-->
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
May 28, 2024, 03:27:53 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Search:
Advanced search
News:
The Smiley Smile Message Board
Non Smiley Smile Stuff
The Sandbox
Campaign 2016
Pages:
1
...
15
16
17
18
19
[
20
]
21
22
23
24
25
...
81
Go Down
« previous
next »
Author
Topic: Campaign 2016 (Read 532491 times)
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 883
Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #475 on:
February 05, 2016, 07:57:18 PM »
Quote from: DonnyL on February 05, 2016, 04:18:23 PM
It'll be Trump vs. Bernie, and Bernie will win.
The idealists will like that, but I just don't see either major party nominating them.
Logged
The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.
This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #476 on:
February 06, 2016, 03:03:43 PM »
TRBB, who do you predict will be the major-party candidates when it's all said and done? Clinton, presumably, based on your comments re Sen. Sanders, but versus whom? And why? I continue to think Trump has an inevitable fall as people start realizing they're actually voting for someone who would actually take an important office. So knowing the players in the Middle East, understanding nuclear delivery methods, understanding the Iran agreement and the (Iranian) money being unfrozen (as opposed to the misunderstanding that we're paying Iran from American coffers), having a real, consistent position on our involvement against ISIS or in Syria, a wholly impossible wall idea, "don't worry, just trust me" foolishness, all of this hopefully will be increasingly important to voters and cause his downfall. History tells me they end up coalescing around someone their establishment likes or tolerates, which at the moment would lean toward Rubio. It's hard to count out Bush despite popular disdain for the idea of a Bush v Clinton race, because despite anti-establishment populism, he does have the ability to play a long game. And Cruz is obviously on a high note, despite being personally despised by nearly everyone on the planet. So I have to say, I don't know what's going to happen on that side. Like, I really, really don't know.
I'm curious about the opinions of others, too. And I mean this separate from the question of whom you'd prefer to see win the nods. I'm asking specifically about whom you believe will eventually win each nomination, and why.
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
Online
Posts: 3040
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #477 on:
February 06, 2016, 11:37:28 PM »
Have to say I loved watching that empty suit Rubio fall flat on his face tonight, when all he could do against Chris Christie was repeat "Barack Obama knows exactly what he's doing" like four times!
Couldn't have happened to a bigger piece of sh*t. And that lisp of his...ugh. It's hardly there, but once you hear it you can't unhear it. Anyways, see ya later you focus group tested, Sheldon Adelson coddling, chicken hawk, pre-programmed robot! Since you're giving up your Senate seat I guess that means *The Rubio Report* will be coming to FixedNews at 7pm Monday thru Friday, starting January 2017.
"But, but, but.....my programmers told me if I repeat what they tell me to say I can win. What do you mean I gotta think on my feet???"
«
Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 11:41:18 PM by sweetdudejim
»
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #478 on:
February 07, 2016, 07:05:08 AM »
Well I'm annoyed by everyone without a lisp, myself. (And also by Sen. Rubio. But not for his lisp.)
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #479 on:
February 07, 2016, 08:28:32 AM »
Quote from: Emily on February 05, 2016, 05:12:28 PM
Quote from: the captain on February 05, 2016, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: DonnyL on February 05, 2016, 04:18:23 PM
It'll be Trump vs. Bernie, and Bernie will win.
I don't think that's true. But if it were, let's think about the practical consequences: Democrats might feel some slight need to follow the popular vote and move leftward (although let's keep in mind how popular Sen. Sanders has been in his lengthy Washington DC career), but Republicans will continue to control
at least
the House, and possibly the Senate as well. In which case, it's more of the past six (or at least four) years, only with a liberal being blocked instead of a centrist. That's it. The conversation might change, which is interesting, if nothing else. But realistically, let's keep in mind what a president can do. Publicize a preferred agenda for Congress to take. Veto. Take (risky and temporary) executive action within existing law. That's all.
Yes. I think an element of a presidential system is that voters imagine the presidency matters more than it does.
Emily - I would ordinarily agree with this, but this Executive Order line-crossing presidency, which has redefined (and, not in a good way for a tripartite [three branch; executive, legislative and judicial] Constitutional system) separation-of-powers, the executive has arisen as more important than ever in US history. The checks-and-balances system which was established has been breached and needs to be corrected and restored.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 2022
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #480 on:
February 07, 2016, 08:50:03 AM »
Why is it that the right-wing media audience swallows every lie their favorite outlets tell them, then act like they're on top of the 'truth?'
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #481 on:
February 07, 2016, 08:57:19 AM »
Something doesn't become true just because it is repeated often enough. This president is below average in terms of the numbers of his executive orders per year.
Here's some details as to how many each president issued.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Of course, quantity of executive orders alone doesn't tell a full story. Neither does this, but it tries, by measuring the uses of restrictive terms (shall, should, must, etc.).
http://regdata.org/heres-a-cool-image/
Here's a fact-check of some specific lies about the president's executive orders.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
I don't like overuse of executive orders. I think they do go against the spirit of our governmental makeup, and worst of all, they lead to a "good for the goose, good for the gander" kind of result: if a conservative uses them, a liberal will use them. Then a conservative will use them. Ad infinitum. So we have Nixon and Reagan and Bushes, and so we have Carter, Clinton and Obama. Further, it's understandable--if not admirable or excusable--that a president facing a Congress which has explicitly and implicitly made clear it will block each and everything he tries to back (even if it had backed it previous to his doing so) may fall into the disappointing executive order path.
My personal opinion aligns more with UCLA law professor Adam Winkler as quoted in the below linked fact-checking article on the topic: “it’s clear the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has been aggressively expanding presidential authority. This a worrisome trend — sufficiently so that exaggeration and misrepresentation aren’t necessary.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 2871
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #482 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:29:53 AM »
This has come up in conversation here before:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19859.msg502575.html#msg502575
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #483 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:32:17 AM »
Quote from: Emily on February 07, 2016, 08:50:03 AM
Why is it that the right-wing media audience swallows every lie their favorite outlets tell them, then act like they're on top of the 'truth?'
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Emily - the whole depiction of "right wing" as opposed to "left wing" is an example of the media distortion of the 2 major political parties. It attacks the intelligence of both sides. It is offensive and demeaning to those who inform themselves on issues and candidacies.
It is the old "you don't fall in with the party line, so you are stupid." It is an elitist media propaganda scheme. Back 30 years or so, the election process (with which I have direct administrative experience) went from a "ground game" to a process that is overseen by PR relations organizations who deal directly with candidates and "package" a strategy, which is entirely different from the old "kitchen cabinet" prototype with which I am experienced.
The PR companies saw and exploited the newer dynamic of TV and electronic media strategies, as well as this whole damage-control to minimize impact of negative perceptions. The PR firms went from selling tunafish to the political arena. So, instead of a volunteer organization, there is a scripted PR package, that went from bottom-up to top-down. A candidate does not look to their families and close trusted friends, to mine a campaign manager, but to a political PR firm. Even the Kennedy family had a family member as a campaign manager who ran the ground-game.
It went from sign-hanging, poll workers, phone bank calls to 'good purged voters' based on individual voter participation and standouts at high profile areas, to over-reliance on polling done by various organizations or colleges and universities. The target demographic at that time was "women over 55" as to whom reliability to show up and vote. And rides-to-the-polls to those women over the age of 55. In 2007-8, it became a Twitter-based rallying of the troops, from a ground-game, in each geographic region.
The NH Democratic (Clinton) primary ground-game is being largely run by the union workers, driving in from out-of-state. Some candidates have no local ground-game. When you are working a poll location, and chat with those freezing, frying, or being drenched, sharing an umbrella, next to you, it doesn't take long before you know who the "locals" are from the "imports." And, if you have no one standing at a poll for you, and only have a sign tied to a fence, it is a signal of big trouble.
«
Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 09:36:17 AM by filledeplage
»
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #484 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:36:55 AM »
I think the insinuations here are more along the lines of "you
do
fall in line with the party line, so you are stupid." (The "you" in this case being some unspecific, anonymous second person.)
As for the origins of PR, I think most people would agree that its roots were far more firmly planted in the political arena than in "selling tunafish."
«
Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 09:42:46 AM by the captain
»
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #485 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:44:37 AM »
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:36:55 AM
I think the insinuations here are more along the lines of "you
do
fall in line with the party line, so you are stupid." (The "you" in this case being some unspecific, anonymous second person.)
the captain - I sort of half-agree with that, except that now the exposure of these candidates issue positions, seems like a food menu where you pick the side dishes. And the side dishes are the deal-breakers for a vote.
And, I do like a lot of what Trump (even as a life long Dem) is saying on national security and executive order abuse, but I cannot accept his position on eminent domain. He was on some program this morning, talking about the money he offered this woman. I had not heard the settlement offer until today. So, until the whole issue has bee fleshed out, and the voter has a larger picture of the circumstances of the volley from the other side, the voter is not fully informed.
But this year is a different ball game. People are so afraid of national security and personal safety.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #486 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:46:22 AM »
That was a quick pivot from executive orders. Does that mean you've agreed with our refutations of your statement, or just that you'd rather move on?
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #487 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:55:09 AM »
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
That was a quick pivot from executive orders. Does that mean you've agreed with our refutations of your statement, or just that you'd rather move on?
the captain - Not a pivot. Have you looked at the subject matter of Executive Orders? The large issue is the bypass of Congress for "contentious" executive orders. Some are not opposed and some are "not contentious."
This is the problem; the side-stepping of Congress for matters of national security and national importance. I hope there are Executive Orders for Adult Eduction, Individuals with Disabilities. Fishing, Personal Fitness, Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Those are the type of executive orders that no one will challenge. Those being challenged are the work of congress and the usurpation of that power vested to them but the US Constitution.
Here is a list of GW's (Bush) Executive Orders
http://www.archvies.gov/federal-registrer/executive-orders/w.bush-subjects.html
Hope it copies.
«
Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 09:56:05 AM by filledeplage
»
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #488 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:57:05 AM »
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:44:37 AM
And, I do like a lot of what Trump (even as a life long Dem) is saying on national security and executive order abuse, but I cannot accept his position on eminent domain. He was on some program this morning, talking about the money he offered this woman. I had not heard the settlement offer until today. So, until the whole issue has bee fleshed out, and the voter has a larger picture of the circumstances of the volley from the other side, the voter is not fully informed.
I can't imagine a President Trump (I wish the sentence ended there, but)
not
being among the worst offenders with executive orders. Everything he's said has relied almost entirely on his own personal power, authority, charisma, whatever. Nothing he's said could ever happen through Congress. Actually, he's barely said anything of sufficient substance to evaluate. But of what he's said, it could not happen with Congress. There'd be a renewed Tea Party movement, more vigorous than before, if he could pass anything resembling the Great Wall project. (Yes, yes, I know he said Mexico would pay for it. Let's file that into moronic idiocy territory, which it is.)
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:44:37 AM
But this year is a different ball game. People are so afraid of national security and personal safety.
Irrational fear is indeed a bitch. I believe we were talking about PR? This is where the topic is apt.
«
Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 10:00:49 AM by the captain
»
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #489 on:
February 07, 2016, 09:59:31 AM »
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:55:09 AM
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
That was a quick pivot from executive orders. Does that mean you've agreed with our refutations of your statement, or just that you'd rather move on?
the captain - Not a pivot. Have you looked at the subject matter of Executive Orders? The large issue is the bypass of Congress for "contentious" executive orders. Some are not opposed and some are "not contentious."
This is the problem; the side-stepping of Congress for matters of national security and national importance. I hope there are Executive Orders for Adult Eduction, Individuals with Disabilities. Fishing, Personal Fitness, Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Those are the type of executive orders that no one will challenge. Those being challenged are the work of congress and the usurpation of that power vested to them but the US Constitution.
Here is a list of GW's (Bush) Executive Orders
http://www.archvies.gov/federal-registrer/executive-orders/w.bush-subjects.html
Hope it copies.
Yes, I'm aware of the subject matter of executive orders: it varies wildly from the entirely irrelevant to substantive. And one can cherry pick all over the place.
But this doesn't tie it back together. We were talking about EOs and why this president isn't especially different than predecessors, and you started talking about the media, PR, whether voters are informed, Trump, out-of-state campaign activists... Just trying to follow the somewhat scattershot words.
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #490 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:03:04 AM »
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:44:37 AM
I can't imagine a President Trump (I wish the sentence ended there, but)
not
being among the worst offenders with executive orders. Everything he's said has relied almost entirely on his own personal power, authority, charisma, whatever. Nothing he's said could ever happen through Congress. Actually, he's barely said anything of sufficient substance to evaluate. But of what he's said, it could not happen with Congress. There'd be a renewed Tea Party movement, more vigorous than before, if he could pass anything resembling the Great Wall project. (Yes, yes, I know he said Mexico would pay for it. Let's file that into moronic idiocy territory, which it is.)
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:44:37 AM
But this year is a different ball game. People are so afraid of national security and personal safety.
Irrational fear is indeed a bitch. I believe we were talking about PR? This is where the topic is apt.
the captain - Fear is only "irrational" if it has not darkened your door and you look over your shoulder to ensure your personal safety, it that is even possible.
If you live near the Bataclan, or the NY towers, or the Boston Marathon route, all safe havens for commerce, the arts/music culture domain, or the challenge to the human physique, there is a requisite swallowing of your fear and venturing forth into a ground-zero type disaster site.
Just sayin.'
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #491 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:07:16 AM »
Irrational fear. Occasional horrible events don't change reality for the masses. Violence is generally down in the US and worldwide. This is demonstrably true. Irrational fears based on nonstop loops of those tragic events don't change reality, except in the minds of the irrationally afraid ... except, sadly, when the irrationally afraid vote for those people taking advantage of the condition they inevitably stoked.
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #492 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:10:55 AM »
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:55:09 AM
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
That was a quick pivot from executive orders. Does that mean you've agreed with our refutations of your statement, or just that you'd rather move on?
the captain - Not a pivot. Have you looked at the subject matter of Executive Orders? The large issue is the bypass of Congress for "contentious" executive orders. Some are not opposed and some are "not contentious."
This is the problem; the side-stepping of Congress for matters of national security and national importance. I hope there are Executive Orders for Adult Eduction, Individuals with Disabilities. Fishing, Personal Fitness, Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Those are the type of executive orders that no one will challenge. Those being challenged are the work of congress and the usurpation of that power vested to them but the US Constitution.
Here is a list of GW's (Bush) Executive Orders
http://www.archvies.gov/federal-registrer/executive-orders/w.bush-subjects.html
Hope it copies.
Yes, I'm aware of the subject matter of executive orders: it varies wildly from the entirely irrelevant to substantive. And one can cherry pick all over the place.
But this doesn't tie it back together. We were talking about EOs and why this president isn't especially different than predecessors, and you started talking about the media, PR, whether voters are informed, Trump, out-of-state campaign activists... Just trying to follow the somewhat scattershot words.
the captain - Where we (you and I - for purposes of this thread ) may be aware of the subject of Executive Orders, that is not the case of the electorate-at-large who don't pay attention to minor Executive Orders for humanitarian issues, as opposed to changing, in a major way, government policy. And, yes, you can cherry-pick certain bills. PR is now impregnated in the political process and it was not in the past where it was not only capable of being separated but necessary to separate the two. In the past, PR was "ancillary" and now it is "essential."
In the past, you went out in a campaign to buy radio time (TV time was prohibitive for most grassroots campaigns) as a means to reach the voters during drive-time or on similar popular programming.
These are not all "activists." Some are union members, or those in quasi-government employees who have been "steered" to work in various elections and who serve at the pleasure of elected officials.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #493 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:17:01 AM »
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 10:07:16 AM
Irrational fear. Occasional horrible events don't change reality for the masses. Violence is generally down in the US and worldwide. This is demonstrably true. Irrational fears based on nonstop loops of those tragic events don't change reality, except in the minds of the irrationally afraid ... except, sadly, when the irrationally afraid vote for those people taking advantage of the condition they inevitably stoked.
the captain - while you say may be true. (I don't necessarily agree.) Media may have stoked those fears because those videos are in-your-face on national news. And candidates do take advantage of fears on both sides. I am furious that Clinton is stoking this drama with her PP position, where she is conflating Roe to human tissue trafficking. Roe is not at issue. It is the fear of Roe being reversed where she is stoking fear in a false and misleading fashion. The reality is that the only legal issue appears to be the tissue trafficking and not the right. She is making it about Roe. Utter falsehood but fear mongering on her end.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 2022
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #494 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:20:53 AM »
So you agree that Obama has not used executive orders with unusual frequency?
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #495 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:25:09 AM »
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 10:07:16 AM
Irrational fear. Occasional horrible events don't change reality for the masses. Violence is generally down in the US and worldwide. This is demonstrably true. Irrational fears based on nonstop loops of those tragic events don't change reality, except in the minds of the irrationally afraid ... except, sadly, when the irrationally afraid vote for those people taking advantage of the condition they inevitably stoked.
the captain - while you say may be true. (I don't necessarily agree.) Media may have stoked those fears because those videos are in-your-face on national news. And candidates do take advantage of fears on both sides. I am furious that Clinton is stoking this drama with her PP position, where she is conflating Roe to human tissue trafficking. Roe is not at issue. It is the fear of Roe being reversed where she is stoking fear in a false and misleading fashion. The reality is that the only legal issue appears to be the tissue trafficking and not the right. She is making it about Roe. Utter falsehood but fear mongering on her end.
I'm sorry, but this almost reads like a joke. The PP situation was the most cynical (and clumsy) bait-and-switch nonsense I've seen in forever. It was barely even superficially about the purported issue. It was obviously about abortion as a whole. And it was a pathetic "oooh, look, dead baby parts are gross! Think of the
children!
And babies are so
cute!
" narrative throughout.
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #496 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:26:41 AM »
Quote from: Emily on February 07, 2016, 10:20:53 AM
So you agree that Obama has not used executive orders with unusual frequency?
No I don't. It is the type of Executive Order and whether it was beyond the scope of his Enumerated Powers, traditionally vested to Congress. And not the actual number but the wholesale policy change it effectuated.
Was that a trick question?
I'm kidding.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 2022
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #497 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:30:48 AM »
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:26:41 AM
Quote from: Emily on February 07, 2016, 10:20:53 AM
So you agree that Obama has not used executive orders with unusual frequency?
No I don't. It is the type of Executive Order and whether it was beyond the scope of his Enumerated Powers, traditionally vested to Congress. And not the actual number but the wholesale policy change it effectuated.
Was that a trick question?
I'm kidding.
It seems like a trick answer.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 7255
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #498 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:33:42 AM »
Seems like a "yes, but there's more to it" answer to me. The direct answer has to be yes, because the objections are about content, not quantity. The numbers are the numbers...
Logged
Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs
here.
No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
Offline
Posts: 3151
Re: Campaign 2016
«
Reply #499 on:
February 07, 2016, 10:35:43 AM »
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: the captain on February 07, 2016, 10:07:16 AM
Irrational fear. Occasional horrible events don't change reality for the masses. Violence is generally down in the US and worldwide. This is demonstrably true. Irrational fears based on nonstop loops of those tragic events don't change reality, except in the minds of the irrationally afraid ... except, sadly, when the irrationally afraid vote for those people taking advantage of the condition they inevitably stoked.
the captain - while you say may be true. (I don't necessarily agree.) Media may have stoked those fears because those videos are in-your-face on national news. And candidates do take advantage of fears on both sides. I am furious that Clinton is stoking this drama with her PP position, where she is conflating Roe to human tissue trafficking. Roe is not at issue. It is the fear of Roe being reversed where she is stoking fear in a false and misleading fashion. The reality is that the only legal issue appears to be the tissue trafficking and not the right. She is making it about Roe. Utter falsehood but fear mongering on her end.
I'm sorry, but this almost reads like a joke. The PP situation was the most cynical (and clumsy) bait-and-switch nonsense I've seen in forever. It was barely even superficially about the purported issue. It was obviously about abortion as a whole. And it was a pathetic "oooh, look, dead baby parts are gross! Think of the
children!
And babies are so
cute!
" narrative throughout.
the captain - It is no joke. This isn't about cute babies but could eventually rise to whether the "lives-in-being," (old common law definition) have a civil rights interest in being protected. It is the equivalent of the right war-mongering, as it is rights loss-mongering. The right under Roe is not contested but being referred to in campaigning as though it was.
There is no difference. If the Republicans are war-mongering (they lied about WMD, now blame bad intelligence ) as they did in Iraq in 2003, and the Dems are rights-fear mongering in 2015, there is little essential difference except which side is out soliciting votes.
Logged
Pages:
1
...
15
16
17
18
19
[
20
]
21
22
23
24
25
...
81
Go Up
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Smiley Smile Stuff
-----------------------------
=> BRIAN WILSON Q & A
=> Welcome to the Smiley Smile board
=> General On Topic Discussions
===> Ask The Honored Guests
===> Smiley Smile Reference Threads
=> Smile Sessions Box Set (2011)
=> The Beach Boys Media
=> Concert Reviews
=> Album, Book and Video Reviews And Discussions
===> 1960's Beach Boys Albums
===> 1970's Beach Boys Albums
===> 1980's Beach Boys Albums
===> 1990's Beach Boys Albums
===> 21st Century Beach Boys Albums
===> Brian Wilson Solo Albums
===> Other Solo Albums
===> Produced by or otherwise related to
===> Tribute Albums
===> DVDs and Videos
===> Book Reviews
===> 'Rank the Tracks'
===> Polls
-----------------------------
Non Smiley Smile Stuff
-----------------------------
=> General Music Discussion
=> General Entertainment Thread
=> Smiley Smilers Who Make Music
=> The Sandbox
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
|
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.066 seconds with 21 queries.