. Not even that, we are all owed those things.



You may be able to conviently ignore these problems and blame a ficticious progressive extremism.


Did you see that article I posted the other day (http://www.paganforum.com/showthread.php?12164-University-speaking-event-silenced-by-violent-protest) about the college? That wasn't right wing extremism.

Anyone who says that their ideology cannot be extreme is, in my opinion, invariably an extremist.


"Liberty" indicates that even those who hate America, and all things American, can still be Americans. They have every right to hate whatever they want, and to voice that hatred in an appropriate manner.

Absolutely. I didn't say deport him, I didn't say silence him. I didn't even disagree with him.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 17:25
Nothing to say. All done.

Hawkfeathers
27 May 2016, 18:08
I'm concerned about the whole Clinton email situation playing into Trump's hands.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 18:13
I'm concerned about the whole Clinton email situation playing into Trump's hands.

As long as it isn't clear that the Bushes did the same thing. I think Thalassa posted about this earlier, but the upshot is - it isn't something that only H. Clinton did, however, in the political arena, only what you are told is real, what has actually happened is fantasy.

Freaky, but true.

ThePaganMafia
27 May 2016, 18:18
It's an absolute farce to consider me hating America because I bring up that America behaves very differently from it's supposed values.

Denarius
27 May 2016, 18:19
I honestly believe that Bernie would stand a better chance than Hillary in the general election. It's actually bad for Trump if Hillary crashes and burns before then.

Let's see if the fracking thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czYO8wmjtGA) gains enough traction to give Bernie the advantage in Cali.

B. de Corbin
27 May 2016, 18:55
It's an absolute farce to consider me hating America because I bring up that America behaves very differently from it's supposed values.

IMHO - as I, personally, see things.. Those who love the country are the ones who point out the problems. Rooselvelt tried to insult them by calling them "muckrakers," but they led to the pure food & drug legislation, the anti-child labor statutes, the rise of minority rights, and pretty much everything else that we regard as "propper and ethical" today.

Those who don't give a shit about anything but their bank account want those problems hidden.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, let's see...

The Trump/Sanders charity debate for women's heath issues will NOT be taking place, because Mr. Trump considers it below his dignity level to engage in a debate - for charity - with a second-stringer:

Donald Trump Won’t Debate ‘Second Place Finisher’ Bernie Sanders (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate_us_5748ab1ae4b0dacf7ad4ed53)

Trump is such a man, such a manly man, such a man of dignity and power! Elect D. Trump so a manly man can rule where sissy boys and palace eunuchs once ruled...

anunitu
27 May 2016, 19:36
Bernie was on Bill Maher and it was great...and no near riots because he was there..in California..!!

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure the video will play.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-bernie-sanders-and-bill-maher-talk-about-the-canceled-trump-debate-and-more/#ooid=Vib2VzMzE6vR05OwKI3zg1ymjWPciWeH

ThePaganMafia
28 May 2016, 07:18
I was at the Vermont Socialists weekly meeting and we had a very interesting discussion about the post Bernie movement. There seems to be a lot of denialism of the fact yhat Bernie has effectively lost the election among the base. Denial of reality is an unfortunate consequence of populist movement at times. Well, maybe just an unfortunate human condition.

Anyways, I think the post Bernie movement is more important than election at this point. There was also interesting debate about whether Bernie ia the canidate for the Socialist movement has he is a more of a New Deal capitalist than a true Socialist.

anunitu
28 May 2016, 07:33
If nothing else,he has moved other politicians towards what I see as better positions..he has also gained some concessions from the DNC. I think he has pointed out to Clinton that the "People" are concerned with more than she seemed to understand.

Hawkfeathers
28 May 2016, 10:36
As long as it isn't clear that the Bushes did the same thing. I think Thalassa posted about this earlier, but the upshot is - it isn't something that only H. Clinton did, however, in the political arena, only what you are told is real, what has actually happened is fantasy.

Freaky, but true.

And it only counts if it just happened. People forget very quickly! As for facts vs. media hype, I think we're doomed.

anunitu
28 May 2016, 15:22
Trump is insane,and that is not just my opinion.

Donald Trump Tells Drought-Plagued Californians: ‘There Is No Drought’

“If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water.”


Story here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-water-california_us_574910e0e4b03ede4414f435)

I really think he believes he can just poof things away like climate change.

Video below.

https://youtu.be/KPe-WY2eghY

- - - Updated - - -

And what is with the "creedance"?

- - - Updated - - -

The Colorado river that supply's Vegas and LA is down about 60 percent from it former flow. At some point California may be cut off from the Colorado water source.

Story here on the Colorado river. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-colorado-river-runs-dry-61427169/?no-ist)

- - - Updated - - -

Then, beginning in the 1920s, Western states began divvying up the Colorado’s water, building dams and diverting the flow hundreds of miles, to Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix and other fast-growing cities. The river now serves 30 million people in seven U.S. states and Mexico, with 70 percent or more of its water siphoned off to irrigate 3.5 million acres of cropland.

The damming and diverting of the Colorado, the nation’s seventh-longest river, may be seen by some as a triumph of engineering and by others as a crime against nature, but there are ominous new twists. The river has been running especially low for the past decade, as drought has gripped the Southwest. It still tumbles through the Grand Canyon, much to the delight of rafters and other visitors. And boaters still roar across Nevada and Arizona’s Lake Mead, 110 miles long and formed by the Hoover Dam. But at the lake’s edge they can see lines in the rock walls, distinct as bathtub rings, showing the water level far lower than it once was—some 130 feet lower, as it happens, since 2000. Water resource officials say some of the reservoirs fed by the river will never be full again.

Hawkfeathers
28 May 2016, 16:24
Too bad he's openly anti-alcohol; otherwise he'd say "No water? Let them drink champagne!"

Oh, and Bob Dole thinks he should pick Newt Gingrich as his VP. Now there's a thought.

anunitu
28 May 2016, 16:36
Someone say this to trump.

Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

ThePaganMafia
28 May 2016, 16:54
In the case of California water, he is not entirely wrong.

http://laist.com/2016/05/28/donald_trump_says_there_is_no_droug.php

thalassa
28 May 2016, 17:00
the problem with not being entirely wrong is that you also aren't entirely right...

anunitu
28 May 2016, 17:06
If you ever watched "China town" with Jack Nicholson is about those water rights kinda.
Plot kinda.

JJ 'Jake' Gittes is a private detective who seems to specialize in matrimonial cases. He is hired by Evelyn Mulwray when she suspects her husband Hollis, builder of the city's water supply system, of having an affair. Gittes does what he does best and photographs him with a young girl but in the ensuing scandal, it seems he was hired by an impersonator and not the real Mrs. Mulwray. When Mr. Mulwray is found dead, Jake is plunged into a complex web of deceit involving murder, incest and municipal corruption all related to the city's water supply.

Movie site here. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/?ref_=tt_cl_t1)

- - - Updated - - -

The California water rights thing is VERY convoluted. Northern and Southern California have been fighting over water for a LONG time.

ThePaganMafia
28 May 2016, 17:32
the problem with not being entirely wrong is that you also aren't entirely right...

I would have you know that no one has better facts than Donald Trump. He has the best facts. The biggest facts!

Medusa
28 May 2016, 21:13
Not ghettos, segregation, and racial tension.

Lol. Give me a time in America that this wasn't a norm. I'll wait over here with the cobwebs and read my Death takes a vacation weekly. Take your time.

B. de Corbin
28 May 2016, 22:07
Too bad he's openly anti-alcohol; otherwise he'd say "No water? Let them drink champagne!"

He's openly anti-alcohol? Was that sarcasm, or something I missed? It would follow his openly anti-logical position to be anti-alcohol while trying to hawk vodka at the same time.

But anti-logical isn't the same as a flat out lie:

Trump Supports Cutting Social Security From A ‘Moral Standpoint:’ Report: The presumptive GOP presidential nominee has been saying the opposite on the campaign trail. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-supports-cutting-social-security-report-says_us_5749db63e4b0dacf7ad515e4)



“It is really clear: Donald Trump would 100 percent go along with the Republican donor class position of cutting Social Security,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, a group that promotes benefits expansion. “He openly says he will lie to the people about it because he knows that the people are against it.”

“In his eyes the ‘moral’ thing to do is to steal people’s hard-earned benefits and not talk about it,” Lawson added.

Denarius
28 May 2016, 22:35
He's openly anti-alcohol?

Trump is teetotal, his brother died of alcoholism. He's stated stuff to the effect of states deciding on drugs, and the drug war being stupid.

anunitu
29 May 2016, 01:04
Wondering if you are Muslim(and I have seen this) how can you run a booze store..??The whole world seems to be a big bag of contradictions Christians anti abortion but pro death penalty(where did "ALL life is sacred" go)

- - - Updated - - -

Republicans: personal and States rights,EXCEPT when we want to make you follow our views....My head hurts from all the double standards...

Hawkfeathers
29 May 2016, 03:58
Trump is teetotal, his brother died of alcoholism. He's stated stuff to the effect of states deciding on drugs, and the drug war being stupid.

Yes, he's made a big deal of saying he's never had a drink, and that he raised his kids not to drink or smoke. I haven't heard him say anything about the general public and alcohol, but I will extrapolate due to his general bluster that he'd have no problem charging exorbitant taxes on such things, if it was in his power.

Denarius
29 May 2016, 10:35
but I will extrapolate due to his general bluster that he'd have no problem charging exorbitant taxes on such things, if it was in his power.

Despite what the media says, Trump's rhetoric is Populist and not Authoritarian. He's not really the moral panic, think of the children type. That's actually one of the major conservative sticking points when it comes to Trump, he doesn't really give lip service to family values.

He tends to focus on crime and the economy. A lot of jobs in booze, and blue collars love it. Trump, if absolutely nothing else, knows his audience. I don't see him doing anything too drastic on that issue, or anything at all if he is angling for reelection.

Hawkfeathers
29 May 2016, 11:23
Despite what the media says, Trump's rhetoric is Populist and not Authoritarian. He's not really the moral panic, think of the children type. That's actually one of the major conservative sticking points when it comes to Trump, he doesn't really give lip service to family values.

He tends to focus on crime and the economy. A lot of jobs in booze, and blue collars love it. Trump, if absolutely nothing else, knows his audience. I don't see him doing anything too drastic on that issue, or anything at all if he is angling for reelection.

He thinks people with "habits" are "weak", and anyone he thinks is weak or a loser is his #1 target. The only family he cares about is his own.

anunitu
30 May 2016, 01:20
If Trump becomes POTUS,it will be because the people of the US are all brain dead from talking on Cell phones and watching way to much reality shows.

Denarius
30 May 2016, 10:33
If you want to know why Trump is really going to be elected, it's because of disenfranchised and disrespected blue collar workers. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/) Not middle class millennials and women, who are the primary over-users of cell phones, they're largely voting for Hillary or Bernie.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/128/427/c45.jpg

Red Skull sums up the Zeitgeist better than anyone.

Hawkfeathers
30 May 2016, 11:04
Do you mean middle class women as one subset, and male & female millennials (combined) as another?

Denarius
30 May 2016, 11:17
Do you mean middle class women as one subset, and male & female millennials (combined) as another?

Yeah (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563214007626), also excluding children as they are not voters.

anunitu
30 May 2016, 12:24
So trump is red skull? What gave him away...its the hair isn't it...

anunitu
31 May 2016, 11:47
The election is starting to turn VERY crazy. (http://www.salon.com/2016/05/31/glenn_beck_suspended_from_radio_show_for_advocatin g_harm_to_donald_trump/)

From the link.
Glenn Beck suspended from radio show for “advocating harm” to Donald Trump

B. de Corbin
02 Jun 2016, 01:34
Third party candidate enters the big race, backed by G. del Toro -

Cthulhu For President?: Now, you don’t have to settle for the lesser evil. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cthulhu-for-president_us_574fba9ee4b0ed593f134933)

anunitu
02 Jun 2016, 02:10
AND,they already have a campaign Poster. But who to be VP???? Ponders and ponders...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj4fwmaUoAEukpJ.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

The question is,is he More evil that Trump...ya know Trump is better,and taller and faster and uglier and THAT hair might be tentacles....perhaps The BIG CTHbowski might choose Trump for its VP. The dude abides...

B. de Corbin
02 Jun 2016, 02:11
Prolly Shub-Niggurath, The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young, in order to bring in the minority vote.

anunitu
02 Jun 2016, 02:13
Yes...wringing hands...Yes that might be possible..
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mr_burns.jpg

Hawkfeathers
02 Jun 2016, 03:37
People are getting pretty creative with these things!

4846

B. de Corbin
02 Jun 2016, 03:53
People are getting pretty creative with these things!

4846

OH MY GOB! That is so disgustingly hilarious!

(I hope I don't get in trouble for this, but What the hell! I'll prolly be deported soon anyway...)

My contribution:

4847

Norse_Angel
02 Jun 2016, 05:37
In talking to many a deal of people who are voting for trump, the resounding reasoning was that they wanted a revolution. I would respectfully ask them if they liked the ideologies of Bernie Sanders, and the majority agreed they did, but that he wouldn't be able to change anything; congress would shoot him down left and right. So I asked them what they meant by revolution, and what they explained accurately defined a coup.

If Trump was to dismantle the government, it would give the people a chance to rise up and take back the country. I feel this election may bring on a civil war of the people vs government. When Trump attempts to do something outrageous, the people will respond. If he was to make the wrong move militarily, the whole US Armed Forces could tell him no, thus losing his power as commander and chief. There would be major protests by all those who supported other candidates from both parties. We could see large riots ensue in major cities.

I am waiting to see how it all plays out, but I love the idea of a New America led by the people.

B. de Corbin
02 Jun 2016, 05:55
I would prefer a bloodless revolution, achieved through the use of the political machinery that is already in place, should people chose to use it. Until they do, a bloody revolution will just bring death, suffering, and the same old same old.

The fantasy that another civil war would be good for this country is adolescent and ignorant of history, and better discouraged than encouraged.

"The people" will never end up leading anything via revolution - "the people" is code for a powerful dictator who claims to be doing the best for actual people. It's always "the people's army," or "the people's revolution," or "the people's this and that." Better to call it what it is - "The People's Abuse," based on "The People's Willingness to Act Out of Ignorance of History."

anunitu
02 Jun 2016, 08:57
In the seventies "everyone" was saying "come the revolution" a lot,and the Weathermen blew stuff up,the SLA robbed banks with Patty Hurst,and the SDS screamed about stuff,and might have burned some things,BUT they all ended up dead or in jail...and then everyone became self revolutionary and became yuppies.

They did the whole "revolution" thing down on South America,and it never seemed to work as planned...Venezuela anyone????

Just saying,revolution seems not to be the real solution....I am again it...

Hawkfeathers
02 Jun 2016, 09:32
In the seventies "everyone" was saying "come the revolution" a lot,and the Weathermen blew stuff up,the SLA robbed banks with Patty Hurst,and the SDS screamed about stuff,and might have burned some things,BUT they all ended up dead or in jail...and then everyone became self revolutionary and became yuppies.

They did the whole "revolution" thing down on South America,and it never seemed to work as planned...Venezuela anyone????

Just saying,revolution seems not to be the real solution....I am again it...

There was a girl at my college who looked like Patty Hearst. She would go up to strangers at the mall and say 'Help me, I'm Patty Hearst." OMG I'd forgotten all about that! Good times!!

Denarius
02 Jun 2016, 10:59
In talking to many a deal of people who are voting for trump, the resounding reasoning was that they wanted a revolution. ... So I asked them what they meant by revolution, and what they explained accurately defined a coup.

The people I've talked to mostly described it in anti-establishment terms. The word "cuckservative" was oft thrown around. The upheaval was of the GOP, not the government. Described more as shaking up the status quo, letting the American people's voices be heard louder than transnational interest groups.

Trump doesn't have to do anything, just by entering office he'd prove our point. That special interest groups, party insiders, the media, and the GOP old guard don't decide elections. The people do.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/01/milo_yiannopoulos_trump_represents_the_best_hope_w e_have_to_smash_political_correctness.html


I would respectfully ask them if they liked the ideologies of Bernie Sanders, and the majority agreed they did, but that he wouldn't be able to change anything; congress would shoot him down left and right.

I despise Bernie's ideologies. Social justice, socialism. I see those things as dangerous, cancerous even. I respect that he's not owned by corporations and special interest groups, that he's shaking things up in his own way. In a slightly different election, no Hillary to oppose or Trump to support, I'd probably vote for him. I've said as much before.

Those ideologies are everywhere as is, I don't see a term of Bernie being that bad on that front. He's not too radical on either, and even if he was that'd just show the people what I'm talking about. So I see him as relatively harmless, and decidedly anti-establishment.


If Trump was to dismantle the government, it would give the people a chance to rise up and take back the country.

That's the thing though... Trump's platform is Populist and Nationalist, not Anarchist. He doesn't talk about tearing down, he talks about building up. Not about dividing, but uniting.

ThePaganMafia
02 Jun 2016, 11:18
Bernie is not radical enough. He still bases his policies on capitalist systems. His only real quality is that he has been able to unite the working class and bring the word socialism into the mainstream despite everyone being entirely ignorant of what Socialism actually is.

anunitu
02 Jun 2016, 11:33
I am thinking that those who kind of follow the conservative band wagon think we should go back to full blown Capitalism all caps,the kind that threw old ladies out in the snow,and were based on the idea if you could get away with it,and make lots of MONEY,no moral connection would ever cross your mind. There was a reason they passed laws against Morally bankrupt movers and shakers,and set a rule,NO Monopoly,or corruption by the moneyed class of the Government using vast wealth to get their way in controlling laws and judges and everything else they could.

Hawkfeathers
02 Jun 2016, 11:44
The "no monopoly" thing didn't work out too well. Sure, now there are a bunch of phone companies and tv/internet providers, health insurance plans, electric/gas companies, etc. But we have no choice who to get some of these things from. It's all little local monopolies now - same effect.

Ms. Clinton just gave a rockin' speech! Very well-written and executed.

anunitu
02 Jun 2016, 11:49
Also a lot of laws were put in place after the depression to keep it from happening again,but most have been over turned by wall streets need to not be regulated,the one thing that allowed the Depression to come about.

Denarius
02 Jun 2016, 11:52
most have been over turned by wall streets need to not be regulated,the one thing that allowed the Depression to come about.

Which is exactly why we need to get rid of money in politics. Corporations and special interest groups shouldn't have unfettered influence over how our country is run.

ThePaganMafia
02 Jun 2016, 11:52
I am voting third party for Jill Stein as I only registered Democrat to vote for Bernie. Hillary Clinton is a horrible politician, a horrible leader, a U.S. imperialist, and a war hawk. She is a disaster for this country. I would prefer a Trump presidency as it will embolden the far Left. Hillary Clinton only placates the Liberals and pushes this country further Right.

anunitu
02 Jun 2016, 12:00
I would say in my opinion we are truthfully all ready ruled by corporate interests anyway. The whole election and Government are in the pocket of the 1% and have been for a long time.

- - - Updated - - -

Though we might think we are headed toward a "1984" future,in reality we are already there,we just never noticed,like the frog in the pan of slowly boiling water...our goose is already cooked..:rolleyes:

ThePaganMafia
02 Jun 2016, 21:46
And that's why a united workers party is more important today than it ever has been.

Denarius
02 Jun 2016, 22:42
Right, because crony communism is so preferable to crony capitalism.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 00:57
Better a capitalist/socialist mix,not to severe capitalist,not to severe socialism...a compromise if you will.

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 01:33
Better a capitalist/socialist mix,not to severe capitalist,not to severe socialism...a compromise if you will.

As I have pointed out, and I think ThePaganMafia alluded to, any compromise between capitalism and socialism just brings about the worst of both worlds. Doing so hamstrings one or both, by necessity, because they are fundamentally mutually exclusive.

B. de Corbin
03 Jun 2016, 01:38
As I have pointed out, and I think ThePaganMafia alluded to, any compromise between capitalism and socialism just brings about the worst of both worlds. Doing so hamstrings one or both, by necessity, because they are fundamentally mutually exclusive.

I assume that you can prove this by pointing out how the ecomony of the Nordic countries has been ruined by this mix?

Or are you stating theory, which is, in fact, counter to real-world evidence, as if it were fact?

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 01:43
We have a social part of our current Government now,social security and Medicare,plus disability. So,the idea is nothing new..even many worker benefits might be considered socialist in nature. Helping those in need is not anti capitalist,and least not the capitalist system we now have. There is such a thing as capitalism run amok,where there are no controls on negative behavior,and where rules and regulations are not in place.


Think about this,there is a reason the idea of messing with Social security is called messing with the third rail,people like it and Want it to remain intact. Trying to do things to it,could kill your political life.

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 01:49
I didn't say they can't be successful. I mean look at China. I said that the mix brings out the worst of both, and that one or both aspects are hamstrung. I mean look at China. I've brought up plenty of evidence of that in that hospital thread that was nixed a while back.


There is such a thing as capitalism run amok,where there are no controls on negative behavior,and where rules and regulations are not in place.

Wherein businesses act in an anti-capitalist manner by subverting the free market.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 01:52
People pay a lot of taxes,and people expect those taxes to cover their needs when those needs arise.

B. de Corbin
03 Jun 2016, 01:52
I call BS. If it brings out the worst of both, it must lead to bad. Your Trumpian revision of clear statements is disturbing.

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 01:56
If it brings out the worst of both, it must lead to bad.

It does. I still have some of those links saved somewhere if you want me to throw you a DM.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 01:58
It truly amazes me when people say compromise by the left and right can not work. It has worked in the past,and the problem these days is an inability to see the long term good of compromise,the ability to imagine the long game.

B. de Corbin
03 Jun 2016, 02:02
It does. I still have some of those links saved somewhere if you want me to throw you a DM.

I don't care to read more BS. Let's ask an eye witness - consult a primary source...

Iris?

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 02:04
The problem these days is politicians only see what is in it for themselves,they fail to remember just why they were elected in the first place,to serve the peoples needs,as a servant of said people. They follow their own private agenda,and forget their true duty. By the people,for the people always rings true,and that is what our country is all about.

iris
03 Jun 2016, 02:06
I admit I haven't read the past 19 pages. So I'm just gonna jump in and react to what I have read, sorry if I'm repeating someone else. But living in a place that does essentially run a mix of socialism and capitalism, I'd say it's very possible. Because the world is not ideal, one specific ideology rarely works perfectly. They both make of for some of what the others lack in regards to working in the real world... but that's just how I see it.

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 02:08
It has worked in the past,and the problem these days is an inability to see the long term good of compromise,the ability to imagine the long game.

Exactly, there are plenty of issues that can be helped with bipartisanship. I've gone more into partisan hostility in my blogpost.

B. de Corbin
03 Jun 2016, 02:15
I admit I haven't read the past 19 pages. So I'm just gonna jump in and react to what I have read, sorry if I'm repeating someone else. But living in a place that does essentially run a mix of socialism and capitalism, I'd say it's very possible. Because the world is not ideal, one specific ideology rarely works perfectly. They both make of for some of what the others lack in regards to working in the real world... but that's just how I see it.

Thanks for your input.

(Sorry for putting you on the spot :D, but discussions need a base IN reality, or they are time wasters)

iris
03 Jun 2016, 02:17
Thanks for your input.

(Sorry for putting you on the spot :D, but discussions need a base IN reality, or they are time wasters)

You didn'tput me on the spot :p I was already writing that when you called on me.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 02:33
If we want a bright future,then we need to open the doors and windows of our civility and imagine as John Lennon did.


https://youtu.be/XLgYAHHkPFs

Perhaps we need a lot more dreamers to find our path to a brighter future.

- - - Updated - - -

And this video because I am dreaming of when I lived in California.

https://youtu.be/N-aK6JnyFmk

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 02:47
Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee, WSJ. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898)

The gist of it is that if Bernie wins California, and has a strong showing afteward, then there's an opening to deny Hillary the nomination and for Biden to throw his hat in.

B. de Corbin
03 Jun 2016, 03:28
Perhaps we need a lot more dreamers to find our path to a brighter future.

We need the kind of dreamers who say "What if?" and then conduct an experiment and honestly evaluate the results - Scientist-Dreamers.

The other kind of dreamer - the ones who say "This is real!" but never test it, never honestly evaluate real evidence, never carefully consider the other side, never conduct an experiment that might disprove a thesis, vilify all who disagree with them - these, the Dreamer-Fantasists, are the banes of all existence, and a blight upon the land.

Hawkfeathers
03 Jun 2016, 04:39
Part of why Social Security is the 3rd rail is that it's the only clear-cut case of getting something directly back to you from your taxes. We pay school taxes - so a kid becomes a Dr. and we can't afford to go to her, or drops out of school and has kids and needs welfare, etc. People in general feel they aren't getting much bang for their buck. But with SS you get a check. It's a straight-line reward system.

Combining social ideologies is a nice concept, but the human animal has proven time & time again to be greed-based and therein lies the problem with all systems.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 06:17
I was talking about the first kind of dreamers B. De.,those are the ones that built our society,and created our constitution,believing all men(humans) are equal,and should have life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness. Do I hear an amen!!!!?

B. de Corbin
03 Jun 2016, 07:26
Amen, brothers and sisters! Amen!

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 08:13
Cranks up the holy rollers and mows down the unbelievers....Wipes forehead from the sweat.....

http://davidmixner.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c90b153ef015392cd1dd8970b-pi

ThePaganMafia
03 Jun 2016, 08:37
Right, because crony communism is so preferable to crony capitalism.

You got that right. Worker controlled production is the future. The rich must be eaten.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 09:36
With some fava beans and a nice chianti....

https://youtu.be/iVlkZVAw8Gc

Who loves your liver baby...

- - - Updated - - -

I really do not understand the violent reaction concerning Trump,yes trump is a stupid guy running for a job WAY over his pay grade,and yes he says stupid things,BUT that can never condone the type of violence happening around him. I do not like the guy,but this is not how we are supposed to react,protest sure,but peaceful protest!

B. de Corbin
03 Jun 2016, 10:45
I really do not understand the violent reaction concerning Trump,yes trump is a stupid guy running for a job WAY over his pay grade,and yes he says stupid things,BUT that can never condone the type of violence happening around him. I do not like the guy,but this is not how we are supposed to react,protest sure,but peaceful protest!

The really sad thing is that it isn't just Trump or Trump supporters. It seems to be taking place in far too many situations. It seems like what used to be called "bad behavior" is now "regular behavior," and there isn't "bad behavior" unless you kill a puppy (on TV).

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 11:23
It's getting nasty. Real nasty. (https://twitter.com/LogCabinGOP/status/738811229377056773)

Hawkfeathers
03 Jun 2016, 11:45
The really sad thing is that it isn't just Trump or Trump supporters. It seems to be taking place in far too many situations. It seems like what used to be called "bad behavior" is now "regular behavior," and there isn't "bad behavior" unless you kill a puppy (on TV).

Yes. It starts in the home. I hear things that outright shock me because they are so contrary to how I was raised. (Kid says they want a certain thing for dinner, mom makes that , then kid takes something different from dad's plate and eats it instead, and this is all good. I would have been made to stand by my choice.) Those little everyday things add up and you get people with less respect, less ability to commit to and understand the ramifications of, decisions, etc. I'm not saying parents should be dictators or be mean to kids, but there are so many opportunities to gain valuable life lessons that are lost. The depreciation of honor and respect shows in general public attitude, and is reflected in some leadership candidates as well. As above, so below, and all that.

ThePaganMafia
03 Jun 2016, 11:55
Actually, when you have a large, economically undeserved population and a Presidential candidate is openly hostile to said economically undeserved group you have a recipe for violent clashes that has nothing to do with whatever acceptable behavior is.

But, what's really amazing how the older generation, like my father or grandmother how I hear things that outright shock me like how things were better in colored neighborhoods or referring to black people as negro or nigger, all quite openly. I was most definitely not raised like that. We really need to do something about that older generation and their 1950's values.

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 12:33
Actually, when you have a large, economically undeserved population and a Presidential candidate is openly hostile to said economically undeserved group you have a recipe for violent clashes that has nothing to do with whatever acceptable behavior is.

I assume that you mean undeRserved. Otherwise I assume you are saying that Trump protesters are people who didn't earn their money. Which is something that I would say, semi-facetiously, but is uncharacteristic of you.

Also, Trump's voting base is largely disenfranchised (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/) blue collar workers (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-rides-a-blue-collar-wave-1447803248) so the candidate you mention can't possibly be Trump.

Hawkfeathers
03 Jun 2016, 12:49
Actually, when you have a large, economically undeserved population and a Presidential candidate is openly hostile to said economically undeserved group you have a recipe for violent clashes that has nothing to do with whatever acceptable behavior is.

But, what's really amazing how the older generation, like my father or grandmother how I hear things that outright shock me like how things were better in colored neighborhoods or referring to black people as negro or nigger, all quite openly. I was most definitely not raised like that. We really need to do something about that older generation and their 1950's values.

I hear plenty of racism from teenagers/young adults, too. It's sad how that stuff continues on. It shocked me as a child to be a racial target, too, since it isn't something I would ever have thought of! Now, the word "negro" was acceptable/preferred when I was a kid, and there have been several changes since then. I also remember hearing "cracker" but not so much "honky".

thalassa
03 Jun 2016, 13:11
Trump supporters aren't disenfranchised, they are (at best) disenchanted and (more often in my observational experience) ignorant. And by ignorant, I don't mean they are stupid, but poorly educated. Also generally overly religious, but not necessarily church-going, and often nationalistic to the brink of jingoism. And that is without taking account of the coded language about women and minorities.

Hawkfeathers
03 Jun 2016, 13:16
Who loves your liver baby...



And I'M the one with the strange mind? :lol:

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 13:35
Trump supporters aren't disenfranchised,

Right. Their jobs were outsourced overseas because they were ignorant and poorly educated, and not because of corporate interest. It's not like corporate exploitation (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/28/zucked-silicon-valley-scared-death-trump-part-1/) of migrant workers (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/08/most-net-job-gains-went-to-immigrants-since-recession/) has negatively affected the working class. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/08/most-net-job-gains-went-to-immigrants-since-recession/) They're just racist and ignorant.

thalassa
03 Jun 2016, 13:40
Right. Their jobs were outsourced overseas because they were ignorant and poorly educated, and not because of corporate interest. It's not like corporate exploitation (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/28/zucked-silicon-valley-scared-death-trump-part-1/) of migrant workers (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/08/most-net-job-gains-went-to-immigrants-since-recession/) has negatively affected the working class. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/08/most-net-job-gains-went-to-immigrants-since-recession/) They're just racist and ignorant.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 13:48
To deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity

Exactly. Corporate interests have hijacked the GOP, undermining workers' rights and making their votes worthless.

The adjective disenfranchised describes a person or group of people who are stripped of their power. (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/disenfranchised)

thalassa
03 Jun 2016, 13:57
Exactly. Corporate interests have hijacked the GOP, undermining workers' rights and making their votes worthless.

The adjective disenfranchised describes a person or group of people who are stripped of their power. (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/disenfranchised)

That's their own fault for voting for them.

At least they can vote..unlike work, voting is an enumerated actual right, Constitution-wise (and what disenfranchised generally refers to historically*). They created this for themselves...they re the ones that supported deregulation, union busting, etc. Don't complain that your jobs moved to China when you bought half the stuff in your home there. Middle and lower class Americans sent jobs overseas from their consumptive habits far before trade agreements did. And the guy they are supporting rode that pony to town and back.

Besides, many of these are the same people that DON'T think working is a right and that people with cruddy jobs should go get a better one since they grow on trees. By their own logic, it's their own fault.

*you aren't disenfranchised because you have a smaller share of the voting population because voting rights have been expanded...no matter what some people like to think

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 14:05
they re the ones that supported deregulation, union busting, etc.

No they're not. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/how_the_gop_is_losing_its_grip_on_working_class_re publicans.html

thalassa
03 Jun 2016, 14:09
If they voted Republican, they absolutely did. http://web.utk.edu/~nkelly/papers/inequality/Keller_Kelly_Preprint.pdf

ThePaganMafia
03 Jun 2016, 14:11
Interesting, then, that they now support a candidate who is considerably anti-Union and anti-regulation.

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 14:19
You don't need to tell me that the Republican party is full of corporatists who don't actually represent the interests of workers. That's what my link was about. That's the point.


considerably anti-Union

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/8/donald-trump-i-have-tremendous-support-within-unio/
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/8/donald-trump-i-have-tremendous-support-within-unio/)


and anti-regulation

That is especially ridiculous. http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Free_Trade.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Free_Trade.htm)

thalassa
03 Jun 2016, 15:13
First of all, free trade isn't free of regulation, closed trade can have less necessity for regulations plural (through the breadth of them is often more sweeping), and regulations exist for far more than trade, period.

Also, my grandma didn't lose her job because it went to China and Mexico, she lost it because people wanted cheap, disposable goods (made by nigh slave labor) over higher quality American-made goods (made by men and women paid a living wage, thanks to unions and worker protections). Also because American bought into the racket of the stock market in unprecedented numbers (which is really just legalized gambling over corporate reputation and worth these days, and not actually an investment in corporate ownership).

Hawkfeathers
03 Jun 2016, 15:35
Also because American bought into the racket of the stock market in unprecedented numbers (which is really just legalized gambling over corporate reputation and worth these days, and not actually an investment in corporate ownership).

Companies didn't want their employees owning anything, and the 401K took over what used to be profit-sharing and company-paid pensions. In a lot of cases, they offered "matching contributions" but that portion was still less than a traditional pension. The 401K is fairly new and became widely popular during the Reagan years.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 15:38
The story keeps moving,and time waits for no one. The world became one big outdoor super market,and that changed the whole paradigm. The major problem is no one really understands this Giant Machine of economy,and just how it all interconnects. If you just keep throwing things at a wall until something sticks,that is not control,it is just plain dumb luck if it works at all,and in future may crash the whole thing.

Global economy's of scale,are riding down the road at a thousand miles an hour,with no brakes,and dysfunctional air bags,hoping that no deer jumps out in front of it.

Denarius
03 Jun 2016, 15:41
Also, my grandma didn't lose her job because it went to China and Mexico, she lost it because people wanted cheap, disposable goods (made by nigh slave labor) ...and imported from China.


over higher quality American-made goods Which are more expensive and can't compete due to lack of regulation, in the form of protectionism. And are also probably owned by multinational corporations that were founded in America, yet moved overseas to tax havens.

In order for the markets to be truly free, there needs to be regulation. Too much is just as bad as too little, if not worse. It needs to be smart regulation, efficient and fair. A lot of government regulation as it stands is rooted in corporatism and cronyism or else just ineffective.

Hawkfeathers
03 Jun 2016, 15:47
I have 3 Campbell's Soup bowls. The one from the 1960's was made in the USA, the one from the 80's in Korea, and the one from the 90's in China. That's basically been the progression, with Japan/Taiwan along the way.

anunitu
03 Jun 2016, 17:29
Remember those bowls and dishes that were made from radioactive glaze,now collectors stuff.

here there be glowing dishes. (http://chemistry.about.com/od/nuclearchemistry/fl/How-Radioactive-Is-Fiesta-Ware.htm)

http://antiqology.com/wp-content/uploads/fiestaware.jpg

Hawkfeathers
03 Jun 2016, 17:42
We had a few "irradiated " dimes from the World's Fair4849

All that nuclear stuff was thought to be so cool back then, and now we know it's really dangerous.....and we have to hand over the controls to someone new in a few months.

ThePaganMafia
05 Jun 2016, 08:30
A take on anti-Trump violence the liberal medias weakness.

https://thesouthlawn.org/2016/06/04/burying-you-with-a-good-shovel-in-the-good-earth/

anunitu
05 Jun 2016, 09:28
I liked the story PM.

Also something came to mind,The Reichstag Fire (https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007657)

On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson. The government falsely portrayed the fire as part of a Communist effort to overthrow the state.

Using emergency constitutional powers, Adolf Hitler’s cabinet had issued a Decree for the Protection of the German People on February 4, 1933. This decree placed constraints on the press and authorized the police to ban political meetings and marches, effectively hindering electoral campaigning. A temporary measure, it was followed by a more dramatic and permanent suspension of civil rights following the February 27 burning of the parliament building.

Believe this is where the term "False flag" came from.

Denarius
05 Jun 2016, 11:54
>A few supporters are violent at a few out of dozens of rallies.
>A few protesters are violent at a few out of dozens of rallies.
>Protesters start rioting. Assaulting crowds, which include women (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/protesters-assault-trump-supporters-eggs-bottles-punches-after-rally-n585096), and viciously beat up a gay hispanic man for being a "race traitor. (https://twitter.com/LogCabinGOP/status/738811229377056773)"

"They're the violent and anti-democratic ones, we're morally justified for escalating the violence and attacking innocent people because herp-a-derp Trump's a Nazi."

What a great article. :rolleyes:


Trump’s call for mass deportation and his wall are right-wing wonk approved ways of saying ‘ethnic cleansing.’

Hillary's a Nazi too? Then it's morally justified to riot at her events as well!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKso31tz2KM

ThePaganMafia
05 Jun 2016, 11:58
It does, People should riot at Hillary's events. She is a criminal.

anunitu
06 Jun 2016, 00:17
Growing fear in GOP about Trump. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/gop-fears-donald-trump-judge-attack/)

Washington (CNN)Top Republican officials and donors are increasingly worried over the threat Donald Trump's attack on a judge's Mexican heritage could pose to their party's chances in November -- and about the GOP's ability to win Latino votes for many elections to come.
Trump is under fire for repeatedly accusing U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a lawsuit involving Trump University, of bias because of his Mexican heritage. Those concerns intensified Sunday after Trump said he would have the same concerns about the impartiality of a Muslim judge.

I am not making judgment,just reporting it.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump makes nice to N.M. Gov. Susana Martinez ‘in near future’

Story here. (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/06/04/making-nice-donald-trump-to-meet-with-nm-gov-susana-martinez-in-near-future/)

Just my take,but the line "Please forgive me Baby,I will never hit you again,I promise" pops right into my head...

Denarius
06 Jun 2016, 00:29
Alberto Gonzales, the first hispanic Attorney General, says that Trump has the right to question the Judge's impartiality. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/)


[...] some have said that Trump’s criticism of the judge reflects on his qualifications to be president. If the criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president.

If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to a fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider.

anunitu
06 Jun 2016, 00:33
That path works better if you are not running for POTUS...Just saying...timing is everything...

Denarius
06 Jun 2016, 00:37
Honestly, at this point, I seriously doubt anyone is on the fence about whether Trump is a racist or not.

B. de Corbin
06 Jun 2016, 01:41
The America Donald Trump Would Make (Again)
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-bleich/the-america-donald-trump-_b_10307514.html)


The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump is offering a new set of “Trumpian” ideas that defy any political category. But what Donald Trump proposes is not new at all, and it is easy to define. What he proposes is largely a return to a time before our Constitution or America existed. “We the People” fought a revolution to create a new government under a Constitution precisely to stop that from happening again. We knew that people in power would be tempted to go back to the old ways, and that people would sometimes be tempted to let them. And so we all agreed on a set of rules that would save us from our worst instincts.

Denarius
06 Jun 2016, 02:10
Does the free exercise clause apply to non-citizens? I know freedom of speech and press does (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/today%E2%80%99s-question-non-citizens%E2%80%99-rights), as does due process and equal protection. Also, we can discriminate based on national origin when it comes to immigration so equal protection is out of the picture in terms of defending against it.

B. de Corbin
06 Jun 2016, 02:24
Does the free exercise clause apply to non-citizens? I know freedom of speech and press does (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/today%E2%80%99s-question-non-citizens%E2%80%99-rights), as does due process and equal protection. Also, we can discriminate based on national origin when it comes to immigration so equal protection is out of the picture in terms of defending against it.


First amendment - Congress shall make no law...

No law is pretty clear.

Denarius
06 Jun 2016, 02:54
First amendment - Congress shall make no law...

No law is pretty clear.

And yet there are laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions).

The reason why I asked is that I have found precedent for the freedoms of speech and press being accorded to non-citizens but only those clauses specifically. Is that precedent generalized to the rest of the amendment?

B. de Corbin
06 Jun 2016, 03:07
And yet there are laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions).

Yes - in extremely limited ways, where the immediate "right to life" takes precedent of over "the right to liberty."

Denarius
06 Jun 2016, 03:14
As well as obscenity and false statements.

B. de Corbin
06 Jun 2016, 03:30
As well as obscenity and false statements.

Obscenity is debatable, false statements are a civil infraction.

anunitu
06 Jun 2016, 03:54
If you go REALLY exactly right down that thin thin thin line(Not arguing law) just the perception people would assume it should be,if you have not paid your DUES(Taxes) you don't get to eat the members cake,or use the members bathroom,or breath the MEMBERS AIR..

I think that "Some" people would argue that point till forever,even if it has NO point in actual law or even in Logic.(or even in HUMANITY or human nature)

- - - Updated - - -

Brought to you by:
http://www.1000ventures.com/design_elements/selfmade/creativity_totb_3steps.jpg

anunitu
06 Jun 2016, 14:10
Honestly I think Trump really wants to lose.
His staff keep trying to keep the train wreck that is his campaign from flying off the rails,and he tosses even more coal to speed things up more.

Story here. (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-06/trump-orders-surrogates-to-intensify-criticism-of-judge-and-journalists)

His people keep trying to tamp down his "Stupid",but he will do as he wants to no matter what.

I am thinking he may start shedding election staffers like a long hair cat.

anunitu
07 Jun 2016, 04:50
I really wonder at Trumps strange behavior,his people are trying to tell him,"Chill your jets" on the Judge sitting on his Trump university case.

But it looks like he is completely caught up in the idea he must slash and burn the Judge.

Story here. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/06/today_s_trump_apocalypse_watch.html)

Headline is.

Today's Trump Apocalypse Watch: Why This Judge Thing Is Even More Insane Than You Think

One attack was that said judge belonged to a Latino group of judges,and If I remember in the way way back,that was the only group they could get into.
Trump is trying to imply that being in a Latino only group is Raciest,I think the group would allow a non Latino if any applied..The argument seems to just be going down a really stupid path,and that they are digging a deeper and deeper ditch for them to get buried in.

- - - Updated - - -

Cartoon anyone?
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/22/trumpocalypse/160322_SLATEST_Trumpocalypse-1_0-Horse.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg

Hawkfeathers
07 Jun 2016, 08:50
^^^ I love that. Stealing.