The Smiley Smile Message Board

Non Smiley Smile Stuff => The Sandbox => Topic started by: Moon Dawg on April 13, 2015, 07:30:52 PM



Title: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on April 13, 2015, 07:30:52 PM
  Democrats

 IN - Hillary Rodham Clinton
 PENDING - Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Martin O' Malley
 QUESTIONABLE - Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren

   Republicans

 IN - Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mark Everson
 PENDING - Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina
 QUESTIONABLE - Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, John Kasich, Rick Santorum




 Sad choices. :'(

 Difficult to see HRC not getting the nomination, especially with such anemic potential primary opposition. I could imagine a Bush/Rubio ticket beating her in the general election but the others would all lose.

 Rand Paul - Real hair or toupee? If a hairpiece, glue or hooks?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mikie on April 13, 2015, 08:41:24 PM
Hillary's got it in the bag, Steve. Biden won't get in front of the steamroller and neither will Liz Warren (though I like her).

The other Bozo's don't stand a chance in Hell against the Clinton's. Elect Hillary? Get two Presidents for the price of one.


P.S. Ya fergot Rethuglicans Rick Sanitarium, Don Trump, and Chris Christie. Coulda been contendas.

Sad choices as you say....



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on April 13, 2015, 08:54:09 PM
Man, how could I forget Big Boy Christie? Talk about the elephant in the room. (Cheap shot, sorry.) He's on.

 Chafee, once a Republican and then an Independent, is now a Democrat. Let it be noted that in 2002 Chafee was the only GOP senator who voted against giving Bush a blank check for Iraq. Hillary? She went with the flow, voted yes.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mikie on April 13, 2015, 09:15:03 PM
A graphic I saw on Textus's Facebook page a while ago, showing all three Bushes standing there smiling. Jeb has a bigger head than the other two combined.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Vote for Jeb, well you are just stupid".



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on April 13, 2015, 09:37:16 PM
  I'm of two minds about Jeb. On one hand, his brother's presidency was a disgrace (Some subtle rebuke on Jeb's part would be essential) but on the other he is a completely different person who seems bright enough. After all, JFK, RFK, EMK, brothers yet each a distinct entity unto himself. Jeb's the best of this GOP lot IMO.

 Ohio Gov John Kasich could be a GOP dark horse. If the likes of Scott Walker and Ted Cruz are legit, then Kasich should consider running too.

 I wonder who Bungalow Bill is for?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on April 13, 2015, 10:04:29 PM
Now that I'm eligible to vote, I'm in for Clinton.
(http://timesofweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Hillary-Clinton-2016-Presidential-Campaign-On-Youtube.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on April 15, 2015, 08:01:15 PM


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ly4uECcAAockq.jpg)

Hold yer fire.  There's no life forms aboard.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on April 15, 2015, 08:32:08 PM
I'm all in for Sanders

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAdtr696quPLPlzojn4BHxWcfTSb5xuwZ2LcDSjckpPDLewEP1QIpFFKdRWA)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Awesoman on April 16, 2015, 03:42:53 PM
Ugh.  Definitely no interest with Hillary Clinton.  She's got quite the spotty track record to contend with.  Unfortunately I'm not too warm on any of the Republican candidates thus far as well. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bgas on April 16, 2015, 04:39:53 PM
Ahhh the perfect Clinton ticket: Hilary for Pres, Bill for VP


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 16, 2015, 05:09:34 PM
Hillary's got it in the bag, Steve. Biden won't get in front of the steamroller and neither will Liz Warren (though I like her).

The other Bozo's don't stand a chance in Hell against the Clinton's. Elect Hillary? Get two Presidents for the price of one.

P.S. Ya fergot Rethuglicans Rick Sanitarium, Don Trump, and Chris Christie. Coulda been contendas.

Sad choices as you say....
That cracked me up...

I want those Billary emails...and Benghazi transparency...and I think she may fizzle when the pressure builds on her lack of exactly that.  The Clinton Foundation...there are a lot of unanswered questions...it ain't going away...

Sometimes the "short list" evaporates...her time was '08.   ;)



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the professor on April 16, 2015, 07:03:15 PM
The Professor is a conservative, which means he does not believe in a pc surveillance society , wrought and controlled by Red Guard Marxists, determined to crush ambition and spread victimhood and Foucauldian terror.

He also repudiates the religious right and seeks a freedom loving, tolerant candidate in favor of gay marriage, early term abortion and american power abroad.

His positions are most akin to Goldwater.

He wants responsible immigration reform and major reductions in government waste and pointless social programs that maintain the food-stamp, victim-centered society nearly perfected by Obama, his college classmate and the worst president in US history.

His ideal ticket is Rubio/Condoleezza Rice, an intellectual powerhouse ticket.

He respects his liberal brothers and sisters and will not insult nor spar. Good luck to all.

I believe in America, as my people say in "One."



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ly4uECcAAockq.jpg)

Hold yer fire.  There's no life forms aboard.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Larry Franz on April 16, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
I want those Billary emails...and Benghazi transparency...and I think she may fizzle when the pressure builds on her lack of exactly that.  The Clinton Foundation...there are a lot of unanswered questions...it ain't going away...

The only reason those "issues" (Benghazi? let's invent a scandal if we can't find a real one) won't go away is that the Republicans need something to agitate their base and distract everyone else. There's only one real issue: should this country have a Republican President who will go along with the Republicans in Congress or a Democratic President who will fight them? If you want more tax cuts for the rich, less regulation of Wall Street, more "defense" spending, more pollution, more global warming, a bigger deficit, more Supreme Court justices like Scalia, etc. vote Republican. If you don't, vote Democratic.

Paul Krugman explains the situation better than I can:  

Quote
There has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less. As we head into 2016, each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins....

How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right — and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War....

The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it’s hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided even now, or be induced to change his or her mind between now and the election.

More on this topic with Prof. Krugman's specific examples here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mendota Heights on April 17, 2015, 10:40:08 AM
David Krugman is a laughing stock amongst us Austrians and for good reasons. It's like he is deliberately wrong on purpose all the time.

  • He wants to make people richer - by confiscating their wealth (taxes)
  • He wants to stimulate the economy (the production of goods and services) - by producing goods and services no-one wants (fake alien invasion)
  • He wants people to consume more - by expanding the currency supply (makes people poorer)
  • He wants to end bubbles created by the Fed - by having the Fed creating new and bigger bubbles

The list goes on and on. And on and on.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mendota Heights on April 17, 2015, 12:36:04 PM
@Larry Franz

If you are pro "income equality" you might want to stop supporting the two parties who let the Fed run wild with their destructive policies? If you intend to vote next year please read the two short excerpts below.

How Inflation Helps Keep the Rich Up and the Poor Down by Jörg Guido Hülsmann
Source: https://mises.org/library/how-inflation-helps-keep-rich-and-poor-down

Inflation is an unjustifiable redistribution of income in favor of those who receive the new money and money titles first, and to the detriment of those who receive them last. In practice the redistribution always works out in favor of the fiat-money producers themselves (whom we misleadingly call central banks) and of their partners in the banking sector and at the stock exchange. And of course inflation works out to the advantage of governments and their closest allies in the business world. Inflation is the vehicle through which these individuals and groups enrich themselves, unjustifiably, at the expense of the citizenry at large. If there is any truth to the socialist caricature of capitalism — an economic system that exploits the poor to the benefit of the rich — then this caricature holds true for a capitalist system strangulated by inflation. The relentless influx of paper money makes the wealthy and powerful richer and more powerful than they would be if they depended exclusively on the voluntary support of their fellow citizens. And because it shields the political and economic establishment of the country from the competition emanating from the rest of society, inflation puts a brake on social mobility. The rich stay rich (longer) and the poor stay poor (longer) than they would in a free society.


How Central Banks Cause Income Inequality by Frank Hollenbeck
Source: https://mises.org/library/how-central-banks-cause-income-inequality

...

This brings us to the second undesirable and unjustified source of income inequalities, i.e., the creation of money out of thin air, or legal counterfeiting, by central banks. It should be no surprise the growing gap in income inequalities has coincided with the adoption of fiat currencies worldwide. Every dollar the central bank creates benefits the early recipients of the money—the government and the banking sector — at the expense of the late recipients of the money, the wage earners, and the poor. Since the creation of a fiat currency system in 1971, the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value while the banking sector has gone from 4 percent of GDP to well over 10 percent today.

The central bank does not create anything real; neither resources nor goods and services. When it creates money it causes the price of transactions to increase. The original quantity theory of money clearly related money to the price of anything money can buy, including assets. When the central bank creates money, traders, hedge funds and banks — being first in line — benefit from the increased variability and upward trend in asset prices. Also, future contracts and other derivative products on exchange rates or interest rates were unnecessary prior to 1971, since hedging activity was mostly unnecessary. The central bank is responsible for this added risk, variability, and surge in asset prices unjustified by fundamentals.

The banking sector has been able to significantly increase its profits or claims on goods and services. However, more claims held by one sector, which essentially does not create anything of real value, means less claims on real goods and services for everyone else. This is why counterfeiting is illegal. Hence, the central bank has been playing a central role as a “reverse Robin Hood” by increasing the economic pie going to the rich and by slowly sinking the middle class toward poverty.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 17, 2015, 12:49:54 PM
@Larry Franz

If you are pro "income equality" you might want to stop supporting the two parties who let the Fed run wild with their destructive policies?

How Central Banks Cause Income Inequality by Frank Hollenbeck
Source: https://mises.org/library/how-central-banks-cause-income-inequality

...

This brings us to the second undesirable and unjustified source of income inequalities, i.e., the creation of money out of thin air, or legal counterfeiting, by central banks. It should be no surprise the growing gap in income inequalities has coincided with the adoption of fiat currencies worldwide. Every dollar the central bank creates benefits the early recipients of the money—the government and the banking sector — at the expense of the late recipients of the money, the wage earners, and the poor. Since the creation of a fiat currency system in 1971, the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value while the banking sector has gone from 4 percent of GDP to well over 10 percent today.

The central bank does not create anything real; neither resources nor goods and services. When it creates money it causes the price of transactions to increase. The original quantity theory of money clearly related money to the price of anything money can buy, including assets. When the central bank creates money, traders, hedge funds and banks — being first in line — benefit from the increased variability and upward trend in asset prices. Also, future contracts and other derivative products on exchange rates or interest rates were unnecessary prior to 1971, since hedging activity was mostly unnecessary. The central bank is responsible for this added risk, variability, and surge in asset prices unjustified by fundamentals.

The banking sector has been able to significantly increase its profits or claims on goods and services. However, more claims held by one sector, which essentially does not create anything of real value, means less claims on real goods and services for everyone else. This is why counterfeiting is illegal. Hence, the central bank has been playing a central role as a “reverse Robin Hood” by increasing the economic pie going to the rich and by slowly sinking the middle class toward poverty.


But, of course, there are central banks in many places - Canada, Europe, etc. but the United States has a far greater income disparity, 4th worst in the world while Canada doesn't even make the top ten. Furthermore, the United States is pretty unique in how its gap between rich and poor has widened so much in such a small period of time. In fact, for about 40 years of the 20th Century, all through a period in which the US had central banking, the gap was quite small, on par with most countries. But since the dismantling of the welfare state and the imposition of neoliberal economic reform policies, the country has drifted back to having the largest economic disparity since 1928. Note the year 1928 -- it shouldn't be surprising since this was the last period of significant de-regulation, which led directly to the crash of 1929, just as it did in 2008.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mendota Heights on April 17, 2015, 01:15:14 PM
Claim: There are central banks in many places - Canada, Europe, etc.
Yes.

Claim: In fact, for about 40 years of the 20th Century, all through a period in which the US had central banking, the gap was quite small, on par with most countries.
When was this and how big was the expansion of the currency supply during this time?

Claim: The United States is pretty unique in how its gap between rich and poor has widened so much in such a small period of time.
Things changed a whole lot for Americans on August 15th, 1971. Look at the M0 and M1 charts, you will find them rather telling.
 
Claim: Note the year 1928 -- it shouldn't be surprising since this was the last period of significant de-regulation, which led directly to the crash of 1929, just as it did in 2008.

You think you found a correlation? Really? Where is it? Do you think the foundations of the Great Depression was laid in 1928? In 1924 the Fed tried to intervene in the American economy by - you guessed it! - expanding the currency supply, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. The Fed did the same thing in 1928, but this time in an even larger scale.

Austrian business cycle in short: Inflation and credit expansion always precipitate business maladjustments and malinvestments that must later be liquidated. The expansion artificially reduces and thus falsifies interest rates, and thereby misguides businessmen in their investment decisions. In the belief that declining rates indicate growing supplies of capital savings, they embark upon new production projects. The creation of money gives rise to an economic boom. It causes prices to rise, especially prices of capital goods used for business expansion. But these prices constitute business costs. They soar until business is no longer profitable, at which time the decline begins. In order to prolong the boom, the monetary authorities may continue to inject new money until finally frightened by the prospects of a runaway inflation. The boom that was built on the quicksand of inflation then comes to a sudden end.

Read the whole thing here: https://mises.org/library/great-depression. It is really enlightening.

The rest of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims. You have to be more specific if you want me to address them.

Why did it only take the American economy one year to recover after the 1921-1922 depression (with no "help" of central planners)? It was just as dire as the 1924 situation.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 17, 2015, 01:23:44 PM
Claim: There are central banks in many places - Canada, Europe, etc.
Yes.

Claim: In fact, for about 40 years of the 20th Century, all through a period in which the US had central banking, the gap was quite small, on par with most countries.
When was this and how big was the expansion of the currency supply during this time?

Claim: The United States is pretty unique in how its gap between rich and poor has widened so much in such a small period of time.
Things changed a whole lot for Americans on August 15th, 1971. Look at the M0 and M1 charts, you will find them rather telling.
 
Claim: Note the year 1928 -- it shouldn't be surprising since this was the last period of significant de-regulation, which led directly to the crash of 1929, just as it did in 2008.

You think you found a correlation? Really? Where is it? Do you think the foundations of the Great Depression was laid in 1928? In 1924 the Fed tried to kickstart the American economy by - you guessed it! - expanding the currency supply, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. The Fed did the same thing in 1928, but this time in an even larger scale.

Austrian business cycle in short: Inflation and credit expansion always precipitate business maladjustments and malinvestments that must later be liquidated. The expansion artificially reduces and thus falsifies interest rates, and thereby misguides businessmen in their investment decisions. In the belief that declining rates indicate growing supplies of capital savings, they embark upon new production projects. The creation of money gives rise to an economic boom. It causes prices to rise, especially prices of capital goods used for business expansion. But these prices constitute business costs. They soar until business is no longer profitable, at which time the decline begins. In order to prolong the boom, the monetary authorities may continue to inject new money until finally frightened by the prospects of a runaway inflation. The boom that was built on the quicksand of inflation then comes to a sudden end.

Read the whole thing here: https://mises.org/library/great-depression. It is really enlightening.

The rest of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims. You have to be more specific if you want me to address them.

Why did it only take the American economy one year to recover after the 1921-1922 depression (with no "help" of central planners)? It was just as dire as the 1924 situation.

We could have a lengthy conversation about this. Suffice to say, I think it is fairly confirmed that the Mises/Rothbard approach to economics is largely an unfounded one despite being attractive. Here is a pretty good analysis of the movement:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mendota Heights on April 17, 2015, 01:27:39 PM
What part of the Austrian School do you think is wrong, Chocolate Shake Man? In your own words.

And the link you posted is not that great. I will expand on this tomorrow, it's almost midnight here.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 17, 2015, 02:59:47 PM
delete


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on April 17, 2015, 09:00:19 PM
Benghazi? let's invent a scandal if we can't find a real one
:lol Larry, I'm gonna help you out here.

First:  There will never, never! be a need "invent" scandals with the Clintons.

Second: If you think Benghazi isn't going to be a REAL issue for the lovely Hillary, just axe your pal John "Frankenstein" Kerry about swiftboats.

Benghazi isn't going bye-bye because you don't understand it.  It ain't going away cuz you close your eyes and "pretend" Hillary farts rainbows out of her pant suits.  Nor will it go away because the media ignores it.  Reality is reality.  And Christopher Stevens was a REAL human being Larry.  And he was left to die.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Ambassador_christopher_stevens.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 18, 2015, 03:26:15 PM
What part of the Austrian School do you think is wrong, Chocolate Shake Man? In your own words.

And the link you posted is not that great. I will expand on this tomorrow, it's almost midnight here.

Hamstring, we've talked a lot about economics in the past, I believe. And to be honest, I think I spoke out of turn here because I'm actually not all that familiar with the Austrian School. I mean, I am familiar with it, I understand the basic economic positions it continues to take and I've seen the arguments from people who frequently reference mises.org and I am often left unconvinced by the arguments that those people are making. But I suppose it wasn't accurate for me to say that the theory has been fairly confirmed to be unfounded on the basis of what I had read - which, admittedly was limited. So please accept my apology for that - my position was not in keeping with my own personal standards. Again, I reiterate that I am largely unconvinced by what I've seen/read about but I admit that I am not versed enough in the primary material to write off Mises/Rothbard altogether (which, as I understand it, represents a kind of faction within the Austrian School, correct?). Again, my apologies.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on May 15, 2015, 08:49:43 AM
 Democrats

 IN - Hillary Rodham Clinton
 PENDING - Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Martin O' Malley
 QUESTIONABLE - Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren

   Republicans

 IN - Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio
 PENDING - Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina
 QUESTIONABLE - Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, John Kasich, Rick Santorum




 Sad choices. :'(

 Difficult to see HRC not getting the nomination, especially with such anemic potential primary opposition. I could imagine a Bush/Rubio ticket beating her in the general election but the others would all lose.

 Rand Paul - Real hair or toupee? If a hairpiece, glue or hooks?


Also in: Bernie Sanders


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 16, 2015, 09:34:13 PM
Ah yes, Bernie is my candidate!  It's unlikely he'll beat Hillary but I'm glad he's in the race, he's making a bigger impact than I thought he would.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurferDownUnder on June 01, 2015, 10:47:43 PM
Quick! Someone stick Ross Perot in an age reduction machine and get his ass up there!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 02, 2015, 07:41:15 PM
What if we took this election off.  We don't vote for Class President this year.  And we just live our fcking lives.  Wanna try it?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on June 04, 2015, 01:10:26 PM
Anybody besides Martin O Malley.

I'm not sure how many across the country are aware, but he just announced that he's running for President. 

Don't be fooled by his charms or the fact that he's in an Irish band part time. 

He left the state of Maryland in ruins. 

He took a surplus left by Gov. Bob Ehrlich, and turned it into a deficit almost overnight.  He has done nothing but raise taxes and pass new taxes.  The sales tax went up, property taxes, gas tax, tolls doubled, and in the most ridiculous of all, the infamous rain tax. 

Despite the fact that Maryland has casinos making money hand over fist, the state was still overspending. 

As Mayor of Baltimore, he put a lot of programs in place that led to the riots in late April. 

He ruined Baltimore, he ruined Maryland, now he's going to try to ruin the United States.  I've changed my affiliation to Democrat just so I can vote against him in the Primaries.   


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mendota Heights on June 04, 2015, 01:23:20 PM
In what way has Clinton Cash affected Clinton supporters here on SS?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 05, 2015, 08:29:59 AM
Anybody besides Martin O Malley.

I'm not sure how many across the country are aware, but he just announced that he's running for President. 

Don't be fooled by his charms or the fact that he's in an Irish band part time. 

He left the state of Maryland in ruins. 

He took a surplus left by Gov. Bob Ehrlich, and turned it into a deficit almost overnight.  He has done nothing but raise taxes and pass new taxes.  The sales tax went up, property taxes, gas tax, tolls doubled, and in the most ridiculous of all, the infamous rain tax. 

Despite the fact that Maryland has casinos making money hand over fist, the state was still overspending. 

As Mayor of Baltimore, he put a lot of programs in place that led to the riots in late April. 

He ruined Baltimore, he ruined Maryland, now he's going to try to ruin the United States.  I've changed my affiliation to Democrat just so I can vote against him in the Primaries.   

Rain tax!  :lol  Nice.  Reminds me of the "Old World" leaders (they're back!) taxing the length of men's beards or some such thing.  One of the reasons people started fleeing the Old for the New World in droves.

The people burning and looting Baltimore shouldn't be burning and looting CVS -- but rather the government.  That's not a threat or endorsement of such asinine behavior -- just a curious and highly intelligent observation.  And here's the rub -- the looters probably aren't even paying for the "rain" anyway.  They're the ones promised the payout!!!!  :-D  Ironical.

It's also why these radical Demorat "Leaders" aren't really upset by the looting.  The anger and violence is safely pointed away from them.  Perfect crime.

(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/9ef3bbd33ebccb169eab791e165e0044ea633435/c=4-0-1728-1296&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/08/11/1407735871000-AP-Police-Shooting-Missouri-002.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on June 05, 2015, 08:50:12 AM
Ah yes, Bernie is my candidate!  It's unlikely he'll beat Hillary but I'm glad he's in the race, he's making a bigger impact than I thought he would.

I'm going to switch from Green to Dem just vote for him.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on June 05, 2015, 09:51:21 AM
In what way has Clinton Cash affected Clinton supporters here on SS?
Well, it affects every citizen and taxpayer.  The foundation conferred "access" to countries who oppress women for starters, access and influence in mining uranium from the soil of the US, using other international "players. This affects everyone on the planet, with enhanced nuclear capabilities in the hands of our enemies.  JMHO



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on June 05, 2015, 09:57:12 AM
Anybody besides Martin O Malley.

I'm not sure how many across the country are aware, but he just announced that he's running for President. 

Don't be fooled by his charms or the fact that he's in an Irish band part time. 

He left the state of Maryland in ruins. 

He took a surplus left by Gov. Bob Ehrlich, and turned it into a deficit almost overnight.  He has done nothing but raise taxes and pass new taxes.  The sales tax went up, property taxes, gas tax, tolls doubled, and in the most ridiculous of all, the infamous rain tax. 

Despite the fact that Maryland has casinos making money hand over fist, the state was still overspending. 

As Mayor of Baltimore, he put a lot of programs in place that led to the riots in late April. 

He ruined Baltimore, he ruined Maryland, now he's going to try to ruin the United States.  I've changed my affiliation to Democrat just so I can vote against him in the Primaries.   

Rain tax!  :lol  Nice.  Reminds me of the "Old World" leaders (they're back!) taxing the length of men's beards or some such thing.  One of the reasons people started fleeing the Old for the New World in droves.

The people burning and looting Baltimore shouldn't be burning and looting CVS -- but rather the government.  That's not a threat or endorsement of such asinine behavior -- just a curious and highly intelligent observation.  And here's the rub -- the looters probably aren't even paying for the "rain" anyway.  They're the ones promised the payout!!!!  :-D  Ironical.

It's also why these radical Demorat "Leaders" aren't really upset by the looting.  The anger and violence is safely pointed away from them.  Perfect crime.



Yep, taxes went up when it rained.  Luckily, new Governor Hogan repealed it. 

I know Democrat leaders in Baltimore aren't upset.  Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake gave the rioters "space to destroy" after all.  It's going to start all over again when the charges for the six police officers are dropped. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 05, 2015, 08:35:45 PM
Here's a graph of the grift.   :p



This is YOU.   :wave

YOU pay taxes to this bastard. :hat  The popular (& shallow twit) Class President.  
----

The bastard gets elected by saying things about YOU   :wave  to all these nice people you've never met.  :afro :old 8o :brian :ninja :happydance :ahh

The bastard gets elected with ease.  Collects your money.  Eats Kobe beef.   :hat
----

These people's lives don't get any better :afro :old 8o :brian :ninja :happydance :ahh.  (Apparantly a bastard eating Kobe beef doesn't help the poor.)

Bastard :hat blames YOU for that :wave  

They get more angry  :afro :old 8o :brian :ninja :happydance :ahh at YOU.   :wave
-----

This is a Cop  :police:   One day, cop kills a criminal.

Bastard knows what to do.  :hat  Because Kobe beef is on the menu tonight!
-----

Bastard tells Cop to cool it and builds a monument to fallen criminal   :angel:

Strangely, crime in the neighborhoods doesn't get better  :afro :old 8o :brian :ninja :happydance :ahh

----

Anyone wanna guess how this story ends?  Let's ask this basketball superstar for a hint...

(http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/nba/players/full/110.png&w=350&h=254)

Kobe Bryant:  I know this... it's Kobe Beef, Bean Bag!  Kobe Beef!!!  The Bastard gets his Kobe Beef!
Bean Bag: That's right basketball star Kobe Bryant, the bastard gets Kobe Beef!
Kobe Bryant:  That's right Bean.  And remember kids, stay in school and drink your milk!!
Bean Bag:  Ok, Kobe Bryant everybody!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 05, 2015, 08:44:17 PM
In what way has Clinton Cash affected Clinton supporters here on SS?
Well, it affects every citizen and taxpayer.  The foundation conferred "access" to countries who oppress women for starters, access and influence in mining uranium from the soil of the US, using other international "players. This affects everyone on the planet, with enhanced nuclear capabilities in the hands of our enemies.  JMHO


Can you imagine if RICK PERRY or SARAH PALIN took money -- IN THE FORM OF PERSONAL DONATIONS!!! -- to look the other way, and allow people to support terrorists?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on June 06, 2015, 06:03:11 AM
In what way has Clinton Cash affected Clinton supporters here on SS?
Well, it affects every citizen and taxpayer.  The foundation conferred "access" to countries who oppress women for starters, access and influence in mining uranium from the soil of the US, using other international "players. This affects everyone on the planet, with enhanced nuclear capabilities in the hands of our enemies.  JMHO
Can you imagine if RICK PERRY or SARAH PALIN took money -- IN THE FORM OF PERSONAL DONATIONS!!! -- to look the other way, and allow people to support terrorists?
If anyone else did this...never mind the aforementioned... :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 06, 2015, 12:28:08 PM
What if we took this election off.  We don't vote for Class President this year.  And we just live our fcking lives.  Wanna try it?

How's this for a change: I agree with you.

The presidential elections are among the worst aspects of political life in this country. A small handful of giant--I mean fucking GIANT--marketing campaigns that last at least half the term of president itself. People on the winning team expect too much from their annointed one. People on the losing team give far too much credit to the demon whom the foolish or evil have elected (or whom the courts have crookedly appointed). Both teams keep plugging along, making sure no other team gets a chance to play. Both teams keep over-promising and under-delivering. Whichever one loses always has an advantage by promising change. Upon its failure, guess who gets to do the exact same goshdarn thing? There are about three narratives, tops, that just get endlessly recycled.

And "narrative" ends up the right word, because the aforementioned marketing campaigns are all about stories, not talent. Not intelligence. Not proven success. Just narrative. The precocious hick kid who didn't know his dad but finds the new "Third Way." The "other" son who overcame his sinful life to find the right track. The mixed-race, single-parent raised inspirational orator. The stories win and lose. The suckers believe what they're told and go on to act as promoters, spouting verbatim catch phrases they don't seem to have thought through.

It's a sporting event. Two teams. One is good, one is evil, and which is which depends on which one you're a part of. Both are just teams. It's all a sport. Sport isn't life. It occasionally can be used for metaphors, for analogies. But when you mistake it for life, you've accepted a hilariously, pathetically limited paradigm. When you triple down on exclamation points, you paint your face. When you so consistently demonize the other party (in this make-believe world of two parties, of good and evil) as to be a statistical marvel, you take off your shirt and draw your mascot on it so the camera is sure to show you as it cuts to the commercial.

Except, oh wait, this is the commercial. It's one big commercial. Marketing. That's it.

So let's take this one off. Let's skip the annointed change candidate with decades of history. Let's skip the purported change candidates trying to out-crazy one another. Let's skip the original successor-son who is supposed to be the new Third Way (and, to be fair, pretty well matches it). Let's skip the "common sense." Let's skip the weird half-thumbs-up gesture that replaces pointing or fist-pounding. Let's skip the condescension of millionaires calling us "folks" and talking about these symbolic "kitchen table talks" they seem to think we have. Skip state-specific pandering. Skip billionaires' funding.

Let's take this one off. f*** 'em.


(Sad reality, we can't. Or won't. We all think one or another is less terrible than some other or another. The bases--not necessarily partisan slaves, but people with political interests--plug their noses and vote. The center falls for the marketing and vote. The non-voters are doubly preyed upon as deciders. And money wins every time because it can.)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: BrianAlDaveFan on June 06, 2015, 02:45:55 PM
Quick! Someone stick Ross Perot in an age reduction machine and get his ass up there!

I don't have a comment to make on politics (though I respect everyone's right to do just that - and like it even more when people speak in a civil manner to each other) but the mention of Ross Perot made me think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EFnYUVuR-E


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 11, 2015, 08:00:01 AM
I'll just be sitting back on the sidelines while the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton acolytes destroy their chosen messiahs' campaigns.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on June 11, 2015, 03:53:51 PM
What if we took this election off.  We don't vote for Class President this year.  And we just live our fcking lives.  Wanna try it?

Let's take this one off. f*** 'em.

I would like this.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on June 16, 2015, 03:51:37 PM
Time to make room in the clown car: Trump is in.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 17, 2015, 09:08:52 AM
What if we took this election off.  We don't vote for Class President this year.  And we just live our fcking lives.  Wanna try it?

How's this for a change: I agree with you.

The presidential elections are among the worst aspects of political life in this country. A small handful of giant--I mean fucking GIANT--marketing campaigns that last at least half the term of president itself. People on the winning team expect too much from their annointed one. People on the losing team give far too much credit to the demon whom the foolish or evil have elected (or whom the courts have crookedly appointed). Both teams keep plugging along, making sure no other team gets a chance to play. Both teams keep over-promising and under-delivering. Whichever one loses always has an advantage by promising change. Upon its failure, guess who gets to do the exact same goshdarn thing? There are about three narratives, tops, that just get endlessly recycled.

And "narrative" ends up the right word, because the aforementioned marketing campaigns are all about stories, not talent. Not intelligence. Not proven success. Just narrative. The precocious hick kid who didn't know his dad but finds the new "Third Way." The "other" son who overcame his sinful life to find the right track. The mixed-race, single-parent raised inspirational orator. The stories win and lose. The suckers believe what they're told and go on to act as promoters, spouting verbatim catch phrases they don't seem to have thought through.

It's a sporting event. Two teams. One is good, one is evil, and which is which depends on which one you're a part of. Both are just teams. It's all a sport. Sport isn't life. It occasionally can be used for metaphors, for analogies. But when you mistake it for life, you've accepted a hilariously, pathetically limited paradigm. When you triple down on exclamation points, you paint your face. When you so consistently demonize the other party (in this make-believe world of two parties, of good and evil) as to be a statistical marvel, you take off your shirt and draw your mascot on it so the camera is sure to show you as it cuts to the commercial.

Except, oh wait, this is the commercial. It's one big commercial. Marketing. That's it.

So let's take this one off. Let's skip the annointed change candidate with decades of history. Let's skip the purported change candidates trying to out-crazy one another. Let's skip the original successor-son who is supposed to be the new Third Way (and, to be fair, pretty well matches it). Let's skip the "common sense." Let's skip the weird half-thumbs-up gesture that replaces pointing or fist-pounding. Let's skip the condescension of millionaires calling us "folks" and talking about these symbolic "kitchen table talks" they seem to think we have. Skip state-specific pandering. Skip billionaires' funding.

Let's take this one off. f*** 'em.


(Sad reality, we can't. Or won't. We all think one or another is less terrible than some other or another. The bases--not necessarily partisan slaves, but people with political interests--plug their noses and vote. The center falls for the marketing and vote. The non-voters are doubly preyed upon as deciders. And money wins every time because it can.)

It's not so much the election process that I'm detesting -- yes, it's canned and predictable (the media will go through any Conservative's garbage looking for that got-ch'ya item -- like, a receipt for a pack of condoms or something, which will conflict with the Democrat & Media's view that Conservatives don't have sex or whatever).  But what I detest is fake leaders and them stealing our money and jobs to pay for their kobe beef dinners.  Let's do the Government Shut-Down (Volume 2  ;D) thing -- and just go without them for 8 years.

I don't need them is my point.  I don't think we need government.  At all.  People say "what about roads?"  We already got roads.  Let's go cold turkey for 8 years... and then decide, slowly, one-by-one what we really need.


JUST LIVE.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 17, 2015, 10:23:52 AM
Ok, the world is back to normal now: we disagree again!

(Btw liberals know conservatives have sex: all the abstinence-only education and corresponding teen pregnancy rates prove red-state kids still f***. Not to mention the delightful inevitable scandals when conservatives end up fucking gay hookers while using meth. You're missed, Ted Haggard!)

But the reason I disagree here is simply that society requires order. No government = no laws and no police. I think society as a baseline should try to guarantee citizens equal treatment/rights (not outcomes, mind you), with a charitable mindset atop that for the poor. Without government, without constitution, without law, the poor and weak are (even more) at the mercy of the rich and strong. I'd babble more but I'm at work.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 17, 2015, 10:35:48 PM
Ok, the world is back to normal now: we disagree again!

(Btw liberals know conservatives have sex: all the abstinence-only education and corresponding teen pregnancy rates prove red-state kids still f***. Not to mention the delightful inevitable scandals when conservatives end up fucking gay hookers while using meth. You're missed, Ted Haggard!)

But the reason I disagree here is simply that society requires order. No government = no laws and no police. I think society as a baseline should try to guarantee citizens equal treatment/rights (not outcomes, mind you), with a charitable mindset atop that for the poor. Without government, without constitution, without law, the poor and weak are (even more) at the mercy of the rich and strong. I'd babble more but I'm at work.

Slow down.

No, the world is not back in order -- for, we (you and I) still agree.  Remember... to get to this point, we are first stripped free of the class President keeping order.  No government.  Then we (you and I) decide what we really need.

You cited cops.  Law and order.  (Don't tell Baltimore).

Keep going...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 18, 2015, 05:50:17 AM
No president isn't the same as no government. And the statement about "you and I" deciding what we really need would presumably end up being government of some form: any societal organizing force beyond, say, a family structure is, at some level, government.

As for Baltimore, what's your point? Things are terrible there, but my point that someone (police) should be entrusted with protection and maintaining order isn't lessened by Baltimore. There are corrupt cops, there are great cops. (I like to think my dad was a great one: 30 years on the force.) They're all human, and sometimes some do awful things, even systematically so, which is why we (citizens) always need to watch the officials in every capacity. No unchecked power. Conversely, there are crooked citizens, there are innocent citizens, and all of them are also inherently biased or flawed in their own ways. I don't like police brutality or killing, I don't like citizens rioting or killing, I don't like police stepping back, and I don't like citizens blaming everything on police. It's caught in a downward spiral-cycle of blame, mistrust, anger, fear.

But none of that eliminates the need for a professional, ethical police force to protect citizens and arrest criminals as necessary.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 18, 2015, 07:41:14 AM
My point is, by taking 2016 off, it's an exercise of sorts in cleaning house.  I believe people are actually much closer on what we need from government than the political climate suggests.  And the best way to prove that is to do this little exercise.

In computer terms... if we reset the computer -- wipe it clean -- getting rid of the VAST amounts of spyware, spam, junk software, and only reinstall the programs we need (and use) -- the system runs faster.  It's not even debatable -- I've done this many times.  And this is true in all walks of life.  Simplify.  Throw out the junk.  We're literally being buried alive right now.  And I, me, you, them don't have the brain power to untangle it all.  So, wipe it.  Reboot, reinstall. 

I think the country would agree on 99% of what gets reinstalled, is my second point.  There's only a handful of programs (at the Federal level) that we need.  Have all the local nanny-state sh-t you feel you want... but at the Federal level -- where we ALL have to agree -- only about 2-3% of it needs to be reinstalled.  We're talking operating system-level.  Firewall.  Basic, basic shite.  However, I'm looking at the read-outs, currently, it's using 70-80% of our RAM/resources to power the basic operating system.  It should only be using 2-3%.  My numbers may or may not be off -- but my point is 100% correct.  The Federal government is a pile of horsesht.

The reason why this has happened is important in stopping it... but frankly, I've found that people are so rigid and conditioned, that it's really not worth debating.  So... let's just shut down and cut our losses, and reboot.

In a nutshell... people are way, way closer than we're being told.  And the powerful knows this.  Therefore the powerful are using contention amongst its constituency, driving wedges, so we can't come together and agree to send them back to hell, where they belong.  It's as simple as that.  Just look at the Powerful's petri-dish of Baltimore.  I could care less WHY it happened (which is what everybody's spinning their wheels debating) -- but I'm just focusing on that it DID happen.  As planned.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 18, 2015, 07:55:37 AM
It sounds fun, but this wouldn't change much of anything...when you have people who vote for a living, they will vote (and probably often at that).


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 18, 2015, 08:20:09 AM
Uh oh, the sky is falling again, BeanBag: because we agree again, for the most part. ;D I take exception to the nanny state thing (if you meant that "you" as literally me), but mostly, I agree. This is actually why you've seen me in previous posts talk so much about the tone of rhetoric: because I think most of it is heat, not light, and it is if not creating, certainly aggravating and exploiting, honest differences. In a successful state, we can have our differences without worrying all that much about them, frankly. You might be interested in a book I recommended in the "what are you reading" thread. You'd find a lot to disagree with--and so did I--but it did have some good insights that I think align with our current agreement, too.

TRBB: even if there is more voter fraud than I believe there to be, I don't think that compares with the utter trash that is the 2-party dominance, as owned by corporate wealth. And I assume (apologies if wrongly) you mean the kind of alleged fraud that the likes of M Bachmann and similar types have imagined as pro-Democrat. If that's the case, it isn't working sufficiently to be a current "threat" anyway, considering the Republicans kept and won the House and Senate, respectively. Whereas the entrenched system of two parties picking talking heads to fundraise and spout the talking points written by their sponsors, and to protect their and their parties' political interests at all costs regardless of the citizens' interests or opinions...that's the more serious problem.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 18, 2015, 08:25:34 AM

TRBB: even if there is more voter fraud than I believe there to be, I don't think that compares with the utter trash that is the 2-party dominance, as owned by corporate wealth. And I assume (apologies if wrongly) you mean the kind of alleged fraud that the likes of M Bachmann and similar types have imagined as pro-Democrat. If that's the case, it isn't working sufficiently to be a current "threat" anyway, considering the Republicans kept and won the House and Senate, respectively. Whereas the entrenched system of two parties picking talking heads to fundraise and spout the talking points written by their sponsors, and to protect their and their parties' political interests at all costs regardless of the citizens' interests or opinions...that's the more serious problem.

No argument there. I may be an advocate of extreme capitalism; that does not mean I am pro-corporation. The military-corporate-industrial complex is something to be mistrusted. As far as the voter fraud thing goes, I'm sure it's a negligible amount. But there are many people who vote for a living. These people depend on the welfare teet. And I don't just mean the poor. Big corporations would be up sh*t creek without government.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Empire Of Love on June 18, 2015, 08:30:10 AM
"In a nutshell... people are way, way closer than we're being told.  And the powerful knows this.  Therefore the powerful are using contention amongst its constituency, driving wedges, so we can't come together and agree to send them back to hell, where they belong.  It's as simple as that.  Just look at the Powerful's petri-dish of Baltimore.  I could care less WHY it happened (which is what everybody's spinning their wheels debating) -- but I'm just focusing on that it DID happen.  As planned."

Sounds like dialectical materialism to me, and I agree with all but your first sentence, it is overly optimistic in my opinion.  There are a few who see what is going on, but the vast majority are clueless, they have no idea they are being played.  It isn't black versus white, it isn't Reps versus Dems, it isn't rich (average hard working rich guy) versus poor.  It's the powers that be versus everyone else.

My two cents, and worth about as much.

EoL


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 18, 2015, 08:34:37 AM
Government can only claim its power from the consent of the governed...and when you have people demanding big daddy government to keep them safe, keep them fed, or take care of them, the government will always hold all of the cards.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Empire Of Love on June 18, 2015, 08:35:50 AM
Agreed.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 18, 2015, 08:38:35 AM
When government is given the power of mommy and daddy, of educator and provider...you have created a BEAST. The only way that power is ever transferred is by systemic collapse.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 18, 2015, 10:07:52 AM

TRBB: even if there is more voter fraud than I believe there to be, I don't think that compares with the utter trash that is the 2-party dominance, as owned by corporate wealth. And I assume (apologies if wrongly) you mean the kind of alleged fraud that the likes of M Bachmann and similar types have imagined as pro-Democrat. If that's the case, it isn't working sufficiently to be a current "threat" anyway, considering the Republicans kept and won the House and Senate, respectively. Whereas the entrenched system of two parties picking talking heads to fundraise and spout the talking points written by their sponsors, and to protect their and their parties' political interests at all costs regardless of the citizens' interests or opinions...that's the more serious problem.

No argument there. I may be an advocate of extreme capitalism; that does not mean I am pro-corporation. The military-corporate-industrial complex is something to be mistrusted. As far as the voter fraud thing goes, I'm sure it's a negligible amount. But there are many people who vote for a living. These people depend on the welfare teet. And I don't just mean the poor. Big corporations would be up sh*t creek without government.

Thanks for that clarification. I generally agree.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 18, 2015, 01:02:45 PM
When government is given the power of mommy and daddy, of educator and provider...you have created a BEAST. The only way that power is ever transferred is by systemic collapse.

It be collapsin'.  But they're still winning elections.

(http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/detroit_4.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 18, 2015, 01:15:39 PM
Time to make room in the clown car: Trump is in.

I don't know Trump's politics -- he's been all over the map politically -- but I do like his firm, business sense.  SO REFRESHING.  I'm sick of the electing lunatics who really have nothing to offer.

(http://www.pennysdaybook.com/wp-content/gallery/barack-obama-the-freshman/3253_680.jpg?ec9a06)

No Bean.  No, no, no... I went to the Harvard.  Understand?  I'm different.

(http://clippers.topbuzz.com/modules/PNphpBB2/upload-pics/clippers/2029_cdc_1.png)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 18, 2015, 04:22:53 PM
I'd like a refreshing change, but Trump is only half of that. We don't need (any more) celebrity politicians. I say that as a guy who lived through a Jesse "The Body" governorship, far too many years of talk-show ranting Bachmann in the House, and remain in a Franken senatorship. I don't have much faith this will happen, but we don't need reality TV show hosts throwing firebomb remarks around.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 18, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
I'd like a refreshing change, but Trump is only half of that. We don't need (any more) celebrity politicians. I say that as a guy who lived through a Jesse "The Body" governorship, far too many years of talk-show ranting Bachmann in the House, and remain in a Franken senatorship. I don't have much faith this will happen, but we don't need reality TV show hosts throwing firebomb remarks around.
:lol  True, very true.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on June 20, 2015, 06:57:51 AM
  Interesting how the various GOP candidates refrain from labelling the Charleston shooting exactly what it was: a race based hate crime. The shooter himself said as much. Who are the 2016 Republican presidential candidates trying not to offend? Psychopathic racists?

 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 20, 2015, 09:59:07 PM
 Interesting how the various GOP candidates refrain from labelling the Charleston shooting exactly what it was: a race based hate crime. The shooter himself said as much. Who are the 2016 Republican presidential candidates trying not to offend? Psychopathic racists?

Seriously?  :lol  I'm not pulling for any of "various GOP" candidate with my response -- but I just can't let stuff like this float out of the sewer without a proper smack-down.

First, stories like this are made for the blow-pops out there that already believe all Republicans are racists.  Would this story even make sense otherwise?  No.  Second, if it's labels you want, ask Obama what terrorism is.

The audacity and hypocrisy of Democrat "media" never ceases to amaze.  I swear, there's no shame.  Obama is the one who has trouble applying appropriate labels.  To him, Terrorism is the "T-word."  Islamic Extremism, does not exist.  He's either delusional or has an agenda.  Because the reality is, there's an army amassing, taking over cities.  And to him, there's nothing behind it -- or so he wants you to believe.

The reality is -- all candidates are repulsed by this shooting, and have said so.  And I'm sure, if these racist killings proved to be part of larger racist cult, that was taking over cities, and riding around with AK-47s in downtown Atlanta -- then nobody would be calling it work-place violence, like how Obama tries to sell us on.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 21, 2015, 06:26:06 AM
 Interesting how the various GOP candidates refrain from labelling the Charleston shooting exactly what it was: a race based hate crime. The shooter himself said as much. Who are the 2016 Republican presidential candidates trying not to offend? Psychopathic racists?

Seriously?  :lol  I'm not pulling for any of "various GOP" candidate with my response -- but I just can't let stuff like this float out of the sewer without a proper smack-down.

First, stories like this are made for the blow-pops out there that already believe all Republicans are racists.  Would this story even make sense otherwise?  No.  Second, if it's labels you want, ask Obama what terrorism is.

The audacity and hypocrisy of Democrat "media" never ceases to amaze.  I swear, there's no shame.  Obama is the one who has trouble applying appropriate labels.  To him, Terrorism is the "T-word."  Islamic Extremism, does not exist.  He's either delusional or has an agenda.  Because the reality is, there's an army amassing, taking over cities.  And to him, there's nothing behind it -- or so he wants you to believe.

The reality is -- all candidates are repulsed by this shooting, and have said so.  And I'm sure, if these racist killings proved to be part of larger racist cult, that was taking over cities, and riding around with AK-47s in downtown Atlanta -- then nobody would be calling it work-place violence, like how Obama tries to sell us on.

I don't think I'm coming from the same place as either of you.

First, as Bean Bag said, I do agree that all candidates--indeed, all reasonably normal human beings--are repulsed by the Charleston shooting, as they are of all similar violence. Maybe candidates across the political spectrum aren't using the same terminology, which is not surprising: the parties (and even factions of the parties sometimes) use their own vocabularies all the time to reinforce or reflect their worldviews. But really, does the cause of the violence require the emphasis? I might actually come down closer to the standard Republican position on that, an aversion to differentiating the crime based on the cause (as opposed to the action, the effect). The very term "hate crime" is almost silly: if I'm shot by a white-hating non-white, is that worse for me than being shot by a me-hating white guy? Not really. Killed is killed, and every murder is a hate crime. There aren't a lot of "love murders" out there.

(Don't take this as me taking it easy on racism. Racism is obviously a position of ignorance and fear. That's sad. Racists are pathetic.)

But I do take issue on the omnipresent Obama slamming on this issue, too. Not that I think he's perfect--far from it--but I don't think it's quite accurate. The president has consistently condemned the terrorism of the assorted jihadists out there for being just that. What a lot of right-wing media took issue with was his accurate, but maybe tone-deaf, statement a few months back about how Christianity had its own periods of intolerance and violence. That wasn't intended to justify ISIS or Al Qaeda or any other current Islamic terrorism, it was just putting it into context. I actually took it as a unifying statement; many took it as a divisive one. But to me, the idea (again, even if inelegantly communicated) was intended to remember there were and are good and bad aspects of every larger subgroup, and that we ought not hate or condemn all Muslims just because there are factions of them using their versions of that religion for violence and oppression. But never has he said or implied there are not factions of Muslims committing that violence and oppression.

Really it doesn't have to always come down to one-upmanship though. We could discuss things without always reverting to "oh yeah, well your team said/did..."



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on June 21, 2015, 07:33:46 AM
I'd like a refreshing change, but Trump is only half of that. We don't need (any more) celebrity politicians. I say that as a guy who lived through a Jesse "The Body" governorship, far too many years of talk-show ranting Bachmann in the House, and remain in a Franken senatorship. I don't have much faith this will happen, but we don't need reality TV show hosts throwing firebomb remarks around.
:lol  True, very true.
Trump is making things interesting...and "making America great" again is very seductive political rhetoric.  There is truth in this.  There is more than one business person / celebrity in the mix now. 

He'll inject some new perspective and call out some fakers in the race.  One thing, is that Donald Trump will not be ignored.  And can buy whatever "narrative time" he wants in the press.  He will be a player even if he isn't the nominee. 

Good for him for putting his money where his mouth is.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 21, 2015, 08:42:13 AM
I would trust a businessman more as a president than a politician...that's not saying much, though.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on June 21, 2015, 11:26:13 AM
  I didn't say all Republicans are racists. What I said is that none of the major contenders for the GOP nomination were willing to acknowledge the Charleston incident was an act based on madness and race hatred, when the shooter himself said as much. Why not? You tell me.

 I'm from a long line of Republicans. My dad, his dad & mom, their parents, etc. I voted for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and John McCain. All good men. Once voted for George W Bush. That was a mistake I did not repeat. In ideological terms, I am more or less a Liberal Republican who reveres Dwight D Eisenhower, thinks Nelson Rockefeller might have made a good president, respects Bush the elder, and has a few nice things to say about Richard Nixon as well.

 Having said that, the dominant strand of today's GOP is rather sickening IMO. FOX News and Rush Limbaugh have harmed the GOP more than any Democrat ever could. The GOP must either evolve or join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on June 21, 2015, 11:28:41 AM
I would trust a businessman more as a president than a politician...that's not saying much, though.

  A businessman? Maybe so, but Trump is a celebrity businessman, and a cartoon. Romney was more the real deal in that department.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 22, 2015, 05:44:16 AM
 I didn't say all Republicans are racists. What I said is that none of the major contenders for the GOP nomination were willing to acknowledge the Charleston incident was an act based on madness and race hatred, when the shooter himself said as much. Why not? You tell me.

For what it's worth--and I'm not sure what exactly it is worth--both Sen Rubio and Gov Walker have explicitly called it racist violence.

Saturday, Walker said "I want to make it abundantly clear that I think the act, the crime that was committed on Wednesday, is an act of racism."

Rubio said it was "an act motivated by racial hatred."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on June 23, 2015, 04:44:56 AM
  If so, I stand corrected. It was an awful tragedy and on that everyone agrees.

  ***********


  Scott Walker...if he is legit, then anybody can run.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on June 23, 2015, 07:13:14 AM
 I didn't say all Republicans are racists. What I said is that none of the major contenders for the GOP nomination were willing to acknowledge the Charleston incident was an act based on madness and race hatred, when the shooter himself said as much. Why not? You tell me.

For what it's worth--and I'm not sure what exactly it is worth--both Sen Rubio and Gov Walker have explicitly called it racist violence.

Saturday, Walker said "I want to make it abundantly clear that I think the act, the crime that was committed on Wednesday, is an act of racism."

Rubio said it was "an act motivated by racial hatred."
That young man reminded me, eerily, of the mentally ill Newtown shooter, and other young people who have had untreated or poorly treated mental illness.  Young children who manifest signs of "no remorse" and "no compassion" are often ticking time bombs.  This guy could have just as easily channeled his mental illness and rage toward ISIS.  When this guy's background is plumbed, it is likely that these signs were manifesting themselves in anti-social school behavior, that went ignored because the party line in schools is that "they will outgrow it."

My blood would run cold looking at the steely eyes of an unrepentant four or five year old child who kicked another classmate, or ripped up their drawing. Later, they often kill animals. It likely came from someplace that went ignored until the person "aged-out" of treatment or turned 18, at which time the parents have no rights.  These kids need help and not be "swept under the big rug" in school.  This was a marginalized kid who "blended in" until he didn't.

And, I'm not condoning his actions but it didn't happen overnight. A lot of people dropped the ball along the way. Monsters are made/created over time.  And technically it is a "racial hate crime."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 23, 2015, 08:39:03 AM
Having said that, the dominant strand of today's GOP is rather sickening IMO. FOX News and Rush Limbaugh have harmed the GOP more than any Democrat ever could. The GOP must either evolve or join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.

They should have endeavored to be more like Calvin Coolidge and Barry Goldwater as opposed to Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 23, 2015, 03:43:47 PM
... as opposed to ... Ronald Reagan.

Good thing you're clearly not a card-carrying Republican type, because they'd kick you out for such heresy. At least since the campaign before the '08 nomination, Reagan has been identified as being, more or less, Jesus.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 23, 2015, 03:55:30 PM
Oh, I have as much love for the GOP as I do the Democrats. The Democrats don't eat their own during election season, which is the only reason they've remained relevant.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 23, 2015, 04:30:40 PM
In that the GOP's calling card used to be ol' Ronald Christ's "11th commandment," (thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican) it's actually an interesting twist. The converse used to be the case.

I don't agree with your last clause. My relationship to the Democrats might be similar to yours to Republicans (from what I've perceived, anyway), but I don't think their ability to promote their candidates is the only reason why they're relevant. I think the reason they're relevant is that Republicans have come across as either country club members or hysterical "oppressed majority" white Christians. It isn't because Democrats haven't necessarily had quite the infighting of recent (really only post-Tea Party) Republicans that some segment of America believes Democrats are less of an obstacle to equality in terms of gender, race, sexual orientation, or equality of opportunity (financially speaking).

I'm not arguing a political-philosophy or policy position with those sentences, mind you. Just saying that it isn't as if the Republicans present an obvious, clear choice for what all citizens deem the path to personal or national success, somehow blocked only by their own (and Democrats' lack of) infighting.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 24, 2015, 05:56:59 AM
 I didn't say all Republicans are racists. What I said is that none of the major contenders for the GOP nomination were willing to acknowledge the Charleston incident was an act based on madness and race hatred, when the shooter himself said as much. Why not? You tell me.

For what it's worth--and I'm not sure what exactly it is worth--both Sen Rubio and Gov Walker have explicitly called it racist violence.

Saturday, Walker said "I want to make it abundantly clear that I think the act, the crime that was committed on Wednesday, is an act of racism."

Rubio said it was "an act motivated by racial hatred."

Dr. Carson (of whom I'm not a fan, politically, though he's certainly an impressive man) spoke very pointedly on this yesterday, making comments in reference to the candidates who have not been blunt in noting the racism involved in the killing. (My understanding is that Gov Perry, Sen Paul, Sen Santorum, and Gov Jindal have avoided saying "racism.")

Carson said "let's call this sickness what it is so we can get on with the healing. There are people who are claiming they can lead this country who dare not call this tragedy an act of racism, a hate crime, for fear of offending a particular segment of the electorate. Let's not delude ourselves here. If we teach [young people] it is ok to deny racism exists, even when it's staring them in the face, then we will perpetuate this sickness into the next generation and the next."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 24, 2015, 09:28:11 AM
I'd like a refreshing change, but Trump is only half of that. We don't need (any more) celebrity politicians. I say that as a guy who lived through a Jesse "The Body" governorship, far too many years of talk-show ranting Bachmann in the House, and remain in a Franken senatorship. I don't have much faith this will happen, but we don't need reality TV show hosts throwing firebomb remarks around.
:lol  True, very true.
Trump is making things interesting...and "making America great" again is very seductive political rhetoric.  There is truth in this.  There is more than one business person / celebrity in the mix now.  

He'll inject some new perspective and call out some fakers in the race.  One thing, is that Donald Trump will not be ignored.  And can buy whatever "narrative time" he wants in the press.  He will be a player even if he isn't the nominee.  

Good for him for putting his money where his mouth is.
Yep, this is how I feel. Whether we like it or not politics is about charisma, selling yourself (and maybe even your ideas!) to voters. Trump is also a very successful person -- a business leader who is unashamed of his success. Not only is that refreshing as hell, but critical after suffering under the negative, shameful, tyranny of a "know-it-all," unaccomplished "pretty boy" radical twit for 7 years.  We need pride, strength and loyalty, and SUCCESS so bad right now.  Real success.  Not propaganda.  I'm not endorsing Trump yet but he's the one I've been telling people about (to scoffs and jeers). We'll see.

But, what I love most about Trump, is how he handles the Democrat Party Communication Department -- or "media."  He knows who they are, I think.  He knows the media nazis exists only to destroy Republicans or anybody who opposes their Party's nominee.  Either way... he doesn't bite on the narrative advanced by the hitler media.  And that's why liberals panties get in a wad when I mention Donald Trump.  "Donald Trump!" Can you feel your undies binding up?  if so... you're a liberal.  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 24, 2015, 09:51:45 AM
... as opposed to ... Ronald Reagan.

Good thing you're clearly not a card-carrying Republican type, because they'd kick you out for such heresy. At least since the campaign before the '08 nomination, Reagan has been identified as being, more or less, Jesus.

This is the wishful misconception perpetrated by the agenda driven class -- that the Republican Party is all about Reagan.  Sigh.  I don't know how many times I've had to correct this... but no, Reagan was not and is not loved by the Republican Party.  Candidates (on both the right and left) constantly evoke his name because he was the best damn President we've had in modern times and people loved him -- (and yes, that too drives the power-hungry politicans crazy).  Al Gore famously came out for one of the debates with his hair combed and wearing make-up (rosy cheeks) to look just like Reagan.  It was creepy.  But then again, Al Gore is creepy.  Republicans constantly bring his name up in front of voters -- because he was popular.

But don't be fooled.  The fact is, Reagan (and all unafraid, unapologetic principled conservatives) are NOT supported by Republicans or ANY Party.  The parties are about power and money.  On both sides.  Reagan was about the people -- and constantly spoke of how government IS the eternal problem, not the answer.  That's not what the parties are about.  And while they're fine to trade on his name and stock -- they sh-t on his supporters, stab'em in the back and grow government from their comfy committee seats.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 24, 2015, 10:00:06 AM
 I didn't say all Republicans are racists. What I said is that none of the major contenders for the GOP nomination were willing to acknowledge the Charleston incident was an act based on madness and race hatred, when the shooter himself said as much. Why not? You tell me.

 I'm from a long line of Republicans. My dad, his dad & mom, their parents, etc. I voted for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and John McCain. All good men. Once voted for George W Bush. That was a mistake I did not repeat. In ideological terms, I am more or less a Liberal Republican who reveres Dwight D Eisenhower, thinks Nelson Rockefeller might have made a good president, respects Bush the elder, and has a few nice things to say about Richard Nixon as well.

 Having said that, the dominant strand of today's GOP is rather sickening IMO. FOX News and Rush Limbaugh have harmed the GOP more than any Democrat ever could. The GOP must either evolve or join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.

Fair enough.  Actually, I didn't mean to attack your observation (it's quite relevant) but it fed into the emerging media/Demorat template of "Republicans: are they ALL racists?  Or just some?  See their response, at 11"  It's not only one of those "try to disprove a negative" traps for Republicans if they don't respond correctly (which is nearly impossible), but it's really all that the media/demorats have going for themselves in 2016.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 24, 2015, 10:02:51 AM
You're going to find racists in both major parties. That's just the way it is.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 24, 2015, 10:19:49 AM
... as opposed to ... Ronald Reagan.

Good thing you're clearly not a card-carrying Republican type, because they'd kick you out for such heresy. At least since the campaign before the '08 nomination, Reagan has been identified as being, more or less, Jesus.

This is the wishful misconception perpetrated by the agenda driven class -- that the Republican Party is all about Reagan.  Sigh.  I don't know how many times I've had to correct this... but no, Reagan was not and is not loved by the Republican Party.  Candidates (on both the right and left) constantly evoke his name because he was the best damn President we've had in modern times and people loved him -- (and yes, that too drives the power-hungry politicans crazy).  Al Gore famously came out for one of the debates with his hair combed and wearing make-up (rosy cheeks) to look just like Reagan.  It was creepy.  But then again, Al Gore is creepy.  Republicans constantly bring his name up in front of voters -- because he was popular.

But don't be fooled.  The fact is, Reagan (and all unafraid, unapologetic principled conservatives) are NOT supported by Republicans or ANY Party.  The parties are about power and money.  On bother sides.  Reagan was about the people -- and constantly spoke of how government IS the eternal problem, not the answer.  That's not what the parties are about.  And while they're fine to trade on his name and stock -- they sh-t on his supporters, stab'em in the back and grow government from their comfy committee seats.



While I don't share your enthusiasm for Reagan (not do I hate or demonize him, but rather see him as a typically mixed bag), I also don't think you really "corrected" me. Or even contradicted me, other than expand the scope of the deification back in time and across party lines. I agree that members of both parties drop the sacred name in hopes of getting some benefits rubbing off. But surely you don't disagree that the GOP candidates the past two presidential cycled have invoked him at a hilariously increased rate.

At the end of the Reagan years I remember him as being seen more as a mentally failing, but beloved, grandfather than as a god. Iran-Contra didn't help. But that said, GHW Bush won, which speaks to public opinion, too. But in the next decade or so I barely recall anyone mentioning, much less praising, Reagan. As time goes, it's easier to promote the idol, as the human aspects fade from memory. Everyone becomes all good or all bad, a cartoon.

Anyway, that was my only point: regardless of the man himself, he has increasingly been invoked, especially republicans, and sometimes by people who don't even seem to know what they're talking about.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 24, 2015, 10:20:16 AM
You're going to find racists in both major parties. That's just the way it is.

That's true.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 24, 2015, 12:52:43 PM
At the end of the Reagan years I remember him as being seen more as a mentally failing, but beloved, grandfather than as a god. Iran-Contra didn't help. But that said, GHW Bush won, which speaks to public opinion, too. But in the next decade or so I barely recall anyone mentioning, much less praising, Reagan. As time goes, it's easier to promote the idol, as the human aspects fade from memory. Everyone becomes all good or all bad, a cartoon.

Anyway, that was my only point: regardless of the man himself, he has increasingly been invoked, especially republicans, and sometimes by people who don't even seem to know what they're talking about.

Yes, some of the human aspects fade away -- but what's left is just the facts.  Or the deep desire to know what the facts are.

This is the HUGE problem for the radicals -- throughout history.  They have to constantly rewrite history in an attempt to paint themselves in a better light.  And they're good at it -- don't get me wrong.  The Demorat Party is the party of slavery, Jim Crow and the "Confederate Flag" flying today -- yet, how have they rewritten the dialogue?  Amazing isn't it?

Anyway... Reagan addressed this as the rabid media and leftist trolls tore at his Presidency (paraphrasing) "history will judge me."  The bilge, the hatred -- it takes awhile -- but it begins to fade and it's seen for what it is.  Take Lincoln... he surely wasn't loved, by any means, in his time like George Washington was in his time.  But that's not how we remember Lincoln.  Reagan's failing health only adds to the human side of his legacy.  No one judges Lincoln for the bullet that took him down.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 24, 2015, 01:19:29 PM
You're going to find racists in both major parties. That's just the way it is.

But, throughout history (and to this very day) racism has been institutionalized in one party.  Institutionalized.  A means by which they operate, wield and achieve power and wealth.  The Demorat Party is the party and home of America's racism -- then and today.

Obama just said the other day "it's in our DNA."  Clinton said the same thing more or less.  I know they think they meant something else, but seriously -- who says racism is in our DNA?  Honestly, who thinks like that -- and then articulates it?  I'll tell you why they do it... to make YOU feel like YOU'RE a racist.  You can't help it.  You're a racist -- just 'cuz.  And there's nothing you can do about it.  Ya'understand me boy?

F that.

They speak for themselves.  Not me.  The Demorat Party is the Grand Ol' Party Of Race.  From slavery to Jim Crow. From segregation to standing against Civil Rights.  All the way up to Ferguson, Baltimore and Al Sharpton.  And they're not changing.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 24, 2015, 01:24:14 PM
Hence why I have zero love for both major parties.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 24, 2015, 03:14:03 PM
Yes, some of the human aspects fade away -- but what's left is just the facts. 

I'd say what's left is the propaganda--and I don't mean that just in respect to Reagan, but to every public figure. Everyone becomes one-dimensional to the general public (if the general public remembers anything). Those who study in more depth can find more nuance, but nobody wants to hear it. It's all about heroes and villains.

As for the whole Democrats-are-evil thing, here's yet another time you just lose my attention because I think you're really being simplistic or maybe just intentionally inflammatory. I enjoy trading posts with you often, but then there's those sorts of posts where one gets the impression you believe that all Democrats--and certainly all liberals--are either malicious or stupid. You can't honestly believe that, can you? That alternative political ideas--which, let's be honest, aren't even especially easy to test, considering all the factors that go into every government (and especially every modern one)--are evil? Even though probably 40% of the American population considers itself to be Democrat, liberal, or both? They're all evil and/or stupid?

With respect to the racism thing, yes, no doubt, Democrats were the party of slavery. And as civil rights legislation began to be passed, the "Dixiecrats" increasingly turned Republican, as that party (Nixon, to start) used the "Southern Strategy" to court those racist Dixiecrats. I'm not saying racism was once Democrat and became Republican, I'm saying both sides undoubtedly have real racists, both sides undoubtedly have opportunists ready to try to exploit any advantage (including racist fears or feelings), and both sides undoubtedly have good people.

You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

Maybe my perspective is skewed about these things. My family is generally conservative, including a very conservative brother to whom I'm closer than I am to anyone else in my family. (We're talking really conservative, and what you'd have to call a fundamentalist in terms of religion, as well: a conservative Lutheran minister. We're talking 6-day creation, no evolution, literal interpretation of the Bible, etc. The whole deal.) Yet one of my best friends is a liberal activist who makes the Democrats look like Tea Partiers. I've got other friends who see all conservatives in exactly the way I just framed the way some of your posts hint you see liberals.

And me, I don't buy it. I don't like the institutions of the parties, but neither do I bow to a political ideology. And I certainly don't think it's worthwhile making demons or idiots out of regular people. Or even the elected officials who seem intent on proving they're one or the other (or both), for that matter.

In closing and on an altogether different note, your mention of Lincoln now means you name-dropped both Republican presidents The Real Beach Boy noted the party should have gone away from (toward Coolidge and Goldwater).


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on June 24, 2015, 04:28:26 PM
 Hold the phone, Bobby Jindal is in. Game changer.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 24, 2015, 09:08:53 PM

You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

I know.  I know.  But here's the thing -- I'm not convinced people can be reached all that easily.  Not easily.  Yet most of the politicians purportedly on my "side" (that's debatable) have been duped into pansy talk -- thinking that that's how we're reached.   ::)  In short -- they're shooting blanks.  The other side (the ones that want gun 'trol) -- are firing live ammo.

We're kind of a Grand Theft Auto society.  Yet people are numbed.  So I toss out some of the stronger opinions I've got.  Why not.  They're not "obscene" -- they're just firm.  Impenetrable.  Undoubted.  There's nothing truly offensive or dangerous or threatening - just words and opinions that can be walked away from.

I'm not trying to get people to part with their money or give up their rights or their property.  I'm not promising to "run Healthcare" better than the people who do Healthcare, nor take 70% of your salary.  I'm not driving businesses away to other nations with taxes -- thus killing small towns -- for some supposed "good."

That's pretty evil stuff.  And I don't want that.

People need to have the switch turned on.  I think it's doable.  But like any other habit to be kicked, it's needs to happen through a form of personal disgust.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 24, 2015, 09:41:33 PM
Ok, let's get back to work here... candidate number 1

Jeb Bush

(http://www.dallasvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jeb-bush-headshot.jpg)

Like him or not, he's a Bush.  He knows that.  He doesn't have "the base" but he's got the upper crust of the Republican Party.  What I like is he's got a lot of good values -- and he won't let the country go to hell like Obama.  What I don't like is he's not a firm conservative.  He's well bred -- which like the Kennedy's is fancy tuna -- but not something I put much stock in.  But as The Captain rightly reminded me of -- Jessie Ventura sucked.  Sucked waaaay more.  Well bred tuna ain't a bad thing.

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 25, 2015, 04:39:06 AM

You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

I know.  I know.  But here's the thing -- I'm not convinced people can be reached all that easily.  Not easily.  Yet most of the politicians purportedly on my "side" (that's debatable) have been duped into pansy talk -- thinking that that's how we're reached.   ::)  In short -- they're shooting blanks.  The other side (the ones that want gun 'trol) -- are firing live ammo.

We're kind of a Grand Theft Auto society.  Yet people are numbed.  So I toss out some of the stronger opinions I've got.  Why not.  They're not "obscene" -- they're just firm.  Impenetrable.  Undoubted.  There's nothing truly offensive or dangerous or threatening - just words and opinions that can be walked away from.

I'm not trying to get people to part with their money or give up their rights or their property.  I'm not promising to "run Healthcare" better than the people who do Healthcare, nor take 70% of your salary.  I'm not driving businesses away to other nations with taxes -- thus killing small towns -- for some supposed "good."

That's pretty evil stuff.  And I don't want that.

People need to have the switch turned on.  I think it's doable.  But like any other habit to be kicked, it's needs to happen through a form of personal disgust.

I disagree almost entirely. Maybe it's just personality types, but I look at your style as the least likely approach to "have the switch turned on." Anyone who already agrees with you will yell "yeah!" the base is fired up, torches are lit, pansy liberals are smoked from their holes. Or some such fiction. But anyone who doesn't already agree with you just thinks either "he's evil, he's the devil, we need to turn on our side to fight these bastards," or--the result that occurs with me--"ugh, a simplistic loudmouth. You can't argue with stupid..." and moves along having not heard what was said.

You're not stupid, which is probably why I've reengaged in these sorts of threads with you. But that's my first assumption with everyone who tries to fire anyone up. Anyone who tries to talk tough. That kind of heat almost always lacks light.

You said a few days or weeks ago that most people agree on a lot of things. I believe that to be true. But the tough talk, the mean talk, it seems you're doing your best to make sure those people don't recognize their vast agreements, and instead stick to their disagreements more firmly than ever. 

Cool head, warm heart. Speak softly, carry a big stick. Whatever. I'm a fan of calm reason, and averse to machismo, gang fights, and heroes and villains mythology.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Awesoman on June 25, 2015, 04:44:18 AM
Yes, some of the human aspects fade away -- but what's left is just the facts. 

I'd say what's left is the propaganda--and I don't mean that just in respect to Reagan, but to every public figure. Everyone becomes one-dimensional to the general public (if the general public remembers anything). Those who study in more depth can find more nuance, but nobody wants to hear it. It's all about heroes and villains.

As for the whole Democrats-are-evil thing, here's yet another time you just lose my attention because I think you're really being simplistic or maybe just intentionally inflammatory. I enjoy trading posts with you often, but then there's those sorts of posts where one gets the impression you believe that all Democrats--and certainly all liberals--are either malicious or stupid. You can't honestly believe that, can you? That alternative political ideas--which, let's be honest, aren't even especially easy to test, considering all the factors that go into every government (and especially every modern one)--are evil? Even though probably 40% of the American population considers itself to be Democrat, liberal, or both? They're all evil and/or stupid?

With respect to the racism thing, yes, no doubt, Democrats were the party of slavery. And as civil rights legislation began to be passed, the "Dixiecrats" increasingly turned Republican, as that party (Nixon, to start) used the "Southern Strategy" to court those racist Dixiecrats. I'm not saying racism was once Democrat and became Republican, I'm saying both sides undoubtedly have real racists, both sides undoubtedly have opportunists ready to try to exploit any advantage (including racist fears or feelings), and both sides undoubtedly have good people.

You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

Maybe my perspective is skewed about these things. My family is generally conservative, including a very conservative brother to whom I'm closer than I am to anyone else in my family. (We're talking really conservative, and what you'd have to call a fundamentalist in terms of religion, as well: a conservative Lutheran minister. We're talking 6-day creation, no evolution, literal interpretation of the Bible, etc. The whole deal.) Yet one of my best friends is a liberal activist who makes the Democrats look like Tea Partiers. I've got other friends who see all conservatives in exactly the way I just framed the way some of your posts hint you see liberals.

And me, I don't buy it. I don't like the institutions of the parties, but neither do I bow to a political ideology. And I certainly don't think it's worthwhile making demons or idiots out of regular people. Or even the elected officials who seem intent on proving they're one or the other (or both), for that matter.

In closing and on an altogether different note, your mention of Lincoln now means you name-dropped both Republican presidents The Real Beach Boy noted the party should have gone away from (toward Coolidge and Goldwater).

Just thought I'd share the following:
https://youtu.be/9kry_VfFSh4

This guy gets it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on June 25, 2015, 04:44:57 AM
  Jeb is the best of the Republican candidates. The fact that he isn't a "firm conservative" shows he is flexible and not a prisoner to dogmatic ideology.

  I dislike Jeb when, in my view, he panders. His recent comments on the Pope for example.

  Jeb is the only GOP candidate fit to be president. But God help you when your big brother screwed up as badly as George W.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 25, 2015, 06:13:13 AM
Jeb is a joke. Sadly, it probably will come down to Clinton vs. Bush yet again. Rand Paul's the only one who makes even a smidge of sense. Sucks that more people aren't speaking out against the communist in the Vatican, but I guess this is no surprise.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 25, 2015, 07:26:48 PM

You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

I know.  I know.  But here's the thing -- I'm not convinced people can be reached all that easily.  Not easily.  Yet most of the politicians purportedly on my "side" (that's debatable) have been duped into pansy talk -- thinking that that's how we're reached.   ::)  In short -- they're shooting blanks.  The other side (the ones that want gun 'trol) -- are firing live ammo.

We're kind of a Grand Theft Auto society.  Yet people are numbed.  So I toss out some of the stronger opinions I've got.  Why not.  They're not "obscene" -- they're just firm.  Impenetrable.  Undoubted.  There's nothing truly offensive or dangerous or threatening - just words and opinions that can be walked away from.

I'm not trying to get people to part with their money or give up their rights or their property.  I'm not promising to "run Healthcare" better than the people who do Healthcare, nor take 70% of your salary.  I'm not driving businesses away to other nations with taxes -- thus killing small towns -- for some supposed "good."

That's pretty evil stuff.  And I don't want that.

People need to have the switch turned on.  I think it's doable.  But like any other habit to be kicked, it's needs to happen through a form of personal disgust.

I disagree almost entirely. Maybe it's just personality types, but I look at your style as the least likely approach to "have the switch turned on." Anyone who already agrees with you will yell "yeah!" the base is fired up, torches are lit, pansy liberals are smoked from their holes. Or some such fiction. But anyone who doesn't already agree with you just thinks either "he's evil, he's the devil, we need to turn on our side to fight these bastards," or--the result that occurs with me--"ugh, a simplistic loudmouth. You can't argue with stupid..." and moves along having not heard what was said.

You're not stupid, which is probably why I've reengaged in these sorts of threads with you. But that's my first assumption with everyone who tries to fire anyone up. Anyone who tries to talk tough. That kind of heat almost always lacks light.

You said a few days or weeks ago that most people agree on a lot of things. I believe that to be true. But the tough talk, the mean talk, it seems you're doing your best to make sure those people don't recognize their vast agreements, and instead stick to their disagreements more firmly than ever.  

Cool head, warm heart. Speak softly, carry a big stick. Whatever. I'm a fan of calm reason, and averse to machismo, gang fights, and heroes and villains mythology.
Yes, absolutely.  What you describe is more like how I operate in my daily life and much more my personality, too. Machismo and ego I saw as a requiring fuel I didn't have and so I traded them long ago for the pursuits of patience, forgiveness, art, music, introspection and insightfulness.  That's what energizes me.

But I don't believe they work in all battle conditions. Politics is an unfortunate reality, where people (whatever their motives) are actually causing a lot of harm. We've seen a lot of failed European Socialist ideas forced on free people. And the ones that are accepting it with open arms are being lied to -- and lying to others -- about its success. And many Republicans don't want to rock the boat -- or simply get in the boat, thinking they'll be liked for doing so.  That's a trick.  And that's what I mean by pansy talk. Milquetoast Republicans. Democrat Lite.

But I'm not opposed to the cool head, warm heart approach in politics. It's how I've always lived my life and managed my affairs. We'll see how it works on the political stage -- Ben Carson is good at that. It's who he is. I like him a lot.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 26, 2015, 04:08:44 AM
Jeb is a joke. Sadly, it probably will come down to Clinton vs. Bush yet again. Rand Paul's the only one who makes even a smidge of sense. Sucks that more people aren't speaking out against the communist in the Vatican, but I guess this is no surprise.

Job was never "my guy."  But when he said (heavily paraphrasing) that he knew how to tell the base what they wanted to hear -- wish I had the exact quote -- it was very condescending towards conservatives, etc. I really have to question his abilities, motives and intelligence.

It's fine if the kooky fringe on the Left and their media thinks that the conservative base is fringe and needs to be handled this way -- that's a good sign that we're being heard and that they're rightly afraid of us -- but a bad sign if one of our candidates thinks this way. Wolf in the hen house. I'm done with these types of candidates.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 26, 2015, 04:31:40 AM
Just thought I'd share the following:
https://youtu.be/9kry_VfFSh4

This guy gets it.

Yes. He explains it all.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 26, 2015, 06:44:18 AM
Just thought I'd share the following:
https://youtu.be/9kry_VfFSh4

This guy gets it.

Yes. He explains it all.

Sorry, but this isn't very convincing. The guy is welcome to hold his opinions, but that's all they are. There's nothing remotely approaching the all-encompassing claim of the title. There are some valid points throughout, but also plenty of notable omissions of fact, opinions tossed in among "facts," and lots of straw men then easily torn down--a classic debate trick.

Acting as if there were no changes in the parties since the time of the Civil War and reconstruction is just not true. Further, he's talking as if racial oppression were just partisan, as opposed to regional. Both Democrats and Republicans in the north supported desegregation and civil rights. Both Democrats and Republicans in the south supported segregation and opposed civil rights. He ignores the Dixiecrat reality. He ignores that some Democrats left the party because of the civil rights issues. Some of those became Republicans.

This guy seems to mix his political philosophy--one to which he's entitled--with some obvious moral reality, the rejection of which (i.e. an opposing political philosophy) leaves that "opponent" stupid or evil: fooled by the white Democrat, or the evil white Democrat himself. It's just not real. I stand behind my earlier statement: there is racism in both parties, there is always a seemingly inevitable attempt to exploit anyone for purposes of power in both parties (and any other institution of power) ... and there are good, honest people in both parties. Grand conspiracy theories seem to me pretty often absurd. Neither party is currently a party of slavery or inherent racism (any more than society at large is).

What is perfectly legitimate is to argue that social welfare programs promote dependency and contradict their intentions. Whether it's true or not can and should be debated. But the way to debate it isn't to pretend that the people behind those programs are malicious, any more than it is to say those people trying to reform or end those programs are malicious.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 26, 2015, 09:16:53 AM
Look at the results though. Where Leftists run the show unchecked, it's misery -- blamed on "other people" that need to be gotten even with. That's the oversimplified BS that doesn't hold up.  Plus it's negative and unproductive.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 26, 2015, 09:17:16 AM
.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 26, 2015, 10:14:05 AM
Look at the results though. Where Leftists run the show unchecked, it's misery -- blamed on "other people" that need to be gotten even with. That's the oversimplified BS that doesn't hold up.  Plus it's negative and unproductive.

Where anyone runs any show unchecked, it's misery. Communist experiments have been nearly fatal to societies. So have fascist experiments. Far left, far right. Any single ideology with unchecked power will inevitably result in corruption and crushing of contradictory viewpoints, even if their stated creeds profess otherwise.

In terms of results, I agree: we should look at results. In the U.S., there are plenty of GOP-run (theoretically conservative, though I'll grant up front the obvious, that the two are not synonymous) states whose results are consistently terrible in terms of results: bad economies, bad education outcomes, bad health outcomes, and so on. The converse is also true. The reality is that the world is complicated, people have strongly and honestly held widely varying views on the best ways to solve problems, and it's entirely possible that they're both right and both wrong (in different situations, circumstances, etc.).

One example, economically speaking (which contrary to some people's perception, is not the only thing we should pay attention to, politically), is the percent of change in GDP in 2014, by state. Disclaimer: this is just one economic measure. There are many, many others. I am not an economist and don't profess to know everything about such matters. But this is just one measure of a commonly used aspect of economic success. This information comes from the Dept of Commerce. Check out the highest and lowest performers.

Highest performers.
1. North Dakota, 6.3. Solidly conservative. (Likely to fall as natural gas is becoming cheaper to obtain than the oil in ND.)
2. Texas, 5.2. Solidly conservative.
3. Wyoming, 5.1. Solidly conservative.
    West Virginia, 5.1. Solidly conservative.
5. Colorado, 4.7. Mixed conservative and liberal.
6. Oregon, 3.6. Solidly liberal.
7.  Utah, 3.1. Solidly conservative.
8. Washington, 3.0. Solidly liberal.
9. California, 2.8. Mixed conservative and liberal (but liberal leaning).
    Oklahoma, 2.8. Solidly conservative.

Lowest performers.
1. Massachusetts, -2.3. Solidly liberal.
2. Alaska, -1.3. Pretty solidly conservative.
3. Mississippi, -1.2. Solidly conservative.
4. S. Dakota, -.6. Solidly conservative.
5. Iowa, -.4. Pretty solidly conservative
   Indiana, -.4. Pretty solidly conservative.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 26, 2015, 11:05:21 AM
Where anyone runs any show unchecked, it's misery. Communist experiments have been nearly fatal to societies. So have fascist experiments. Far left, far right. Any single ideology with unchecked power will inevitably result in corruption and crushing of contradictory viewpoints, even if their stated creeds profess otherwise.

There's something fundamental here that needs to be defined. Far Left does often equate to Communism, or some variance of increasing government control. But far right doesn't equate to fascism. In fact maybe this is where the left/right paradigm breaks down -- and could be the source of a lot of misunderstanding.

Liberalism, for example, is fascism -- perhaps just as much or more than it is Socialism. Progressives are classic fascists.  Hitler was a fascist of course, but in terms of government was classic socialism. He wasn't about small government, liberty, inidivual rights. Not at all.

As I see it, if you're far right, you can only go so far as "no government."  There's nothing fascist about that.  It doesn't work, and was sort of tried here initially, until we came up with the right balance in the U.S. Constitution.

What made America the greatest nation to ever exist is the perfect realization that we need just a bit of government so no one can rule YOU.

0= no government
10= total government

The right answer is something like 1.5. But ever since the Progressive movement in the early 20th century we've been drunk on government. Usually in the form of a grab bag of thieved goods used to buy votes. The country is going to hell, and that's not a stodgy opinion, just a concerned observation of what happens when both parties fight over the size of the cinder block they've rested on the government gas pedal.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on June 26, 2015, 11:54:48 AM
Where anyone runs any show unchecked, it's misery. Communist experiments have been nearly fatal to societies. So have fascist experiments. Far left, far right. Any single ideology with unchecked power will inevitably result in corruption and crushing of contradictory viewpoints, even if their stated creeds profess otherwise.

There's something fundamental here that needs to be defined. Far Left does often equate to Communism, or some variance of increasing government control. But far right doesn't equate to fascism. In fact maybe this is where the left/right paradigm breaks down -- and could be the source of a lot of misunderstanding.

Liberalism, for example, is fascism -- perhaps just as much or more than it is Socialism. Progressives are classic fascists.  Hitler was a fascist of course, but in terms of government was classic socialism. He wasn't about small government, liberty, inidivual rights. Not at all.

As I see it, if you're far right, you can only go so far as "no government."  There's nothing fascist about that.  It doesn't work, and was sort of tried here initially, until we came up with the right balance in the U.S. Constitution.

What made America the greatest nation to ever exist is the perfect realization that we need just a bit of government so no one can rule YOU.

0= no government
10= total government

The right answer is something like 1.5. But ever since the Progressive movement in the early 20th century we've been drunk on government. Usually in the form of a grab bag of thieved goods used to buy votes. The country is going to hell, and that's not a stodgy opinion, just a concerned observation of what happens when both parties fight over the size of the cinder block they've rested on the government gas pedal.

That was lazy of me to use fascism so broadly. Here are a few points about fascism from Andrew Heywood's textbook "Political Ideologies: An Introduction." The defining theme of fascism is the idea of an organically unified national community, embodied in a belief in 'strength through unity.' The individual, in a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be entirely absorbed into the community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the "new man," a hero, motivated by duty, honour, and self-sacrificed, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader."

That idea is contrary to both modern liberalism and modern conservatism ... but with aspects that can be twisted to seem like both. A modern conservative might say that modern liberals believe individuals must be absorbed into the community or group. The incorrect but oft-mocked reading of "you didn't build that," for example. Actual meaning: no man is an island, cooperation is beneficial to us all. Perceived meaning: you can do nothing without the all-powerful state. The modern liberal will say that modern conservatives believe in American exceptionalism as some magical power that makes white American privileged men better than everyone else and gives us the right to bomb poor Muslim countries in the hopes of exploiting their oil resources. The conservative might say American exceptionalism is simply reminding ourselves of the value of a revolutionary (in both senses) government that led to unprecedented success of our nation. Conservatives are fascists! Liberals are fascists!

Heywood later says fascism "constitutes a revolt against ... rationalism, progress, freedom and equality"--values both liberals and conservatives presumably champion--"in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism, and war. Fascism thus has a strong 'anti-character': it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois, anti-communist and so on." Again, I dispute that fascism is inherently more progressive / modern liberal than it is inherently conservative. It's actually more pseudo-religious.

But anyway, this is a long way of apologizing for lazy speech.

That said, I think left/right fails anyway. The original concept of left/right split as I understand it comes from post-French Revolution seating arrangements, with champions of equality and common ownership on the left and champions of meritocracy and private ownership on the right. But I don't think "no government" is then equivalent to "far right," at least as initially conceived. Nobody then was championing anarchy, neither left nor right. That said, I also understand the extension, as meritocracy and private ownership lend themselves to less government in theory. (In practice, more toward exploiting government to profit private business, often through growing government. But I recognize you aren't calling that actual right wing.)



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 26, 2015, 01:05:29 PM
I've always seen fascism as a grotesque form of idol or ideal worship.  One of the more telltale signs of fascism is the fashion that follows it. You have posture yourself in it to win favor.  Sport the regalia.  But it's completely intolerant. That's the key. The people can never truly be allowed in. There's always an inner circle.  Quite often a single individual.

It usually metastasizes into a form of extreme purification.  Political "correctness."  Prohibition in the '20s.  Abortion as pushed by the government. The Nazi super-race crap.

The ideology behind a fascist is, in a way, almost irrelevant. If too many follow it, they'll just add more to it or shift to keep it exclusive. It often tends to revolve around a cult of personality -- and the political ideology is merely a device of control, and it's tenements largely irrelevant to intellectual study.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 30, 2015, 01:57:05 PM
Hillary Clinton

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop.jpg)

As of today, she's pretty much the only flavor available on the Democrat side of the aisle.  She brings with her a ballyhoo of glossy Vanity Fare magazine covers puff pieces, wall-to-wall free advertising (courtesy of the media), and an air of pre-ordained and historical fanfare -- beyond category or equal.  As it currently sits, she literally needs to do nothing, except not commit murder and she's got the nomination.  Or so we're led to believe, anyway.

She's been plastered everywhere, and reinvented more than any other public criminal/or personality that I can think of.  She announced and then re-announced her campaign cuz the first announcement didn't give her enough buzz or something.  No matter the case -- the reality is, she's just not likable.  She's not Bill.  She's not smooth.  She's not good at lying.  Even though the media wants you to believe she's the bee's knees -- I think, they're not all that happy with her.

So, I think she's as beatable as they come.  Of course, if she gets the nomination, she will be carried by the media (almost like how they carried Obama).  They will do their best to brand her as the woman-you've-been-waiting-for.  But I don't think most Americans will buy that bumper sticker junk.  Most men (most men) already married the woman they love.  And most women hate other women.   :lol  :lol  :lol

But, I think America has had enough of the Democrat Party, personally -- and they've had their fill of unqualified, fluff celebrities.  The mess Obama left will leave most Americans craving a strong Adult person who wants to lead -- not a slimly, meaningless, wimpy politician who says what's "cool."  Benghazi or not -- she's a hack if you look at her record -- and you don't even need me to tell you that, I greatly suspect.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on June 30, 2015, 03:14:54 PM
Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.

Not that I'm surprised since you're the thing that calls the Supreme Court an "unelected bunch of lawyers" when they decide gay marriage is constitutional, but thinks they are  sober, intelligent, constitutional scholars and defenders of liberty when they hand picked Dubya to be president in 2000.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on June 30, 2015, 04:56:09 PM
I love the Supreme Court ruling with Obamacare. They just opened a whole new can of worms. Now every state would have to recognize a license to carry firearms, a prostitution license, and so on.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on June 30, 2015, 09:44:33 PM
Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.

Not that I'm surprised since you're the thing that calls the Supreme Court an "unelected bunch of lawyers" when they decide gay marriage is constitutional, but thinks they are  sober, intelligent, constitutional scholars and defenders of liberty when they hand picked Dubya to be president in 2000.

:lol  What's up brother!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 01, 2015, 07:47:06 AM
 I didn't say all Republicans are racists. What I said is that none of the major contenders for the GOP nomination were willing to acknowledge the Charleston incident was an act based on madness and race hatred, when the shooter himself said as much. Why not? You tell me.

 I'm from a long line of Republicans. My dad, his dad & mom, their parents, etc. I voted for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and John McCain. All good men. Once voted for George W Bush. That was a mistake I did not repeat. In ideological terms, I am more or less a Liberal Republican who reveres Dwight D Eisenhower, thinks Nelson Rockefeller might have made a good president, respects Bush the elder, and has a few nice things to say about Richard Nixon as well.

 Having said that, the dominant strand of today's GOP is rather sickening IMO. FOX News and Rush Limbaugh have harmed the GOP more than any Democrat ever could. The GOP must either evolve or join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.

Fair enough.  Actually, I didn't mean to attack your observation (it's quite relevant) but it fed into the emerging media/Demorat template of "Republicans: are they ALL racists?  Or just some?  See their response, at 11"  It's not only one of those "try to disprove a negative" traps for Republicans if they don't respond correctly (which is nearly impossible), but it's really all that the media/demorats have going for themselves in 2016.
Bean Bag - your posts crack me up!   :lol

All Republicans are not racists any more than all Democrats are left leaning communists. 

Lots of Dems are moderates; some even conservative in thinking. 

The broad brush doesn't work any longer.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Awesoman on July 01, 2015, 07:29:33 PM

The broad brush doesn't work any longer.  ;)

That doesn't explain this:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/27/gawker-wins-gay-marriage-with-grace-fk-you-you-are-all-aholes/


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 02, 2015, 06:24:20 AM

The broad brush doesn't work any longer.  ;)

That doesn't explain this:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/27/gawker-wins-gay-marriage-with-grace-fk-you-you-are-all-aholes/

Think I explained that poorly.  What I meant is that there are many varieties of both Demmies and Republicans. And no hard and fast rule for party affiliation... ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 03, 2015, 12:21:36 PM
Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.

Not that I'm surprised since you're the thing that calls the Supreme Court an "unelected bunch of lawyers" when they decide gay marriage is constitutional, but thinks they are  sober, intelligent, constitutional scholars and defenders of liberty when they hand picked Dubya to be president in 2000.

:lol  What's up brother!

Interesting that you didn't respond with anything of substance.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on July 04, 2015, 06:37:09 AM
Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.

Not that I'm surprised since you're the thing that calls the Supreme Court an "unelected bunch of lawyers" when they decide gay marriage is constitutional, but thinks they are  sober, intelligent, constitutional scholars and defenders of liberty when they hand picked Dubya to be president in 2000.

:lol  What's up brother!

Interesting that you didn't respond with anything of substance.

 Just to add my 3 cents, would it matter? Hard to imagine you or Bean Bag convincing the other you are "right"?

 People of all stripes refer to Democrats as Democrats...is it a slam to call it the "Democrat Party"?

 The sun is beginning to set on Rush Limbaugh's career.  :3d


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Awesoman on July 10, 2015, 07:53:15 AM
Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.


Nails for breakfast again? 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the professor on July 10, 2015, 07:18:54 PM

The professor is  a bit confused. Ted Olsen, Bush solicitor general, argued both the Bush vs Gore and the Gay marriage case , winning both times no? Many republicans, he being a prime example, favor this gay marriage decision-- the professor included. Party division on this issue is not absolute.




Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.

Not that I'm surprised since you're the thing that calls the Supreme Court an "unelected bunch of lawyers" when they decide gay marriage is constitutional, but thinks they are  sober, intelligent, constitutional scholars and defenders of liberty when they hand picked Dubya to be president in 2000.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 10, 2015, 08:58:06 PM

The professor is  a bit confused. Ted Olsen, Bush solicitor general, argued both the Bush vs Gore and the Gay marriage case , winning both times no? Many republicans, he being a prime example, favor this gay marriage decision-- the professor included. Party division on this issue is not absolute.




Well, the meme is supposed to be:  Romney = War on Women.  Republican = hate.  You know... the "classy stuff."  A tactical rocket of knowledge.  Hey it works.  I don't blame 'em.  I'm not one to argue.

(http://cdn1.godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Nancy-Pelosi.jpg)

Oh-ooo, look at the big brain on Bean!  OOOO.  Oooo!

 :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 10, 2015, 09:06:26 PM
Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.

Not that I'm surprised since you're the thing that calls the Supreme Court an "unelected bunch of lawyers" when they decide gay marriage is constitutional, but thinks they are  sober, intelligent, constitutional scholars and defenders of liberty when they hand picked Dubya to be president in 2000.

:lol  What's up brother!

Interesting that you didn't respond with anything of substance.

 Just to add my 3 cents, would it matter? Hard to imagine you or Bean Bag convincing the other you are "right"?

 People of all stripes refer to Democrats as Democrats...is it a slam to call it the "Democrat Party"?

 The sun is beginning to set on Rush Limbaugh's career.  :3d

Now hold on Moon Dawg.  You both may have something here.  There's always a chance.  And if we could can whatever makes that happen, I'd be... well, I wouldn't be telling you about it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 10, 2015, 10:04:47 PM
Democrat Party

Hey Tea Bagger, er...Bean Bag. Whatever your name is.

The name of the party is the Democratic Party.

You might think it's cute and funny cuz Rush and Mark Levin do it, but it's pretty childish.

Not that I'm surprised since you're the thing that calls the Supreme Court an "unelected bunch of lawyers" when they decide gay marriage is constitutional, but thinks they are  sober, intelligent, constitutional scholars and defenders of liberty when they hand picked Dubya to be president in 2000.

:lol  What's up brother!

Interesting that you didn't respond with anything of substance.

 Just to add my 3 cents, would it matter? Hard to imagine you or Bean Bag convincing the other you are "right"?

 People of all stripes refer to Democrats as Democrats...is it a slam to call it the "Democrat Party"?

 The sun is beginning to set on Rush Limbaugh's career.  :3d

Now hold on Moon Dawg.  You both may have something here.  There's always a chance.  And if we could can whatever makes that happen, I'd be... well, I wouldn't be telling you about it.

Hashtag BENGHAZI! Am I right?


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNTp0QgCcAAIIMa.jpg)

Smile Beanbagger! You're kicking the Democrat Party's butt! Except for Obamacare and gay marriage.


But don't you worry. You're safe. You've got this guy to save you...

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03158/Donald_Trump__3158264b.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 10, 2015, 10:12:11 PM
People of all stripes refer to Democrats as Democrats...is it a slam to call it the "Democrat Party"?

It actually is. The name of the party is the "Democratic Party" and Republicans have been doing this little "let's call them the 'Democrat Party' instead" thing for a few decades now.

I don't really like to use Wikipedia to prove a point, but I think the article that I'm linking does a pretty good job of explaining why what these people are doing is lame. It's not a mistake that Beenbag was writing "Demorat" and "Democrat Party" and whatnot. It's all part of a concerted effort on the right. Listen to right wing radio for an afternoon, and you'll hear all sorts of mentions of the "Democrat Party."

Anyways, here's the link: Democrat Party (epithet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet))


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 11, 2015, 09:23:54 PM
Why would you want anyone to listen to right wing talk radio?  Ewww gross!   :lol

All kidding aside.  Yes... OMG I could talk about Donald Trump's hair all day!  WTF!  Seriously.  What is going on?  I can't figure it out!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 14, 2015, 01:56:22 PM
Guess who's leading the polls in the GOP race right now...

(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/yXSfNr15u8nij8a9MPKBpw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/POLL_Donald_Trump_just_vaulted-0f482b8a41823938bf35ee5d0576df94)

Right now, Trump is yuuuuuge. And hopefully the tea people will continue to cheer him on. I hope he wins the nomination. I think it'd be great for the Republican Party.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on July 14, 2015, 07:14:32 PM
If the GOP polls are to be believed, GOP voters want Hillary more than the Democrats do.  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 14, 2015, 09:06:51 PM
Donald Trump

(https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/site/about_body_img_3.jpg)

The Donald.  Ok, this is great.  And you know it is.  Whatever you think -- admit it.  He's got the awesomest comb-over ever.  Because it actually looks good (wind permitting).  In it's own way.  No, but really...

This is a real dude.  A real dude.  Crazy.  Rich.  Real Estate Mogul.  TV host.  Cultural icon.  Personality.  This ain't your run-of-the-mill variety.  His Rolodex includes names like Barbara Walters, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett -- US Presidents and Saudi Kings, you name it.  Donald Trump is not the usual breed.  Donald Trump is not formulaic.  And that's bad news for people who love formulas -- I would guess.  And we do have a lot of formulas governing us.  Obama/racism.  TV.  Politics.  Facebook.  Twitter.  Black people good/White people bad.  Boring formulas.  It's why people chant "Hillary (or Jeb) is our next lee-der."  Formulas.  Barf.

Case in point.  His comments on immigration -- "Mixico is sending us their sh-t".  The upper crust sh-t their pants.  He can't say that, can he?  Well he did.  Because he can.  And so can you.  But the point is -- BAM!  The debate changes.  Suddenly people are FINALLY talking about the illegal immigration nightmare that's been flooding our porous southern border, but with renewed alarm.  A beautiful woman is MURDERED in San Francisco within days of Donald's comments.  Murdered in a pathetic "sanctuary city."  By an illegal piece of trash.  What's a sanctuary city?  San Fran-disco.  An Obama City -- exposed as an abysmally weak failure.  An experiment (with a sophomoric hypothesis) gone awry.

What's next from Donald?  Maybe Turd's surrender to Iran?? Perhaps.  Just a prediction.  What do I know.

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 16, 2015, 05:54:58 AM
If the GOP polls are to be believed, GOP voters want Hillary more than the Democrats do.  :lol
Maybe they want her as the nominee to defeat her?

Is that what you mean?

And IIRC, she was brought up with Republican influence in her household.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 16, 2015, 10:18:52 AM
I've been defending Trump's blunt honesty on Reddit lately, and I've actually been finding SUPPORT and Upvotes! I'm very surprised, and pretty happy, that a candidate is finally ignoring the PC influence and talking about the real truth.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 16, 2015, 12:10:11 PM
Everyone rush out and get your Donald Trump butt plugs while you still can (http://www.shapeways.com/product/SCD3B2NJD/donald-trump-plug), made by a Mexican immigrant who is, by all accounts, not a rapist or drug lord, but a hard-working American.
(https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-14-at-9-04-25-am.png?w=728&h=489&crop=1)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on July 16, 2015, 01:09:33 PM
If the GOP polls are to be believed, GOP voters want Hillary more than the Democrats do.  :lol
Maybe they want her as the nominee to defeat her?

Is that what you mean?

And IIRC, she was brought up with Republican influence in her household.

If the GOP are dumb enough to nominate a Jeb Bush or a Donald Trump, there's a guaranteed Hillary in 2016. The Democrats have no one worth the effort and neither do the GOP unless Rand Paul drops the neocon bullshit.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 16, 2015, 01:11:02 PM
Everyone rush out and get your Donald Trump butt plugs while you still can (http://www.shapeways.com/product/SCD3B2NJD/donald-trump-plug), made by a Mexican immigrant who is, by all accounts, not a rapist or drug lord, but a hard-working American.
(https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-14-at-9-04-25-am.png?w=728&h=489&crop=1)

That was actually the reddit post I got all the support on. When did Trump say legal mexican immigrants were rapists or drug lords?

Edit: Just for kicks, here's the post.
Quote
Okay, I'm being 100% serious here... Do people REALLY not understand what Trump was saying? I'm so SO tired of it, it's one thing to disagree with him on plenty of topics, that's fine, but he is talking about ILLEGAL immigration. He specifically mentions "border guards" in the SAME SENTENCE as he mentioned any ethnic background. He has said in EVERY interview following in simple terms- "I'm talking about ILLEGAL Mexicans". If you know this, and are knowingly supporting the "slander" of ILLEGAL immigrants, that is a much larger issue. We have a SERIOUS issue with national security and it is INCREDIBLY important that we stop this flow of illegal immigrants before something VERY serious happens. Our nation is at force protection BRAVO because we have a major terrorist group hot on our heels. This isn't about racism, Mexican people provide so much for our nation, and they should be INSULTED that after all they've done to come here LEGALLY that people are making a bad name for their race by FLOWING into the nation illegally. Trump isn't always a very good person, but I strongly agree with his politics on this topic, as do MANY Americans.

oh, and to comment on the Hillary remarks; I have VERY strong doubts about her ability to even get through the primaries. For as many strong supporters as she (somehow still) has, she has a TON of voters unwilling to even consider her thanks to many a stupid mistake through the years.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 16, 2015, 03:23:15 PM
If the GOP polls are to be believed, GOP voters want Hillary more than the Democrats do.  :lol
Maybe they want her as the nominee to defeat her?

Is that what you mean?

And IIRC, she was brought up with Republican influence in her household.

If the GOP are dumb enough to nominate a Jeb Bush or a Donald Trump, there's a guaranteed Hillary in 2016. The Democrats have no one worth the effort and neither do the GOP unless Rand Paul drops the neocon bullshit.

Agree with your there TRBB. And I have to say I've been somewhat disappointed by Rand Paul thus far during the campaign. I don't know why he's trying to play a neo-con all of the sudden. Those types don't like him. We know he's a libertarian on most issues and he should stick to what he's believed the rest of his life. I think if he articulated his true beliefs to the American people, we might be surprised by how well he might do.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 16, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
When did Trump say legal mexican immigrants were rapists or drug lords?
Here's a better question, as I do not know the answer: when did Trump say illegal immigrants were rapists or drug lords? I haven't found any full records of his actual remarks. Even you say he said it in interviews that followed afterwards. Afterwards. As far as I can see, he did not specify this in his original remarks. This is important.

He specifically mentions "border guards" in the SAME SENTENCE as he mentioned any ethnic background.
Um, okay? You do realize that everyone crossing a border has to deal with border guards, right? if you go to Canada, there will be border guards there waiting for you before you cross. What's your point here?

Mexican people provide so much for our nation, and they should be INSULTED that after all they've done to come here LEGALLY that people are making a bad name for their race by FLOWING into the nation illegally. Trump isn't always a very good person, but I strongly agree with his politics on this topic, as do MANY Americans.
This county is built on illegal immigrants, big guy. Illegal immigrants who flee their country for the freedom of America and scrape out meager existences by performing jobs that actual Americans think they're above doing. These people work harder at more difficult jobs than you ever will. If you think otherwise, you're a fool. The only people that give a them bad name are people like you.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 16, 2015, 08:28:34 PM
Okay, I never questioned their work ethic, like it or not they are criminals for illegally being in this nation. It's not about the people themselves, it's about the principal. This is a massive national security risk. Tell me, how can we make sure that these people unknowingly entering are one of the heroes or villains? How do we stop the children (sometimes 6+) from growing into thugs due to extreme poverty?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 16, 2015, 09:14:02 PM
Tell me, how can we make sure that these people unknowingly entering are one of the heroes or villains?
How can we know that about the people that are legally entering the United States?

How do we stop the children (sometimes 6+) from growing into thugs due to extreme poverty?
What about all the children of legitimate US citizens that grow up into criminals?


These are philosophical questions that I assure you Donald Trump does not have the answers to.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 16, 2015, 10:21:55 PM
We background check and test the adults, and schools exist to teach children and prevent them as well as they can from being on the street.

We're not trying to eliminate crime because that is obviously impossible, we're trying to lower the numbers.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Woodstock on July 16, 2015, 10:30:03 PM
Once you've lost a good friend to a background check, your perspective on these things changes. Preaching that adults should be tested is different from reality that you are shipping people away of their lives, their homes, families and friends.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Woodstock on July 16, 2015, 10:31:45 PM
These people work harder at more difficult jobs than you ever will. If you think otherwise, you're a fool. The only people that give a them bad name are people like you.

Agree so much with this.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 17, 2015, 05:12:53 AM
These people work harder at more difficult jobs than you ever will. If you think otherwise, you're a fool. The only people that give a them bad name are people like you.

Agree so much with this.
This is not the point. When a person comes from a foreign border, they are "admitted" (or not) and "inspected." That means, in the matter of the US, you know if someone has a communicable disease.  It is the reason we had places like Ellis Island (where Fiorello Laguardia worked) so people could be quarantined for, say two weeks, to verify their health status.  Think Ebola or other illness that can come into a country with air flights.  

Members of my family came into the US that way.  The legit way. On a ship, with a listing on a manifest, and an accounting process. They worked harder than ever I had to, but that it why they came; to get their foot in the door, of the US, and then make life better for their children and grandchildren.  They learned the English language and educated their kids. They "paid the price" of admission, and were barely out of their teens.

The visa program for "visitors" with about 25 countries skips that step. Then we have "overstays" where people who had a grant of admission for say 90 days stay here, to "visit." That is a lot of people.  And now we have those crossing the border, illegally who have not had their health verified to protect the real citizens or long term residents.  The difference is that they are "inspected" in their countries, who have immunizations and other health safeguards. We now have diseases such as a form of the polio virus, that likely came into this country with someone whose health status was not verified.  

It isn't about what work people will or won't do. My ancestors did what they had to do for jobs, just like those illegal entrants, after they were "admitted and inspected."  It is a widely held position.  Get in legitimately, and you are welcomed.  There are plenty of ways to get in, for religious reasons or for political retaliation fears, or other physically abusive situations.  

Can US citizens get into any country, by crossing a border, without a process? No we can't. There is no "reciprocity" for us.  It isn't about a lack of compassion.  We do more than most countries.  It is also about protecting the citizens.  


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on July 17, 2015, 07:07:19 AM
As long as there is a welfare state in the U.S., immigration should be restricted. I know it goes against my libertarian-leaning beliefs, but you can't have open borders and a welfare state. Americans want a welfare state but they also want open borders. No. It doesn't work that way. I wouldn't be against open borders if the welfare state didn't exist.

And let's not kid ourselves, people. You can sing Kumbaya in the grass with your bongos and think about all of the great things you hallucinate it may bring, but third-world immigration has not been a net boon for Western civilization. Look what it's doing to Europe, Russia, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Those areas have all pursued policies of multiculturalism (as does the U.S.) and the people who actually produce in those societies are being decried as "racist" for speaking out against the garbage infesting their countries - people who don't work and contribute nothing to society except for radical, religious hatred. All cultures are not equal. This is not to say that all third-world immigration to Western society has been bad; some can find it in themselves to assimilate like other waves of immigrants in the past (Italians, Irish, and Polish for example).

But this is a conversation that needs to be had. Trump is a complete buffoon; there's at least some grain of truth in what he says.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Awesoman on July 17, 2015, 07:08:14 AM
These people work harder at more difficult jobs than you ever will. If you think otherwise, you're a fool. The only people that give a them bad name are people like you.

Agree so much with this.
This is not the point. When a person comes from a foreign border, they are "admitted" (or not) and "inspected." That means, in the matter of the US, you know if someone has a communicable disease.  It is the reason we had places like Ellis Island (where Fiorello Laguardia worked) so people could be quarantined for, say two weeks, to verify their health status.  Think Ebola or other illness that can come into a country with air flights.  

Members of my family came into the US that way.  The legit way. On a ship, with a listing on a manifest, and an accounting process. They worked harder than ever I had to, but that it why they came; to get their foot in the door, of the US, and then make life better for their children and grandchildren.  They learned the English language and educated their kids. They "paid the price" of admission, and were barely out of their teens.

The visa program for "visitors" with about 25 countries skips that step. Then we have "overstays" where people who had a grant of admission for say 90 days stay here, to "visit." That is a lot of people.  And now we have those crossing the border, illegally who have not had their health verified to protect the real citizens or long term residents.  The difference is that they are "inspected" in their countries, who have immunizations and other health safeguards. We now have diseases such as a form of the polio virus, that likely came into this country with someone whose health status was not verified.  

It isn't about what work people will or won't do. My ancestors did what they had to do for jobs, just like those illegal entrants, after they were "admitted and inspected."  It is a widely held position.  Get in legitimately, and you are welcomed.  There are plenty of ways to get in, for religious reasons or for political retaliation fears, or other physically abusive situations.  

Can US citizens get into any country, by crossing a border, without a process? No we can't. There is no "reciprocity" for us.  It isn't about a lack of compassion.  We do more than most countries.  It is also about protecting the citizens.  

+1

I'm curious.  For the morons that seem to think open borders are a good thing, I'm wondering if said morons also leave the doors to their homes and automobiles unlocked.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 17, 2015, 07:37:54 AM
This "debate" (laugh) on pro-illegal immigration is so stupid that it literally hurts my head.  It's like punching myself in the face.  I have to punch myself in the face to get my intelligence level numbed down to the point where it needs to be to understand the ridiculous, factually flagrant, odoriferous mouth farts being passed off as informed opinion.

Just to summarize, we got...

We're all illegal aliens.
They work harder than us.
We give them a bad name.
We're fools.
We have criminals too.


Well that's some convincing stuff, I gotta admit.  But try this... being pro-illegal immigration is actually being pro-anti-immigration.  Or just anti-immigration.  By definition.  It's not immigration that you're for.  You can't be pro-illegal something and then be PRO-that same something.

There's no way to intelligently defend this infatuation with illegal-immigration.  Just like Planned Murderhood can't defend murdering babies and harvesting their body parts for profit, while claiming they're saving lives.  There really isn't a way to intelligently persuade and defend this stuff.

But by all means, proceed.  But, remember, intellect is checked at the door, in order for you to proceed with the brain clubbing sob stories and attacking people who call ya'll out.  Like a chimpanzee flinging feces at another threatening male -- you've got your hands full.

And if you've read this far, fling faster.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 17, 2015, 09:15:05 AM
it literally hurts my head

Well, at least something positive came out of all of this.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on July 17, 2015, 09:38:30 AM
Donald Trump is for Donald Trump. ::)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 17, 2015, 09:41:34 AM
Thank you everyone, I appreciate being called a moron and being lectured to like I'm a child. Are you guys always like this, or is it just when someone has a different opinion than you do? Jeez.

For the record, I don't endorse illegal immigration. However, the situation is different than what Donald Trump would have you believe. That is all.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on July 17, 2015, 09:54:27 AM
Waves, I agree with you! :)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 17, 2015, 09:54:42 AM
Donald Trump is for Donald Trump. ::)
With this I agree, but, he is articulating stuff that is not politically correct and inconvenient for a lot of mainstream party people ( in both major parties) don't want to hear.  His candor is refreshing, even if his personality is brash and abrasive.  Campaigning in the public eye, will knock that right out of him.  

He is getting a lot of stuff out into the open that has been dysfunctional for the last ten years at least going back to GWB.  This did not happen overnight.  He does have global ties and insights that career politicians might not have.  Donald sure is making this interesting.  

And, I think he likes the Beach Boys...I guess he has good music taste

So, I'm going to hear him out...for now.  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Awesoman on July 17, 2015, 10:00:07 AM
Thank you everyone, I appreciate being called a moron and being lectured to like I'm a child. Are you guys always like this, or is it just when someone has a different opinion than you do? Jeez.

Oh quitcher poutin'.  

For the record, I don't endorse illegal immigration. However, the situation is different than what Donald Trump would have you believe. That is all.

Then congrats, you're not a moron.   :3d  The problem with this whole Trump thing is that people would rather get their panties in a wad over Trump's arrogant crassness (like this is anything new for Trump) on the illegal immigration subject.  Are all immigrants sneaking into the U.S. illegally considered murderers and rapists?  No, of course not.  But enough of them are.  But honestly, this is neither here nor there.  If you enter another country illegally, you are already breaking said country's laws.  Doesn't matter how hard you work once you've snuck in; you've already failed the golden rule.  You want to move to a better country to improve your living condition?  Fine, you can start by respecting that country's laws and entering legally.  


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 17, 2015, 10:08:09 AM
Waves, I agree with you! :)

Smile Brian - while this and other fora, are not driven by age requirements, you might keep in mind that your are at a table with "your elders" - and I don't mean that disrespectully but just as a word of context.   You are amidst many who have known this music from the ground up, some 55 years, in a context that a gen-x-er might find hard to grasp, if they just listen to the music in isolation, looking at structure, and more clinically in analysis.  

So think about people who are in their 70's, 60's and 50's in the room, when you post.  Few things make me more relieved in terms of this music that is so phenomenal than seeing young people embrace it.  That future of the music could have been in jeopardy for many reasons in the 60's and 70's.  

You aren't a kid, but try to imagine yourself with aunts, uncles, even grandparents, in the discussion...especially the "experts," whom you might like or not.  We're lucky.  And I feel lucky to have a forum that wasn't available back in the day!  ;)

And see M&B!  Don't worry about OSD...I don't think he bites!  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on July 17, 2015, 10:32:51 AM
All I meant was I agree with Waves and see them as a hardworking group of people. Not some boogey men of rapists and murders like Donald Trump thinks.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: rab2591 on July 17, 2015, 10:58:51 AM
All I meant was I agree with Waves and see them as a hardworking group of people. Not some boogey men of rapists and murders like Donald Trump thinks.

13% of those who were given federal sentences in America in the year 2014 were illegal immigrants (that number goes up to 58% if you count immigration violations). Of that 13% were charges of drug trafficking, kidnapping, money laundering, murder. I don't agree that they are all bad people, nor do I agree with Trump's words on the issue. But statistically they are not all a group of hardworking people - most of them probably are, but some of them are indeed not. They are people and shouldn't be treated like trash, but those people should try to adhere to the law.

That being said, I've read filledeplage's latest post twice now and I still have no idea what she is talking about. This probably isn't the best thread to post a lecture on the demographics of Smiley Smile...just sayin.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 17, 2015, 01:51:38 PM
These people work harder at more difficult jobs than you ever will. If you think otherwise, you're a fool. The only people that give a them bad name are people like you.

Agree so much with this.
This is not the point. When a person comes from a foreign border, they are "admitted" (or not) and "inspected." That means, in the matter of the US, you know if someone has a communicable disease.  It is the reason we had places like Ellis Island (where Fiorello Laguardia worked) so people could be quarantined for, say two weeks, to verify their health status.  Think Ebola or other illness that can come into a country with air flights.  

Members of my family came into the US that way.  The legit way. On a ship, with a listing on a manifest, and an accounting process. They worked harder than ever I had to, but that it why they came; to get their foot in the door, of the US, and then make life better for their children and grandchildren.  They learned the English language and educated their kids. They "paid the price" of admission, and were barely out of their teens.

The visa program for "visitors" with about 25 countries skips that step. Then we have "overstays" where people who had a grant of admission for say 90 days stay here, to "visit." That is a lot of people.  And now we have those crossing the border, illegally who have not had their health verified to protect the real citizens or long term residents.  The difference is that they are "inspected" in their countries, who have immunizations and other health safeguards. We now have diseases such as a form of the polio virus, that likely came into this country with someone whose health status was not verified.  

It isn't about what work people will or won't do. My ancestors did what they had to do for jobs, just like those illegal entrants, after they were "admitted and inspected."  It is a widely held position.  Get in legitimately, and you are welcomed.  There are plenty of ways to get in, for religious reasons or for political retaliation fears, or other physically abusive situations.  

Can US citizens get into any country, by crossing a border, without a process? No we can't. There is no "reciprocity" for us.  It isn't about a lack of compassion.  We do more than most countries.  It is also about protecting the citizens.  

Couldn't have said it better myself. No one WANTS to hold these people back; as in those who cannot for any reason enter legally... But it's completely possible to set restrictions to better the situations of everyone already living/working in the U.S.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on July 17, 2015, 02:51:18 PM
It is also beneficiary to all to set restrictions on immigration from the third-world. Fifth columns are not tolerated in those third-world shitholes; why are they tolerated in Western civilization?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 17, 2015, 03:01:53 PM
All I meant was I agree with Waves and see them as a hardworking group of people. Not some boogey men of rapists and murders like Donald Trump thinks.

13% of those who were given federal sentences in America in the year 2014 were illegal immigrants (that number goes up to 58% if you count immigration violations). Of that 13% were charges of drug trafficking, kidnapping, money laundering, murder. I don't agree that they are all bad people, nor do I agree with Trump's words on the issue. But statistically they are not all a group of hardworking people - most of them probably are, but some of them are indeed not. They are people and shouldn't be treated like trash, but those people should try to adhere to the law.

That being said, I've read filledeplage's latest post twice now and I still have no idea what she is talking about. This probably isn't the best thread to post a lecture on the demographics of Smiley Smile...just sayin.
rab - the demographics are stark. Just for example, if one became a BB fan during Glen Campbell's short tenure...you already "missed the Brian Wilson" touring window.  A couple of weeks ago before the Brian show, I ran into an old friend, whose kids went to high school with mine.  We talked about the L & M movie.  

As teens, we wondered, after having Pet Sounds and a Smiley or Party LP in the background at parties (on a record player) whether we would EVER see Brian Wilson.  All though high school, college, grad school and professional lives and families.  Most of our adult lives, until Brian had begun a solo career, after nearly everything, such as his both brothers (and parents) were gone did we see Brian Wilson.

 So now, when we see each other, (either at a BB or BW show) one of the first things we say, almost simultaneously is, "Can you believe we are seeing BRIAN WILSON?" We waited so long.  Those who are in their 20's or 30's and came to fandom, have a very different experience. They have seen Brian Wilson, and didn't have to wait decades.  (And maybe those fans are spoiled.    :lol )

Little disclaimer...I did see a "Landy cameo" in the late 80's, when he came out for a couple of songs during a BB show.  Now we know the background.  But this was nothing compared to seeing him during C50 or Pet Sounds, TLOS, Smile live, NPP, etc.  It is a very different context. Often that is not taken into any consideration.  Our experience is very different.  I think demographics are very important and there should be better understanding of that dynamic. JMHO  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 17, 2015, 03:17:08 PM
All I meant was I agree with Waves and see them as a hardworking group of people. Not some boogey men of rapists and murders like Donald Trump thinks.
This killer of the woman in CA, had five deportation (removal) hearings and deportations.  Most US citizens never see the inside of a police station or courthouse for a felony or even a misdemeanor in their whole life.

A felony by definition is a crime classification that is punishable by a prison term of one year or more, and matched to the crime committed. This was not a string of five misdemeanors, or petty crimes, but very serious crimes.

Since they instituted these "safe harbor cities" criminal illegal aliens could hang in one of those cities and escape deportation, with active arrest warrants for other crimes.  And I agree with Trump on this one.  Kicked out five time and comes back and kills a beautiful young woman.

Enough is enough.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: rab2591 on July 17, 2015, 03:19:19 PM
All I meant was I agree with Waves and see them as a hardworking group of people. Not some boogey men of rapists and murders like Donald Trump thinks.

13% of those who were given federal sentences in America in the year 2014 were illegal immigrants (that number goes up to 58% if you count immigration violations). Of that 13% were charges of drug trafficking, kidnapping, money laundering, murder. I don't agree that they are all bad people, nor do I agree with Trump's words on the issue. But statistically they are not all a group of hardworking people - most of them probably are, but some of them are indeed not. They are people and shouldn't be treated like trash, but those people should try to adhere to the law.

That being said, I've read filledeplage's latest post twice now and I still have no idea what she is talking about. This probably isn't the best thread to post a lecture on the demographics of Smiley Smile...just sayin.
rab - the demographics are stark. Just for example, if one became a BB fan during Glen Campbell's short tenure...you already "missed the Brian Wilson" touring window.  A couple of weeks ago before the Brian show, I ran into an old friend, whose kids went to high school with mine.  We talked about the L & M movie.  

As teens, we wondered, after having Pet Sounds and a Smiley or Party LP in the background at a parties (on a record player) whether we would EVER see Brian Wilson.  All though high school, college, grad school and professional lives and families.  Most of our adult lives, until Brian had begun a solo career, after nearly everything, such as his both brothers (and parents) were gone did we see Brian Wilson.

 So now, when we see each other, (either at a BB or BW show) one of the first things we say, almost simultaneously is, "Can you believe we are seeing BRIAN WILSON?" We waited so long.  Those who are in their 20's or 30's and came to fandom, have a very different experience. They have seen Brian Wilson, and didn't have to wait decades.  (And maybe those fans are spoiled.    :lol )

Little disclaimer...I did see a "Landy cameo" in the late 80's, when he came out for a couple of songs during a BB show.  Now we know the background.  But this was nothing compared to seeing him during C50 or Pet Sounds, TLOS, Smile live, NPP, etc.  It is a very different context. Often that is not taken into any consideration.  Our experience is very different.  I think demographics are very important and there should be better understanding of that dynamic. JMHO  ;)

oh good point i'm glad you posted that


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Woodstock on July 17, 2015, 03:27:07 PM
All I meant was I agree with Waves and see them as a hardworking group of people. Not some boogey men of rapists and murders like Donald Trump thinks.
This killer of the woman in CA, had five deportation (removal) hearings and deportations.  Most US citizens never see the inside of a police station or courthouse for a felony or even a misdemeanor in their whole life.

A felony by definition is a crime classification that punishable by a prison term of one year or more, and matched to the crime committed. This was not a string of five misdemeanors, or petty crimes, but very serious crimes.

Since they instituted these "safe harbor cities" criminal illegal aliens could hang in one of those cities and escape deportation, with active arrest warrants for other crimes.  And I agree with Trump on this one.  Kicked out five time and comes back and kills a beautiful young woman.

Enough is enough.


A very interesting "perspective" that often some would disclaim to be on "topic" with the rest of the board howveer without showing specifics on the "alignment" so to speak of these aliens in regards to deportation, active warrants and other crimes, Trump's point in regards to your point, so to speak is almost enough by definition to make a point that only is available to some and not others  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on July 17, 2015, 03:38:47 PM
But I am a white person and there are scum-bag killers the same skin color as me. Point is every group of people has its bad apples that break laws and harm people.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 17, 2015, 03:46:15 PM
All I meant was I agree with Waves and see them as a hardworking group of people. Not some boogey men of rapists and murders like Donald Trump thinks.
This killer of the woman in CA, had five deportation (removal) hearings and deportations.  Most US citizens never see the inside of a police station or courthouse for a felony or even a misdemeanor in their whole life.

A felony by definition is a crime classification that punishable by a prison term of one year or more, and matched to the crime committed. This was not a string of five misdemeanors, or petty crimes, but very serious crimes.

Since they instituted these "safe harbor cities" criminal illegal aliens could hang in one of those cities and escape deportation, with active arrest warrants for other crimes.  And I agree with Trump on this one.  Kicked out five time and comes back and kills a beautiful young woman.

Enough is enough.
A very interesting "perspective" that often some would disclaim to be on "topic" with the rest of the board howveer without showing specifics on the "alignment" so to speak of these aliens in regards to deportation, active warrants and other crimes, Trump's point in regards to your point, so to speak is almost enough by definition to make a point that only is available to some and not others  :lol
Woodstock - illegal immigration (not the literally scores of legal visa types to live in the US) will be in the mix in a huge way for the 2016 election and will narrow the issues.  

Personally, I find Trump a little full of himself. And that hair!  :lol

But Trump is the only candidate candid enough to put his money where his mouth is.  I'm becoming more interested and I'm a democrat from a family of legal immigrants.  

Trump is sounding less like a right wing extremist and has the money and the platform to get the message out.  He is looking better by the day. He is not afraid to articulate what many others are afraid to say. And some others must agree because he is leading in the polls.

Without knowing what a "felony" is, an informed opinion is impossible.  Felonies are defined by the prison sentence and not the crime.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 17, 2015, 03:57:24 PM
But I am a white person and there are scum-bag killers the same skin color as me. Point is every group of people has its bad apples that break laws and harm people.
This isn't about race; it is about criminal activity.  It is also about health issues.  Disease exposure is color blind.

Yes, scum-bag killers come in all shapes and sizes and races.

We have lots of those criminals already in the States. 

Many think we have enough without more sneaking in after they were thrown out.

Every month the US immigration service publishes a Visa Bulletin with numbers of family-based and employment-based, legitimate applications.  There are many categories. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 17, 2015, 06:43:33 PM
Right on Filledeplage, Trump isn't my favorite right now for personality, he's my favorite because he isn't allowing lobbyists to do jack sh*t. He isn't allowing the PC media to self censor himself. He isn't shutting up about serious issues. I hope his ratings only go up, but either way, his duty has already been done. The silent majority is tired of this sh*t, and it's time to make some serious changes.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 18, 2015, 08:01:49 AM
Donald Trump is for Donald Trump. ::)

That's fine.  Hillary's for Hillary, etc., etc.  But here's my take on The Donald.  Not only has Trump been voicing opinions that others have been eager to hear, he is also showing the passion and desire to do something about it.  Have to admit, that's interesting.  Furthermore, he is proven capable at following through and succeeding.

That's why he's surging.  That's something new at club Washington.  A successful, fearless leader -- asking and demanding -- what so many people in this country have been asking and demanding -- only to be laughed at and called fools by a bunch of know-it-all sophomore frat kids, which gets kinda old.

There's something wrong with a system that's purportedly "for the people by the people," when the elected officials bend people over once they're given their power.  Which is why Trump detractors immediately think of "buttplugs" cuz that's all they know.  That's their language.

Trump is tapping into that frustration. A lot of Americans, I believe a sizable majority, are offended by the notion that basic common sense questions and solutions are somehow uninformed.  That's usually a sign that you're being robbed.

Let me say that again.  When simple questions aren't addressed.  Something stinks.  When someone asks, "hey should we lock the safe?"  And the guy in charge says "no."  You know there's something going on.  When he proceeds to call you "a racist" -- well then, it's time for an investigation.

And honestly, Barrack Hussein O has taken all of this disgust with Government to levels previously unimaginable in this country.  He has been an insanely awful, stupendously horrendous President -- on both foreign and domestic affairs.  Where' the money going.  Do not underestimate the disgust this guy has aroused, regardless of how's he's been able to seemingly get away with it.

So we'll see how well Trump does with all this interest.  I personally think he's pretty adept at handling himself.  He's proven that in other areas.  And I think his concerns are genuine.  He's been consistent, which is a good sign -- a bad sign for those in power.  And you gotta admit, it's comforting to know that since he's already stupid rich -- he's less likely to go crazy on the hotel mini-bar.

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02641/obama_2641341c.jpg)

Ooo, closer this time, Mr Prez!  Good job.  Hey, how about not sucking at President for 5 minutos.  Just sayin'.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 18, 2015, 09:48:55 AM
to be laughed at and called fools [...] gets kinda old.

Oh, the irony.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: ForHerCryingSoul on July 18, 2015, 10:33:53 AM
After reading posts about Trump I feel the need to say something.

I think Trump is pro-business, and he will use his tenure as president to strengthen businesses.  While many people are starting to support his way of thinking, I still do not think he will win the primaries.  Based on how many immigrants and minorities are in this country these days, with the help of propaganda, I think many, especially minorities, don't support Trump's philosophy of shaping the country (improving infrastructure of businesses, emphasizing border security, etc.) because of these things:

1. His open, free-speaking nature when it comes to sensitive issues alienates moderates.
2. His harsh persona as a celebrity (The Apprentice, his books, etc.) and the media's portrayal of Trump, turns off moderates.  The economic experience with Reagen also indirectly hurts Trump as well.
3. The Republican Party's general stance on supporting traditional values does not win over the media nor minorities and the recently emancipated LBGT community, which also hurts Trump indirectly (by losing business with NBC, Univision, etc.)
4.

He has grit, which I don't see often in candidates and is a nice change, but it will not win him any favors with anyone ultimately.  I think at this point he needs to repair his image.  To do that, he has to learn how to approach issues in a way to please the media.  It sucks, but in today's inter-webbed world, you have to be on the right side of the internet community to get somewhere.

I can address anything if it needs to be elaborated, and I will appreciate a friendly, civil debate.   :)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 18, 2015, 08:10:31 PM
After reading posts about Trump I feel the need to say something.

I think Trump is pro-business, and he will use his tenure as president to strengthen businesses.  While many people are starting to support his way of thinking, I still do not think he will win the primaries.  Based on how many immigrants and minorities are in this country these days, with the help of propaganda, I think many, especially minorities, don't support Trump's philosophy of shaping the country (improving infrastructure of businesses, emphasizing border security, etc.) because of these things:

1. His open, free-speaking nature when it comes to sensitive issues alienates moderates.
2. His harsh persona as a celebrity (The Apprentice, his books, etc.) and the media's portrayal of Trump, turns off moderates.  The economic experience with Reagen also indirectly hurts Trump as well.
3. The Republican Party's general stance on supporting traditional values does not win over the media nor minorities and the recently emancipated LBGT community, which also hurts Trump indirectly (by losing business with NBC, Univision, etc.)
4.

He has grit, which I don't see often in candidates and is a nice change, but it will not win him any favors with anyone ultimately.  I think at this point he needs to repair his image.  To do that, he has to learn how to approach issues in a way to please the media.  It sucks, but in today's inter-webbed world, you have to be on the right side of the internet community to get somewhere.

I can address anything if it needs to be elaborated, and I will appreciate a friendly, civil debate.   :)

The selected statement above, highlights where the rest of your analysis comes up a little short for me.  What if, they already feel this way?

You said -- they're starting to support his way of thinking.  What we're saying is -- we're hearing people say things like "finally."  You're either overlooking that detail or excluding it on purpose.  It's worth inclusion.

Here's why -- the Republican Party has given their base McCain and Romney.  And now Jeb.  Jeb says things like, "he knows how to handle the base."  Tell them what they want to hear, I suppose.  So they don't get cranky, I assume.  Imagine that -- Inside the GOP boardroom, someone's concerned that they're not speaking to their base.


Doesn't mean Trump wins.  But it does mean McCain and Romney didn't.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: ForHerCryingSoul on July 18, 2015, 09:49:32 PM
The selected statement above, highlights where the rest of your analysis comes up a little short for me.  What if, they already feel this way?

You said -- they're starting to support his way of thinking.  What we're saying is -- we're hearing people say things like "finally."  You're either overlooking that detail or excluding it on purpose.  It's worth inclusion.

Here's why -- the Republican Party has given their base McCain and Romney.  And now Jeb.  Jeb says things like, "he knows how to handle the base."  Tell them what they want to hear, I suppose.  So they don't get cranky, I assume.  Imagine that -- Inside the GOP boardroom, someone's concerned that they're not speaking to their base.


Doesn't mean Trump wins.  But it does mean McCain and Romney didn't.

Thank you for bringing this up.  I overlooked this detail due to an unconscious bias. It was an oversight if you will. To tell the truth, I need to do more research on political strategies like what you illustrated. I sometimes have trouble understanding what drives moderate voters to pick a political side. I was trying to assess Trump's position as perceived by common media, and how it changes the moderates outlook on how good or evil they think he is.

Alas, the media isn't winning Trump too many favors. Even he admits being a candidate is bad business.

I believe if Republicans feel he is ready to take the helm and instill hope to conserving more traditional values, they will most likely vote for him compared to the others because he is more vocal and connective to voters. I'll stay tuned on what Trump offers to recap my analysis. My apologies for not being informed enough.

If Democrats are worried he might have a chance at winning, they will do everything they can to make him look bad. They probably see him as a sinking ship, taking the hopes of the Republican Party with it. At this point, the media is on this side, according to the internet. This might raise some flags, but unless I'm reading a bias report, many see his campaign as a joke...

Hopefully I've addressed everything, but the point is: in the primaries, to win, you need an established base on your side with the support of minorities, moderates, etc. Trump does not have this yet and is currently bruising the Republican Party. Something needs to get resolved and the harsh image of Trump needs to change if he wants to win neutral voters.

Let the sparks fly.  ;D


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 19, 2015, 08:08:35 PM
The selected statement above, highlights where the rest of your analysis comes up a little short for me.  What if, they already feel this way?

You said -- they're starting to support his way of thinking.  What we're saying is -- we're hearing people say things like "finally."  You're either overlooking that detail or excluding it on purpose.  It's worth inclusion.

Here's why -- the Republican Party has given their base McCain and Romney.  And now Jeb.  Jeb says things like, "he knows how to handle the base."  Tell them what they want to hear, I suppose.  So they don't get cranky, I assume.  Imagine that -- Inside the GOP boardroom, someone's concerned that they're not speaking to their base.


Doesn't mean Trump wins.  But it does mean McCain and Romney didn't.

Thank you for bringing this up.  I overlooked this detail due to an unconscious bias. It was an oversight if you will. To tell the truth, I need to do more research on political strategies like what you illustrated. I sometimes have trouble understanding what drives moderate voters to pick a political side. I was trying to assess Trump's position as perceived by common media, and how it changes the moderates outlook on how good or evil they think he is.

Alas, the media isn't winning Trump too many favors. Even he admits being a candidate is bad business.

I believe if Republicans feel he is ready to take the helm and instill hope to conserving more traditional values, they will most likely vote for him compared to the others because he is more vocal and connective to voters. I'll stay tuned on what Trump offers to recap my analysis. My apologies for not being informed enough.

If Democrats are worried he might have a chance at winning, they will do everything they can to make him look bad. They probably see him as a sinking ship, taking the hopes of the Republican Party with it. At this point, the media is on this side, according to the internet. This might raise some flags, but unless I'm reading a bias report, many see his campaign as a joke...

Hopefully I've addressed everything, but the point is: in the primaries, to win, you need an established base on your side with the support of minorities, moderates, etc. Trump does not have this yet and is currently bruising the Republican Party. Something needs to get resolved and the harsh image of Trump needs to change if he wants to win neutral voters.

Let the sparks fly.  ;D

ah yes... I see what you're trying to saying now.  No worries.  Winning moderates, yes.  Ok, so the fault here is giving it too much analysis!  ;D  There really isn't a whole lot of logic or political philosophies governing moderates.  By definition.  People think there is and they get paid a lot of money to mis-advise candidates.

But the way to win moderates is to unapologetically lead.  Moderates are attracted like iron shavings to a magnet, to somebody who isn't moderate.  It's really simple.  However, the opposite is what's practiced by political advisors and the like.  There's a whole political world devoted to how to appeal to people but not offend these people.

It's kinda funny -- to watch a bunch of grown men (and occasionally a woman or two), walk around a stage like game-pieces in that vibrating football game, where the players just vibrate around, bumping into each other real slow.  I can hear them exclaiming "I'm not for anything."  "Well, I'm for less."  "No, I'm for less than that."  That's how I assume it goes.

Anyway, I'm not worried about winning moderates.  However, I do believe the Left's candidates have to worry about that sort of stuff -- which is the origin of the practice.  Leftists can't be as open and honest about what they really want to do, or where they really want to lead.  And all these high-priced advisors attend the same parties.  So the practice has spilled over.

But I don't believe it's necessary.  To say this, that way, to appeal to moderates.  Say that to appeal to minorities.  Or women.  Or whatever.  It's identity politics.  And I just don't believe in it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 20, 2015, 08:30:07 AM
It's identity politics.  And I just don't believe in it.

You don't do you?

Okay then. I recall Ted Cruz saying the following quote recently."I grew up listening to classic rock, and I’ll tell you sort of an odd story: My music taste changed on 9/11. And it’s very strange. I actually intellectually find this very curious. But on 9/11, I didn’t like how rock music responded. And country music collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me. And I have to say, it just is a gut-level. I had an emotional reaction that says, these are my people. So ever since 2001, I listen to country music. But I’m an odd country music fan, because I didn’t listen to it prior to 2001."

That, to me, surely reeks of identity politics. He's trying to pander to those hickish, "I lurrrve Amurrcca", "put a boot in yer ass it's the American way" morons who only listen to "patriotic, Christian" music like Blake Shelton or Toby Keith and only watch "moral, Christian" shows like 19 Kids and Counting. He knows what he's doing, and he's doing it on purpose. And its very, very crass. Especially cuz I'd say it's pretty fair that "rock" music responded pretty damn well, with stuff like The Concert for New York City. Weird that Ted didn't think that was a good response.

Or how about all the weasely GOP candidates going to Iowa and putting on leather jackets and acting all "biker-y"? I always find it hilarious to watch these khakified stuffed shirts throw on their jeans and a leather jacket and try to act like what they perceive is "hip." Absolutely love it. But nah, that's not identity politics either.

(http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/zlbxyp2wt6mtflvpidhn.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 22, 2015, 06:08:17 AM
It's identity politics.  And I just don't believe in it.

You don't do you?

No.  I don't.  But isn't it silly? -- the whole selling of oneself to an audience?  Kind of like someone's first day on the SmileySmile.net -- "hey guys, I'm a Beach Boy fan for a long time."  Or at a job interview where you have to say "I'm good at this and that."  I hate those awkward first days...

But what I'm talking about is substantive.  Like how Obama blabbers about black lives mattering, while the Planned Parenthood organization (that he blesses) slaughters black babies by the truckload.  An organization that wears a soft, caring, medical face -- that gets busted talking about needing a “less crunchy” technique to extract “whole specimens” (formerly known as 'human beings') so they can sell'em to buy "a Lamborghini."  Then telling these poor frightened young girls, "it's their right and we're protecting you!" Protecting them from what -- who knows.  ::)

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/68FR9V3C55A/hqdefault.jpg)
"Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you."  Barrack Hussein Obama

Saying one thing and doing another.  You can keep your healthcare... knowing full well you want them off their care so Gov't can take over.  Telling people what you know they need to hear -- to allow you too plow'em in the behind.  Duplicitous and scheming, to hide what you're really doing.  That's what I'm referring to -- telling your hardcore supports, we'll get to single payer.  Then telling "the people" you can keep your doctor.  As Gruber said "chalk it up to the stupidity of the American people."  I could go on and on...

(http://fugazireport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/obama-trayvon.jpg)

Obama supports infanticide, but acts upset when a black kid is murdered.  Only if the assailant is white (or a white Hispanic) does Obama show up.  So he can use it as a political wedge to guilt dumb whites.  Gang-related black-on-black murders, which happens by the truckload, not so important.  Black lives don't matter.  Especially if they're in the womb.  Or born alive after a failed abortion attempt.  Crush their skull, right Obama!?  Right.  He voted YES for "partial birth" abortions.  Sick.  I could go on and on...


But, yeah, Scott Walker riding Harleys... OMG!!!  just unbelievable!  I know he's big into Harley's... but, the audacity!   :angry  :lol :lol :lol

(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CG100_MIDWES_P_20150607183748.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 22, 2015, 07:47:23 AM
Bean Bag - things are certainly heating up.  People are so frustrated. Trump made a huge mistake with his comment about the POW's.  Was it a "flip remark" as his PR people would have the public believe?

Yet, he is climbing in the polls.  He seems to be saying what people want to hear about outsourcing jobs and bringing back outsourced industry and product lines into the US.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 22, 2015, 12:18:31 PM
Bean Bag - things are certainly heating up.  People are so frustrated. Trump made a huge mistake with his comment about the POW's.  Was it a "flip remark" as his PR people would have the public believe?

Yet, he is climbing in the polls.  He seems to be saying what people want to hear about outsourcing jobs and bringing back outsourced industry and product lines into the US.

It's very interesting.  Trump is unapologetic, which right there, takes away the Left's biggest weapon (of late) for retaining their power.  They've been getting fat off that one for years.  Guilting people:  We should be ashamed of our country.  We should be ashamed of success.  We should be ashamed of our race.  We should be ashamed of our gender.  It's good when people mutilate themselves so they can pretend they're a different gender -- cuz God did that to you, and what does He know about making you a man.  If you wanna be a woman, WHACK! now you're a hero!!  If you wanna marry yourself GOOD for you.  We've emancipated you.  I now pronounce you Husband and Husband.   :lol :lol :lol

None of this ever worked on me, or most of the people I run into in life, for that matter.  Personally I'm proud of everything... ashamed of liberal stupid morons, sure... but they're funny to point at and laugh at and make fun of.  That's why God made liberals I figure.  I suspect Donald Trump is also similar in this regard -- immune to liberal shame tactics.  The Republican Party laps it up like the sorry little runts they are.  McCain, etc.  But Trump appears to enjoy it like me.  I don't know if he and I agree on the details of this or that... but who does agree on details in this life.  I just like that there's someone smacking the Liberal/Leftist Media-types around for a change.  I wonder if they'll figure it out?

Good TV!!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 22, 2015, 12:39:50 PM
Scott Walker

(http://www.prwatch.org/files/images/scott_walker.jpg)

Just the mention of his name, Scott Walker, causes liberal's to run to their nearest Planned Parenthood clinic for a procedure.  Simply put, Scott Walker stood up firmly against the nastiest of the nasty Left-wing power brokers:  Big Unions.  Not only that, but the mother of all Big Unions -- The "Teacher's" Union.  The very ones destroying our children's future so they can retire, unsuccessful, at 55, while the State goes broke and the rest of us work till were dead in the ground to pay for them.  Nice people.   :lol  But one cannot overstate this achievement.  He survived recall elections, death threats and the full pressure from THE BIG MONEY in the Demorat Party.  I mean, this is huge.  Huge.  Trust me.

Anyway, Walker is calm, confident, and likable.  And that's why he's such a threat.  People in a Demorat Blue State... backed him.  He's not drastic or "frightening" to your average moderate mutton-head (sorry, having too much fun today).  He just smiles and says "we're not gonna do that.  We're gonna do this."  Needless to say, I think Scott Walker represents a strong candidate.  He may not be making the big waves that Trump makes.  But he's high on the list of the base voters.  He would destroy Hill-Dog.

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 22, 2015, 12:41:22 PM
Bean Bag - things are certainly heating up.  People are so frustrated. Trump made a huge mistake with his comment about the POW's.  Was it a "flip remark" as his PR people would have the public believe?

Yet, he is climbing in the polls.  He seems to be saying what people want to hear about outsourcing jobs and bringing back outsourced industry and product lines into the US.

It's very interesting.  Trump is unapologetic, which right there, takes away the Left's biggest weapon (of late) for retaining their power.  They've been getting fat off that one for years.  Guilting people:  We should be ashamed of our country.  We should be ashamed of success.  We should be ashamed of our race.  We should be ashamed of our gender.  It's good when people mutilate themselves so they can pretend they're a different gender -- cuz God did that to you, and what does He know about making you a man.  If you wanna be a woman, WHACK! now you're a hero!!  If you wanna marry yourself GOOD for you.  We've emancipated you.  I now pronounce you Husband and Husband.   :lol :lol :lol

None of this ever worked on me, or most of the people I run into in life, for that matter.  Personally I'm proud of everything... ashamed of liberal stupid morons, sure... but they're funny to point at and laugh at and make fun of.  That's why God made liberals I figure.  I suspect Donald Trump is also similar in this regard -- immune to liberal shame tactics.  The Republican Party laps it up like the sorry little runts they are.  McCain, etc.  But Trump appears to enjoy it like me.  I don't know if he and I agree on the details of this or that... but who does agree on details in this life.  I just like that there's someone smacking the Liberal/Leftist Media-types around for a change.  I wonder if they'll figure it out?

Good TV!!
Well Bean Bag - if Trump is keeping his "eyes on the prize" for the election purposes, he would do well to use a filter. That POW statement was over the top horrendous. This appears to be his first election, so he is being baptized by fire.  It is always a shame when a candidate who is otherwise good, implodes on a gaffe such as his.  Good info always can defeat shame tactics and bullying.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 22, 2015, 01:17:16 PM
I'm fine with the comment Trump made, personally, because I know the context of his point.  It was edgy for sure and I wouldn't have said it or even thought of it like that, but I know why he said it.  It was about McCain -- who's known more for riding the coattails of his military service than all the years he spent wiping his azz with Conservatives, the Constitution -- and sucking up to the media and the Demorats and selling us out.  Oh and losing elections and criticizing the base.  He sucks.  He's despised by the people in the base.  His time spent in a POW camp was crushing and one hell of a sacrifice.  But outside of that, McCain's a poster child for the lame-o loser Republican Party.   Just like Mitch McConnell.  The base wants them gone.

So that's the bulk of McCain's worth -- his POW status.  That's it.  And Trump was correctly dismissing the attempt to negate this point when the moderator brought up -- on queue -- the POW thing.  "But, but... he's a POW."  So Trump reacted.  Quickly brushed it aside, since it was not the topic.  Which it wasn't.  It had nothing to do with what they were discussing, and was used to defeat Trumps correct analysis.  So Trump made a "Don't through that in my face" comment, so to speak.  Too far, sure.  But McCain is a loser -- so, don't change the subject, is what Trump was correctly doing.

Regardless of how it sounds in our sound-bite media cycle - I don't believe for a second that Trump now hates Vets and POWs.  That's silly.  We all know Donald Trump is unfiltered.  You can't have it both ways, I suppose.  People's feelings will get hurt from time to time.  But he's not running a campaign on discrediting Vets.  Nor does he hate Mexicans.  And when he attacks Hillary, it's not because he hates women.  But that's next.  Bet on it.

Now, on the other hand.  I won't be waiting breathlessly for the media and Republicans to demand McCain apologize to Trump's supporters when McCain called them "crazies."   :lol  But that's how the politics of being offended works.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 22, 2015, 04:19:46 PM
Okay, guys, to be honest, I'm coming around on ol' Donald. And, actually, as an apology, I wanted to make some campaign slogans for the future of this campaign. So, anyway, here we go:

(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj563/paintedteeth/trump9_zpsd2buayug.jpg)
Okay, okay, so maybe this wasn't the smartest thing for Donald Trump to say, but I say let's embrace it. Let's take it back for ourselves. We should all admit it, prisoners of war are losers. I mean, like, why couldn't you have been as good as the ones who weren't captured? Then, all you had to do was sit around and relax in a cell while your buddies were back there fighting. Let's not apologize for saying this, either. Hold strong, team. Maybe we offended some people (maybe all of the people) and hurt some feelings, but feelings are icky. Plus, it would ruin the whole "anti-PC" thing that's bringing us a ton of attention. This illusion of "he's speaking his mind, he's different" rests on the shoulders of people not realizing that "being anti-PC" is just another strategy to appeal to the voters. Ssshhhhhh.

(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj563/paintedteeth/trump11_zpsnsrt8cva.jpg)
Here's one to fight those nay-sayers. "Who cares about the billions of dollars worth of debts that my companies have accumulated, forcing me to apply for multiple bankruptcies? I was forced out of half of my ownership on the Taj Mahal hotel and casino, give up my salary for the Trump Plaza Hotel, surrendered my control of Trump Hotel and Casino Resorts, and was forced to resign as the chairman of the board for Trump Entertainment Resorts - but, like, so what?" Actually, here's how we do this. When he was settling the debts for the Taj Mahal hotel and casino, he had to sell his yacht and airplane! See? He can relate to the common man. We don't have yachts or airplanes, either. He understands us. Plus, the guy's never actually filed for bankruptcies himself, he's just always saddled his corporations with the debt. That's not a terrible omen, is it? Of course not. He's a great leader. No matter how many companies he takes down, the guy still has billions of dollars. That is a smart man right there.

(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj563/paintedteeth/trump5_zpscdizuxnp.jpg)
Honestly, this one doesn't even need a caption. This is our glamour shot. This will attract all the women and gay men (we're not entirely okay with the latter, but we'll have to deal with it for now) that are looking for the prettiest candidate. Plus, we won't even have to wrack our brains to rationalize something he said. And just look at those lips. It's like he's kissing America. Well, everyone except POWs. Still, this one's patriotic.

(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj563/paintedteeth/trump8_zps52fuowt4.jpg)
I mean, look, we don't have to use this one. I just happen to think this one will reel in all those young, dumb voters. Kids are dumb, right? Yeah, I think so, too. Anyway, here we see Trump, the thinking man. When he's not thinking about how to run another corporation into the ground, he's thinking about contemporary philosophical questions. Think about it: contemporary internet stuff + thinking. That's, like, what college kids do, right? Think about all the college kids we could harvest, guys.

(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj563/paintedteeth/trump10_zpsd8jqo7tt.jpg)
Perhaps this wasn't the most tactful remark from Donald Trump, but who even cares? I'm not Mexican, are you? However, we assume some of them (maybe six or seven) are good people. Listen to this, though: how many presidents have attempted to maintain positive relations with other countries? Like, all of them? THAT'S SO BORING NOW. Let's try just insulting all of them, see what happens. What's Mexico gonna do about it? Attack us? Well, how do they plan to do that after we've destroyed their economy by making them build and pay for a giant wall across the boarder? You know what, I'd like to see them try to get over that wall. It's gonna be tall as sh*t.

(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj563/paintedteeth/trump6_zpshxjymq6i.jpg)
Okay, so, obviously this one is wishful thinking. He hasn't actually announced a running mate yet, but we can always talk about what we'd like to see to happen, right? So, here's a riddle, and I'd like for you all to guess the answer: "what's better than one Trump?" I'll give you a minute. Another minute? Okay. No, the answer isn't "zero Trumps", you liberal, it's "TWO Trumps!" I know it's actually a little vague. Like, which one is running for president? But, I'd like to counter with: "does it even matter?" A Trump is a Trump, chump. Look, it even has a built in taunt to Mexico! Yeah, go ahead and try me, Mexico. Kiss my "feature on the back". You know what it is... it's his ass. This is the future of America, people - let's elect a man who has his own action figure! It's basically the closest we're going to get to electing Superman, right?


If anyone has any ideas about how to make one for that whole "Chinese manufacturing is bad for America, but I go ahead and have China manufacture my products because it's cheaper" deal, please PM me. Maybe we could make it about the Mexicans? There's probably a lot of Mexicans in the manufacturing business. We don't need that. That's gross. What if they rape our clothing products?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on July 22, 2015, 04:21:56 PM
Lock the thread! Josh just won it!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 22, 2015, 09:20:45 PM
Love it Bubbly!  Trump has a way of bringing it out in everybody.

Before this all started... I was telling some liberal family members of mine, "guys watch out for Donald Trump."  They immediately threw their heads back in a typical deflecting fashion. I decided not to say another word, other than to remind them... "guys... he's charismatic, you better watch out."  Before I could finish saying that an even more emphatic "gasp" filled the room.  And right there, I knew it.  It was going to be even better than I thought!

:rock


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 22, 2015, 10:29:48 PM
Love it Bubbly!

I thought you might appreciate it.
I hope you'll notice I didn't even mention his hair once.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 23, 2015, 06:57:54 AM
I did notice that.  Now do Hillary!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 23, 2015, 02:27:49 PM
I did notice that.  Now do Hillary!

I really don't have any strong feelings towards Hillary Clinton, either positive or negative.
You do it. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 23, 2015, 02:52:17 PM
I did notice that.  Now do Hillary!

I really don't have any strong feelings towards Hillary Clinton, either positive or negative.
You do it. 

America does. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/quinnipiac-swing-state-polls-show-sharp-drop-in-hillary-clintons-numbers/article/2568748


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 23, 2015, 03:08:47 PM
I did notice that.  Now do Hillary!

I really don't have any strong feelings towards Hillary Clinton, either positive or negative.
You do it. 

America does. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/quinnipiac-swing-state-polls-show-sharp-drop-in-hillary-clintons-numbers/article/2568748

It would really help to actually read articles before you post them. Especially when they say: "Of course this is just one poll (or set of polls), and any trend in these three states may not extend to other states. National polls matching Clinton against Bush, Walker and Rubio do not yet show any similar decline in her standing."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on July 23, 2015, 06:35:36 PM
I did notice that.  Now do Hillary!

I really don't have any strong feelings towards Hillary Clinton, either positive or negative.
You do it. 

America does. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/quinnipiac-swing-state-polls-show-sharp-drop-in-hillary-clintons-numbers/article/2568748

It would really help to actually read articles before you post them. Especially when they say: "Of course this is just one poll (or set of polls), and any trend in these three states may not extend to other states. National polls matching Clinton against Bush, Walker and Rubio do not yet show any similar decline in her standing."

Okay? So she didn't fall in all states, but DRAMATICALLY did in other states.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 23, 2015, 07:58:14 PM
I did notice that.  Now do Hillary!

I really don't have any strong feelings towards Hillary Clinton, either positive or negative.
You do it. 

America does. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/quinnipiac-swing-state-polls-show-sharp-drop-in-hillary-clintons-numbers/article/2568748

It would really help to actually read articles before you post them. Especially when they say: "Of course this is just one poll (or set of polls), and any trend in these three states may not extend to other states. National polls matching Clinton against Bush, Walker and Rubio do not yet show any similar decline in her standing."

Okay? So she didn't fall in all states, but DRAMATICALLY did in other states.

First of all, you said that "America does". Unless you think that America is all of three states, you must realize that all of America does not feel this way. Even the article you posted says this. Secondly, polls are to be taken with a grain of salt. They don't poll everyone in a state, they just do small sample groups that they hope will be a good representation for the area at large (well, usually, anyway). One thing to notice in this article is that they do not give you the original numbers, so I'm not going to just assume that there was in fact a dramatic fall from what it was previously without actually having something to compare the current numbers to. I see you have a habit of thinking America agrees with you ("silent majority" and whatnot... how do you know how large a group is if it's silent, by the way?), but you'll find they don't.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Please delete my account on July 24, 2015, 02:44:46 AM
I shouldn't have laughed at this Private Eye cover a while ago, but I did:
(http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef01b7c77b5961970b-800wi)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on July 24, 2015, 07:16:31 AM
That was priceless, unreleased backgrounds!

One for you!  :beer


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 24, 2015, 08:14:32 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wQGWyBcKKm8/UpExW1qDOFI/AAAAAAAACtw/0yqYFVFgQ8U/s1600/1812+Naval.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 24, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Hashtag Benghazi.

Right?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 27, 2015, 02:15:00 PM
http://www.ascandaladay.com   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on July 28, 2015, 09:53:14 PM
White. Midwestern. Evangelical. Crosseyed. Possibly mentally disabled. Young. Balding.

(http://buffalobeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/walker-crosseyed.jpg)

This guy is PERFECT!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on July 29, 2015, 10:48:03 AM
Tell me about it brosif!  He ain't even gay, yo!  A white man, who ain't gay, jus' can't stay.

(http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb140/rea11yb3n/stickman/breakdancing.gif)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 03, 2015, 02:29:45 PM
Scott Walker is still unsure whether Obama is Christian (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/01/scott-walker-is-still-unsure-whether-obama-is-christian/)

(https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cbs_ftn_walker_fp_150517e-800x430.jpg)

DANA POINT, Calif. — Scott Walker still does not know whether President Obama is a Christian.

Fielding questions at the Koch network’s donor summit here Saturday night, the Republican presidential candidate reiterated the controversial position of uncertainty that he staked out in February.

“You’re not going to get a different answer than I said before,” the Wisconsin governor said. “I don’t know. I presume he is. … But I’ve never asked him about that. As someone who is a believer myself, I don’t presume to know someone’s beliefs about whether they follow Christ or not unless I’ve actually talked with them.”

The comment came at the end of a half-hour question-and-answer session before about 400 of the biggest donors in GOP politics.

Walker wrapped up his answer by saying, “He’s said he is, and I take him at his word.”

Obama has repeatedly professed his Christian faith and attended Christian church services.

Back in February, The Washington Post asked Walker whether Obama is a Christian during the National Governors Association meeting.

“I don’t know,” he said then. “I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that … I’ve never asked him that. … You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that.”

Democrats quickly seized on the comment, including former senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer and top Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 03, 2015, 02:37:16 PM
So that's interesting. Walker is unsure whether President Obama is a Christian.

That's okay though, because I'm not sure whether he's a mentally handicapped cross-eyed goon who only parrots what two rich brothers tell him to do or not.

I do wonder though if he's just as unsure whether Ronald Reagan was a Christian. Or Mike Huckabee. The stuff Huckabee has been saying sure hasn't sounded very Christian, but I don't seeing so called "conservatives" doubting his faith.

Sure is odd. I wonder why Walker talks like this...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 04, 2015, 05:59:05 AM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 04, 2015, 01:53:33 PM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: grillo on August 04, 2015, 04:21:19 PM
          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves.  I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 04, 2015, 05:41:02 PM
          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 04, 2015, 05:56:36 PM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.
I'm sorry dude-bro, I meant that as a rhetorical question -- which was, like, sorta my point n' stuff. Sorry if that wasn't clear n' everything.

Incidentally, I think you're right about Cruz.  :h5


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: grillo on August 04, 2015, 06:16:54 PM
         If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.
so hidden behind your altruism lies your desire to steal an other person's money and then claim some sort of moral high ground?
Duly laughed at.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.
I'm sorry dude-bro, I meant that as a rhetorical question -- which was, like, sorta my point n' stuff. Sorry if that wasn't clear n' everything.

Incidentally, I think you're right about Cruz.  :h5

Well. I'm not being rhetorical. Do you think President Obama is a Christian or not? Why don't you have the guts to answer? If you think President Obama is a Muslim come out and say it bud.

          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.
so hidden behind your altruism lies your desire to steal an other person's money and then claim some sort of moral high ground?
Duly laughed at.

I didn't say I have the moral high ground. Republicans have the right to believe what they want, and I have the right to believe what I want. Last time I checked, nobody is stealing anybodies money though. People send their money to the IRS on their own. No stealing going on.

Also, the American people elect their own government who make the laws. It's not like the government is the huge building walking around that we have no control of.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 04, 2015, 09:49:20 PM
Well. I'm not being rhetorical. Do you think President Obama is a Christian or not? Why don't you have the guts to answer? If you think President Obama is a Muslim come out and say it bud.

Oh, I be bettin' all on black, brosif!!  By the way, what do I win?   :3d

(http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/images/roulette-wheel.gif)

Black, as in Black Liberation Theology.  Or in your vernacular, hashtagBLT.  

See, anybody can answer a question.  But are they right?  Sometimes they are Jim.  Sometimes they are.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: grillo on August 04, 2015, 10:44:30 PM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.
I'm sorry dude-bro, I meant that as a rhetorical question -- which was, like, sorta my point n' stuff. Sorry if that wasn't clear n' everything.

Incidentally, I think you're right about Cruz.  :h5

Well. I'm not being rhetorical. Do you think President Obama is a Christian or not? Why don't you have the guts to answer? If you think President Obama is a Muslim come out and say it bud.

          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.
so hidden behind your altruism lies your desire to steal an other person's money and then claim some sort of moral high ground?
Duly laughed at.

I didn't say I have the moral high ground. Republicans have the right to believe what they want, and I have the right to believe what I want. Last time I checked, nobody is stealing anybodies money though. People send their money to the IRS on their own. No stealing going on.

Also, the American people elect their own government who make the laws. It's not like the government is the huge building walking around that we have no control of.
LOL. Yeah, willingly send their money...see what happens if you don't willingly send them your money! You'll get to see this nice place called federal prison where all the bad people go because government (people, as you point out) is allowed to kidnap you and put you in a cage if you disagree with them. Yeah, see, they are this magic class of people that morality and ethics don't apply to because..., eh, government.
              Now, since you apparently vote, I can hold you responsible for the massive numbers of civilians your government has killed in their, I mean your, endless wars.Cos, like you said, you pick the guys that do this.
 Genius!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 04, 2015, 11:55:14 PM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.
I'm sorry dude-bro, I meant that as a rhetorical question -- which was, like, sorta my point n' stuff. Sorry if that wasn't clear n' everything.

Incidentally, I think you're right about Cruz.  :h5

Well. I'm not being rhetorical. Do you think President Obama is a Christian or not? Why don't you have the guts to answer? If you think President Obama is a Muslim come out and say it bud.

          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.
so hidden behind your altruism lies your desire to steal an other person's money and then claim some sort of moral high ground?
Duly laughed at.

I didn't say I have the moral high ground. Republicans have the right to believe what they want, and I have the right to believe what I want. Last time I checked, nobody is stealing anybodies money though. People send their money to the IRS on their own. No stealing going on.

Also, the American people elect their own government who make the laws. It's not like the government is the huge building walking around that we have no control of.
LOL. Yeah, willingly send their money...see what happens if you don't willingly send them your money! You'll get to see this nice place called federal prison where all the bad people go because government (people, as you point out) is allowed to kidnap you and put you in a cage if you disagree with them. Yeah, see, they are this magic class of people that morality and ethics don't apply to because..., eh, government.
              Now, since you apparently vote, I can hold you responsible for the massive numbers of civilians your government has killed in their, I mean your, endless wars.Cos, like you said, you pick the guys that do this.
 Genius!

Hey, if you have a better system in mind than we have right now, I encourage you to either run for office and try to change things or move to Somalia, where I hear the lack of government makes for a wonderful living situation. Go check it out sometime, you'll love it.

Now, I think government makes a ton of horrid choices, such as thinking we have to involve ourselves in every military conflict everywhere. But as I said, we the American people choose what we want. Even those who don't vote. Because their lack of voting also makes their point clear. So if you dislike the US so much, do what you can to change it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: grillo on August 05, 2015, 06:07:26 AM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.
I'm sorry dude-bro, I meant that as a rhetorical question -- which was, like, sorta my point n' stuff. Sorry if that wasn't clear n' everything.

Incidentally, I think you're right about Cruz.  :h5

Well. I'm not being rhetorical. Do you think President Obama is a Christian or not? Why don't you have the guts to answer? If you think President Obama is a Muslim come out and say it bud.

          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.
so hidden behind your altruism lies your desire to steal an other person's money and then claim some sort of moral high ground?
Duly laughed at.

I didn't say I have the moral high ground. Republicans have the right to believe what they want, and I have the right to believe what I want. Last time I checked, nobody is stealing anybodies money though. People send their money to the IRS on their own. No stealing going on.

Also, the American people elect their own government who make the laws. It's not like the government is the huge building walking around that we have no control of.
LOL. Yeah, willingly send their money...see what happens if you don't willingly send them your money! You'll get to see this nice place called federal prison where all the bad people go because government (people, as you point out) is allowed to kidnap you and put you in a cage if you disagree with them. Yeah, see, they are this magic class of people that morality and ethics don't apply to because..., eh, government.
              Now, since you apparently vote, I can hold you responsible for the massive numbers of civilians your government has killed in their, I mean your, endless wars.Cos, like you said, you pick the guys that do this.
 Genius!

Hey, if you have a better system in mind than we have right now, I encourage you to either run for office and try to change things or move to Somalia, where I hear the lack of government makes for a wonderful living situation. Go check it out sometime, you'll love it.

Now, I think government makes a ton of horrid choices, such as thinking we have to involve ourselves in every military conflict everywhere. But as I said, we the American people choose what we want. Even those who don't vote. Because their lack of voting also makes their point clear. So if you dislike the US so much, do what you can to change it.
Looks like you forgot about my first post already.The System is working fine, exactly as designed; extract resources from the productive class (taxpayers) and accumulate resources for you and your buddies (the political class) with impunity. You think that can be 'fixed'?! I'd have a better chance of convincing the local KKK to stop burning crosses!
 Also, nice 'Love it or Leave it' meme. I suppose, according to you, if someone lived in an apartment building with a known rapist, it would be their responsibility to move if they didn't want to be raped? Or just convince the rapist not to rape?
   It should bve obvious there is no "WE". There is the government, which is people who bully people into doing what THE LAW says, and there are citizens who must obey, or like you said, move to some third world nightmare.
All I am advocating for is peaceful and voluntary interactions. Those are the only legitimate kinds of relationships.When you vote, government always wins, and government is force.
    Look at it like this, If you think people are terrible and violent you cannot have government because the worst people will flock to it. If all these horrible people are voting then you'll get the worst ideas rising to the top.
   And if you think people are generally good, well then why do we even need government?  We can take care of the poor and helpless without the need for a violent, rights violating entity at the center of society. I donate to several charities myself, none of which have ever threatened to throw me in a cage if I didn't give them money.
   At least consider the idea that violence is not the best way to organize society. Voting to take other people's money is theft by proxy, no matter what the intentions. If you take 100% of a persons earnings that is called slavery. What is it called when you take 40% of their earnings? Oh yeah, democracy. And just in case you think I'm one of those evil, rich guys, I make about 30 grand a year.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 05, 2015, 06:27:11 AM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.
I'm sorry dude-bro, I meant that as a rhetorical question -- which was, like, sorta my point n' stuff. Sorry if that wasn't clear n' everything.

Incidentally, I think you're right about Cruz.  :h5

Well. I'm not being rhetorical. Do you think President Obama is a Christian or not? Why don't you have the guts to answer? If you think President Obama is a Muslim come out and say it bud.

          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.
so hidden behind your altruism lies your desire to steal an other person's money and then claim some sort of moral high ground?
Duly laughed at.

I didn't say I have the moral high ground. Republicans have the right to believe what they want, and I have the right to believe what I want. Last time I checked, nobody is stealing anybodies money though. People send their money to the IRS on their own. No stealing going on.

Also, the American people elect their own government who make the laws. It's not like the government is the huge building walking around that we have no control of.
LOL. Yeah, willingly send their money...see what happens if you don't willingly send them your money! You'll get to see this nice place called federal prison where all the bad people go because government (people, as you point out) is allowed to kidnap you and put you in a cage if you disagree with them. Yeah, see, they are this magic class of people that morality and ethics don't apply to because..., eh, government.
              Now, since you apparently vote, I can hold you responsible for the massive numbers of civilians your government has killed in their, I mean your, endless wars.Cos, like you said, you pick the guys that do this.
 Genius!

Hey, if you have a better system in mind than we have right now, I encourage you to either run for office and try to change things or move to Somalia, where I hear the lack of government makes for a wonderful living situation. Go check it out sometime, you'll love it.

Now, I think government makes a ton of horrid choices, such as thinking we have to involve ourselves in every military conflict everywhere. But as I said, we the American people choose what we want. Even those who don't vote. Because their lack of voting also makes their point clear. So if you dislike the US so much, do what you can to change it.
Looks like you forgot about my first post already.The System is working fine, exactly as designed; extract resources from the productive class (taxpayers) and accumulate resources for you and your buddies (the political class) with impunity. You think that can be 'fixed'?! I'd have a better chance of convincing the local KKK to stop burning crosses!
 Also, nice 'Love it or Leave it' meme. I suppose, according to you, if someone lived in an apartment building with a known rapist, it would be their responsibility to move if they didn't want to be raped? Or just convince the rapist not to rape?
   It should bve obvious there is no "WE". There is the government, which is people who bully people into doing what THE LAW says, and there are citizens who must obey, or like you said, move to some third world nightmare.
All I am advocating for is peaceful and voluntary interactions. Those are the only legitimate kinds of relationships.When you vote, government always wins, and government is force.
    Look at it like this, If you think people are terrible and violent you cannot have government because the worst people will flock to it. If all these horrible people are voting then you'll get the worst ideas rising to the top.
   And if you think people are generally good, well then why do we even need government?  We can take care of the poor and helpless without the need for a violent, rights violating entity at the center of society. I donate to several charities myself, none of which have ever threatened to throw me in a cage if I didn't give them money.
   At least consider the idea that violence is not the best way to organize society. Voting to take other people's money is theft by proxy, no matter what the intentions. If you take 100% of a persons earnings that is called slavery. What is it called when you take 40% of their earnings? Oh yeah, democracy. And just in case you think I'm one of those evil, rich guys, I make about 30 grand a year.

See, here's the thing. All of what you wrote is well and good. But you also know that no matter what, people don't like making choices for themselves, and would at some point likely band together to form some sort of government like system. And we'd be right back where we started.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: grillo on August 05, 2015, 07:06:28 AM
LOL. So, the worst case scenario is what we have now? Finally we agree!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 05, 2015, 11:30:09 AM
These governmental/systems debates are academic.  We've already done it.  The brightest minds, in a unique situation, already came up with an ideal system of government.  It's a necessary evil for mankind to best benefit from the natural need to formulate a society.  Are Big Gulps still illegal in NYC?

With the exception of ensuring the system is applied fairly and to all peoples -- any other ideas about "how to do it better" should be shipped to Greece and need not apply.

However -- ever since the days of the Progressive/Communist/Socialist movement -- many of our less-bright elected reps have felt that they could do it better.  They went to college.  Rrrr.  They read Marx.  And now they want to try things -- a violation of the oath they took.

But I digress...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 05, 2015, 11:42:16 AM
Bernie Sanders

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Bernie_Sanders.jpg)

Believe it or not, I actually have a bit of respect for ol' Bernie.  He's a Democrat who understands where his party is actually going -- Socialism.  As sad and hopeless as that dismal failure of an ideology is -- he admits it.  He fcking admits it!   :lol  And that sort of honesty -- like Donald Trump -- is always refreshing.  It is hard to find these days -- especially on the Left, where seldom they can admit were they really want to take the country.

Socialism of course is a total failure.  The ultimate get rich scheme for a "politician."  But people want to believe.

Other than that, politically speaking, I see Sanders as the vulture circling Hillary's bloated candidacy.  You don't have a front runner (Hillary) if a hundred thousand people show up to a Bernie Sanders rally.  Do you?  Is that true, by the way?  I thought I read that somewhere.  100,000.  Golly.  Anyway... Bernie doesn't have a prayer -- but, as I said, neither does Hillary.  She could get the nomination -- my crystal ball is not as clear as the pundits' seem to be -- but I just don't feel it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 06, 2015, 08:50:41 PM
Chirp.  Chirp.


Ok, that's enough of that.  now for something... interesting.

Helluva debate!!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 06, 2015, 09:01:30 PM
(http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/b5d986773ec461237e0f6a706700a811.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 06, 2015, 09:10:00 PM
What's your point Jim?   Do YOU think Ted Cruz is Christian?  :-D

Walker's response sounds quite reasonable -- to a rather strange and loaded question.  Unless the politician in question wore their beliefs openly, like Huckabee does, I too would say: "What?  I don't know.  Why are you axing me -- shouldn't you axe them?"   :lol

Has anyone axed Obama about Walker's religion?  And if Walker's "I take him for his word" response is mentally slow -- is the opposite is thus wise?  Do you therefore think it's mentally un-challenged to say "I DON'T take him for his word.  He's a muslim."  Cuz that's what you're saying.

Yes I do think Ted Cruz is a Christian.

Do you think President Obama is? Betcha don't.
I'm sorry dude-bro, I meant that as a rhetorical question -- which was, like, sorta my point n' stuff. Sorry if that wasn't clear n' everything.

Incidentally, I think you're right about Cruz.  :h5

Well. I'm not being rhetorical. Do you think President Obama is a Christian or not? Why don't you have the guts to answer? If you think President Obama is a Muslim come out and say it bud.

          If it wasn't so horrifyingly sad it would be fall-down funny that, once again, peaceful people who have NOTHING in common and NO NEED for the political class are arguing about which of these loser fearmongers should rule everybody! Get a grip! Is it really possible you have learned nothing from the last, oh, 5,000 years? Governments steal and kill, that's all. Everything else they have ever done is a subset of those two things.
Lets try some voluntary, mutualy beneficial relationships instead of voting for someone to steal your neighbors money to benefit themselves. I recommend ignoring these assholes and the lap-dog media that shills for them.
         I know, I know...but what about the roads?!

So basically hidden underneath this whole supposed tirade against politics, the bolded part shows you're really most mad about the rich paying taxes to help the middle class and poor.

Duly noted.
so hidden behind your altruism lies your desire to steal an other person's money and then claim some sort of moral high ground?
Duly laughed at.

I didn't say I have the moral high ground. Republicans have the right to believe what they want, and I have the right to believe what I want. Last time I checked, nobody is stealing anybodies money though. People send their money to the IRS on their own. No stealing going on.

Also, the American people elect their own government who make the laws. It's not like the government is the huge building walking around that we have no control of.
Hey Bag, grow a pair. Answer the question about Obama!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 06, 2015, 09:27:08 PM
I'm too scared


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 06, 2015, 09:44:57 PM
I'm too scared

I thought all of us were the ones who grew up scared of clowns  :smokin


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 06, 2015, 09:58:44 PM
Chirp.  Chirp.


Ok, that's enough of that.  now for something... interesting.

Helluva debate!!

How'd it go? I'm genuinely interested.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 07, 2015, 07:19:44 AM
Chirp.  Chirp.


Ok, that's enough of that.  now for something... interesting.

Helluva debate!!

How'd it go? I'm genuinely interested.
Much more of a debate than I thought. Good exchanges. Some fireworks. Very entertaining.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on August 07, 2015, 07:24:38 AM
Chirp.  Chirp.


Ok, that's enough of that.  now for something... interesting.

Helluva debate!!

How'd it go? I'm genuinely interested.
Much more of a debate than I thought. Good exchanges. Some fireworks. Very entertaining.
Carly Fiorina!  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on August 07, 2015, 07:26:16 AM
Chirp.  Chirp.


Ok, that's enough of that.  now for something... interesting.

Helluva debate!!

How'd it go? I'm genuinely interested.
Much more of a debate than I thought. Good exchanges. Some fireworks. Very entertaining.
The line of the night..."I gave to Hillary so she would come to my wedding!" (The Donald!)  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 10, 2015, 08:41:46 PM
The Donald Trump stuff is just great.  Isn't it?  Been waiting for something like this for a loooooooooooooooooooong time.

I never enjoyed politics.  But I love this stuff.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/09/18/8b/09188b87768016fa7d1fd89a872fba2b.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 10, 2015, 08:51:53 PM
I'll have you know, Bean Bag, that someone close to me endorses Donald Trump. When asked, they just responded with "I agree with him: we need to make America great again." To me, that's a disconcerting answer - there isn't any agreement with any of his actual policies or ideas, they're just agreeing with a slogan. That scares me.

Anyway, what's Trump up to now?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 11, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
Make America Great Again. Fantastic slogan. What's NOT to like?  Obama's "change" could have gone either way, up or down -- we now know which way. Down. It was down.

But Trump's rolling along, still leading in Iowa. Picked up a point or something post-debate, despite the media's horrendously transparent and perverted attempt to make Trump's comment about "blood coming out of Megyn Kelley's eyes" about her menstrual cycle. I mean seriously?   :lol

Goodness. The War on Women thing is now embarrassingly juvenile.  Soon the media will be passing notes in class.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 11, 2015, 09:54:06 PM
Make America Great Again. Fantastic slogan. What's NOT to like?  Obama's "change" could have gone either way, up or down -- we now know which way. Down. It was down.

But Trump's rolling along, still leading in Iowa. Picked up a point or something post-debate, despite the media's horrendously transparent and perverted attempt to make Trump's comment about "blood coming out of Megyn Kelley's eyes" about her menstrual cycle. I mean seriously?   :lol

Goodness. The War on Women thing is now embarrassingly juvenile.  Soon the media will be passing notes in class.

You are aware that the "news" channel that most wanted to damage Trump was Fox News right? Because they think that he will lose badly in the general election.

I must say, I smile every time Trump is on TV. I think he's hilarious, and I think he's just great for the Republican Party. It's hilarious to watch all those stuffed shirts trying to deal with him. At some point enough will be enough though and Jeb Bush and all his buddies will carpet-bomb Trump with a bunch of screwed up ads and Jeb will take the nomination.

But at what cost??? I have a feeling the Donald will not take kindly to that and might just wanna run third party after that.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 11, 2015, 10:10:26 PM
Make America Great Again. Fantastic slogan. What's NOT to like?  Obama's "change" could have gone either way, up or down -- we now know which way. Down. It was down.

But Trump's rolling along, still leading in Iowa. Picked up a point or something post-debate, despite the media's horrendously transparent and perverted attempt to make Trump's comment about "blood coming out of Megyn Kelley's eyes" about her menstrual cycle. I mean seriously?   :lol

Goodness. The War on Women thing is now embarrassingly juvenile.  Soon the media will be passing notes in class.

You are aware that the "news" channel that most wanted to damage Trump was Fox News right? Because they think that he will lose badly in the general election.

I must say, I smile every time Trump is on TV. I think he's hilarious, and I think he's just great for the Republican Party. It's hilarious to watch all those stuffed shirts trying to deal with him. At some point enough will be enough though and Jeb Bush and all his buddies will carpet-bomb Trump with a bunch of screwed up ads and Jeb will take the nomination.

But at what cost??? I have a feeling the Donald will not take kindly to that and might just wanna run third party after that.
The thing I love about "The Donald" is that he will take on anyone. Lindsey Graham, Fox News, Obama, anyone. It is refreshing to see someone running who hasn't sold out to special interests. His plan to make South Korea (a rich country, we buy their cars, phones and TVs) pay us for protecting them makes total sense!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 12, 2015, 05:38:50 AM
I agree with you both.  Trump is refreshing, not only for the Republican Party, but for politics in general.  All politicians hop on this media-run conveyor belt -- and they can't move their arms while the media has their way with them.  It's perverted and embarrassing.

It results in a formula that all public officials follow.  Stiff.  Predictable.  And anything but intellectually stimulating -- even if the ideas shared, in fact are.  It's all so damn scripted -- the questions and the answers.  All guided by the D.C. "conventional wisdom" and coated with a seemingly impenetrable glaze of political correctness.


Yes, there was a "hit" out on Donald.  There were rumors prior to the debate that this would be the case.  Naturally, it was assumed this meant the candidates were going after him.  However, it came from moderators, the candidates didn't do anything.  FoxNews went for the throat.  The first few questions basically equaled, "Donald.  Who the f-ck do you think you are to do this to our event?"

(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FTrump_gestures.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on August 13, 2015, 05:16:50 AM
Trump's like a much more liberal Ron Paul what with his continued dissing of both parties and just about every politician. I suppose there's something respectable there. But to bring up the elephant in the room...what of his alleged support for state funding being given to Planned Parenthood? That's reason enough not to support him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-planned-parenthood_55caaf56e4b0f73b20bb1c53


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 13, 2015, 07:25:28 AM
From what I've heard/read, it sounds like he's open to the idea of Planned Parenthood being what they say & pretend it is -- a women's health facility.  That provides women with, um... health stuff.  Protein shakes?  Skin cream?  Would that include stuff like free rubbers, sponges and other assorted doo-hickies of that nature?  I suppose it would.

But no longer being the tax-payer funded abortion factories.  Sounds like Trump doesn't believe Parent Parenthood should be State-sponsored human slaughtering and butchering houses of guilt-free murder.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/trump-open-to-idea-of-continuing-taxpayer-funding-of-planned-parenthood/


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on August 13, 2015, 08:43:17 AM
Planned Parenthood shouldn't receive stolen taxpayer dollars anyway.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 13, 2015, 11:06:42 AM
If it were up to me -- everything at the Federal level should stop immediately.  Yes, I said everything.  Immediately.  Stop everything and return the money to the people they stole it from.

Then we'll sit down and have an intelligent, adult conversation about what we need.  What we really need.  But not immediately.  No, no.  Before we talk -- we need to let the Country have a good, long temper-tantrum.  Followed by a tall glass of calm-the-fck-down.

Then we'll talk.   :afro


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 13, 2015, 11:10:42 AM
"Dear President Bean Bag,

I need more rubbers.

Sincerely,
Sandra Fluke"


(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1601355!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/limbaugh-furor.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 13, 2015, 03:00:44 PM
Mr. Producer,

We need to stop the Democrat Party and their fascist Islamo-Nazi friends who are out to ruin America. You know, with their New York Slimes and their Washington Compost. Then you have the Injustice Department forcing their anti-white agenda down our Judeo-Christian throats! Then we have the Department of No Education indoctrinating our children! Ruining America, turning all of our children into lazy takers! Benghazi! Spending! Spendghazi!

Our Appeaser-In-Chief, the RACIST Barack Obama, he's a JERK! Oh, so five LAWYERS in black robes say something and that makes it the "truth" Mr. President? Well I call BS! The Supreme Court only matters when we get our way, like Bush v Gore, or Citizens United. So don't you dare tell me your government takeover of healthcare is constitutional ya big jerk! Yeah, you heard me right. You're a JERK! Listen Mr. Producer, cut three.....go!

Don't forget, buy my book! It's called "Ameritopia's Liberty & Tyranny in the Obama Era and the Deceit & Plunder in Benghazi and the IRS and Lois Lerner and Hillary and Fast & Furious Makes Me Mad But Iran Contra Doesn't" Hope you guys enjoy it. I know the founding fathers would.

In freedom,
The Great One, Mark Levin

(https://marcjohnsonbooks.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/dscn08871.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on August 13, 2015, 04:06:55 PM
"Dear President Bean Bag,

I need more rubbers.

Sincerely,
Sandra Fluke"


(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1601355!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/limbaugh-furor.jpg)


 Funny.

 The Trump hoopla may be obscuring Hillary's problems. I'm not just talking about e-mails - the HRC campaign is flat, uninspired, and all her negative ratings are rising in the polls. Sanders by contrast has clearly struck a chord with many. Hillary has been beaten before. It won't be Bernie Sanders who does it this time, but a rational Republican candidate could win versus Hill in the general election. Do we have a rational Republican candidate?

 Observation: HRC reminds me more and more of Richard Nixon.

 Memo to Jeb: Iraq will always be your brother's turd. And it's a big one.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 13, 2015, 06:30:43 PM
Hillary's a flop.  Even Jeb Bush could beat her.   :drumroll

2015.  No jobs.  $18,112,975,000,000 in debt.  Obama.  America.  Hillary's campaign.  Kardashian Kruise Lines have run aground.  Los well es dry.

(http://www.sheetsandwich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wasteland.jpg)

150 Days: Treasury Says Debt Has Been Frozen at $18112975000000 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/150-days-treasury-says-debt-has-been-frozen-18112975000000)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 13, 2015, 11:19:59 PM
(http://www.sheetsandwich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wasteland.jpg)

Damn. Our country looks bad. Like Dinesh D'Jailza's '2016' movie predicted it. Soon all will be gray and run down. And martial law will commence. Scary.

It's almost like you just posted a photo to present a "bad vibe." Also funny that you mention the Kardashians. They and little ol' Caitlin Jenner are Republicans last time I checked. So you can keep them.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 14, 2015, 01:08:29 AM
If it were up to me -- everything at the Federal level should stop immediately.  Yes, I said everything.  Immediately.  Stop everything and return the money to the people they stole it from.

Then we'll sit down and have an intelligent, adult conversation about what we need.  What we really need.  But not immediately.  No, no.  Before we talk -- we need to let the Country have a good, long temper-tantrum.  Followed by a tall glass of calm-the-fck-down.

Then we'll talk.   :afro
Super idea. We can maintain the interstates with used bubble gum, inspect our meat with a coin flip and run the military on donations.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 14, 2015, 05:47:07 AM
If it were up to me -- everything at the Federal level should stop immediately.  Yes, I said everything.  Immediately.  Stop everything and return the money to the people they stole it from.

Then we'll sit down and have an intelligent, adult conversation about what we need.  What we really need.  But not immediately.  No, no.  Before we talk -- we need to let the Country have a good, long temper-tantrum.  Followed by a tall glass of calm-the-fck-down.

Then we'll talk.   :afro
Super idea. We can maintain the interstates with used bubble gum, inspect our meat with a coin flip and run the military on donations.
Bring it to the meeting. We'll vote on it. Sandra Fluke's rubber request is also on the table. Tough decisions.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on August 14, 2015, 06:45:19 AM
If it were up to me -- everything at the Federal level should stop immediately.  Yes, I said everything.  Immediately.  Stop everything and return the money to the people they stole it from.

Then we'll sit down and have an intelligent, adult conversation about what we need.  What we really need.  But not immediately.  No, no.  Before we talk -- we need to let the Country have a good, long temper-tantrum.  Followed by a tall glass of calm-the-fck-down.

Then we'll talk.   :afro

Megyn Kelly is on a vacay...hanging with her kids and hub...good for her... ;)

The dialog is really opening up...a very good thing to combat all this scripted sound bite nonsense...

You are so funny!  :lol



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 14, 2015, 11:09:21 AM
Ben Carson

(http://media.washtimes.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/image/2014/05/26/5_262014_dr-ben-carson-at-po8201.jpg)

A favorite of many Conservatives... Ben Carson.  The Doctor.  The pediatric brain surgeon.  The one who told Obama directly to his lyin' stupid face, that his precious Obamacare was an awful idea that took away people's choice, raised healthcare costs and would end up hurting more people than it could ever help.  And it doesn't do much help anyway.

He's about as outside as an outsider candidate you could get.  Calm.  Mellow.  Pleasant.  Intelligent.  Not a politician.  Not anything like a politician. And he's resonating well with Americans.  He articulates the principles of Conservatism -- the idea behind this Country and the concept and benefits of liberty -- and mankind's struggle to achieve it (and politician's desire to take it) better than any other candidate up there.

He would be a fantastic President.  Even without executive experience.  His refreshingly direct, honest and sincere demeanor appeals to the highest minds and purest hearts -- and educates everyone, everywhere he goes.  Of all the candidates, he may strike the deepest chord with me.  A gentle voice with a big message.

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 14, 2015, 11:20:08 AM
Megyn Kelly is on a vacay...hanging with her kids and hub...good for her... ;)

The dialog is really opening up...a very good thing to combat all this scripted sound bite nonsense...

You are so funny!  :lol

You bring up a good point.  The scripted nonsense in our political dialog is emanating most from the media.  Almost entirely.  Sure, some candidates seem stiff and scripted.  Jeb Bush.  Hillary Clin-ton.  But it's the media that operates on template.  Robots.  Stifling, generic, predictable.

Outside of direct interviews, I really can't watch much "News."  I can't stand that polling guy Frank Luntz and his insta-polls that he preloads with his expectations.  I wish someone would tell him, we're off the map right now.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 14, 2015, 06:57:19 PM
I actually wouldn't mind Ben Carson as the next president - he's obviously an incredibly intelligent man.
However, I do have a few issues with him:
  • His stance on homosexuals. I know he's come out and apologized for what he's said, but that's what he's supposed to do.
  • His stance on loopholes."I do not believe that the rich are unpatriotic because they take advantage of loopholes..." Should we really elect someone who's cool with the exploitation of loopholes?
  • His stance on taxes. I know he's a very religious man, but are we really going to use the bible as a guide for taxation?
  • His stance on welfare. Like, he just wants to get rid of it? Go think about this some more, Mr. Carson.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 14, 2015, 08:35:29 PM
A loophole is doing something that is neither wrong nor illegal.  But people don't like it for selfish and personal reasons.  That's a loophole.

Worse than a loophole is something that is wrong but still legal.  See slavery or abortion.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on August 17, 2015, 04:42:42 PM
The reason I'm actually excited about Presidential politics for the first time in over a decade:

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2528754/images/o-BERNIE-SANDERS-facebook.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 18, 2015, 10:57:38 AM
But Trump's rolling along, still leading in Iowa. Picked up a point or something post-debate, despite the media's horrendously transparent and perverted attempt to make Trump's comment about "blood coming out of Megyn Kelley's eyes" about her menstrual cycle. I mean seriously?   :lol

Goodness. The War on Women thing is now embarrassingly juvenile.  Soon the media will be passing notes in class.

You conveniently forgot to include the "blood coming out of her… wherever" part of that quote.

Ooh, her even retweeted someone calling her a "bimbo", how wonderful.
(http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Trump.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on August 18, 2015, 04:13:42 PM
A loophole is doing something that is neither wrong nor illegal.  But people don't like it for selfish and personal reasons.  That's a loophole.

Worse than a loophole is something that is wrong but still legal.  See slavery or abortion.

You're making up definitions. There is nothing defining a loophole as "neither wrong nor illegal." Not illegal, yes. By definition, a loophole is not illegal. But also by definition, a loophole is "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." So legal, yes, but inadequate or ambiguous. This is hardly the ringing endorsement of "not wrong." A loophole may or may not be morally wrong. But it is pretty much by definition something that is generally seen by the public as inappropriate. As "inadequate" and "ambiguous." That may well be wrong. It may not be wrong. But it's certainly NOT "not wrong" in any blanket sense.

Trying to define moral wrongs as separate from loopholes seems arbitrary. They certainly may be. But they don't have to be.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 18, 2015, 07:20:00 PM
But Trump's rolling along, still leading in Iowa. Picked up a point or something post-debate, despite the media's horrendously transparent and perverted attempt to make Trump's comment about "blood coming out of Megyn Kelley's eyes" about her menstrual cycle. I mean seriously?   :lol

Goodness. The War on Women thing is now embarrassingly juvenile.  Soon the media will be passing notes in class.

You conveniently forgot to include the "blood coming out of her… wherever" part of that quote.

Ooh, her even retweeted someone calling her a "bimbo", how wonderful.
(http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Trump.jpg)
Bill Clinton rapes women. I mean, talk about no sense of scale.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 18, 2015, 07:24:13 PM
But Trump's rolling along, still leading in Iowa. Picked up a point or something post-debate, despite the media's horrendously transparent and perverted attempt to make Trump's comment about "blood coming out of Megyn Kelley's eyes" about her menstrual cycle. I mean seriously?   :lol

Goodness. The War on Women thing is now embarrassingly juvenile.  Soon the media will be passing notes in class.

You conveniently forgot to include the "blood coming out of her… wherever" part of that quote.

Ooh, her even retweeted someone calling her a "bimbo", how wonderful.
(http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Trump.jpg)
Bill Clinton rapes women. I mean, talk about no sense of scale.

I'm not sure what Bill Clinton has to do with this instance of Donald Trump and his remarks towards women, Bean Bag.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 18, 2015, 07:34:18 PM
A loophole is doing something that is neither wrong nor illegal.  But people don't like it for selfish and personal reasons.  That's a loophole.

Worse than a loophole is something that is wrong but still legal.  See slavery or abortion.

You're making up definitions. There is nothing defining a loophole as "neither wrong nor illegal." Not illegal, yes. By definition, a loophole is not illegal. But also by definition, a loophole is "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." So legal, yes, but inadequate or ambiguous. This is hardly the ringing endorsement of "not wrong." A loophole may or may not be morally wrong. But it is pretty much by definition something that is generally seen by the public as inappropriate. As "inadequate" and "ambiguous." That may well be wrong. It may not be wrong. But it's certainly NOT "not wrong" in any blanket sense.

Trying to define moral wrongs as separate from loopholes seems arbitrary. They certainly may be. But they don't have to be.
No, I'm right. People, most often leftists who want to rule people's lives -- and while in the act of doing so, and stroking each other in a self-gratifying manner to celebrate their success in doing the ruling, suddenly realize that We The People just said, "fine, fck you... we'll do it this way" -- and these leftists or Stateist cry and say "loopholes are bad!  Stop them!"  Idiots.

In other words loopholes are the result of the ingenuity of capitalizing individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state. It's the Statists that have us jumping through loops. You can't have a loop-hole without a loop. So, by definition, a loop-hole is a void in logic or intelligence -- or a hole in one's attempt to tell another person what to do. I like that.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 18, 2015, 07:37:11 PM
But Trump's rolling along, still leading in Iowa. Picked up a point or something post-debate, despite the media's horrendously transparent and perverted attempt to make Trump's comment about "blood coming out of Megyn Kelley's eyes" about her menstrual cycle. I mean seriously?   :lol

Goodness. The War on Women thing is now embarrassingly juvenile.  Soon the media will be passing notes in class.

You conveniently forgot to include the "blood coming out of her… wherever" part of that quote.

Ooh, her even retweeted someone calling her a "bimbo", how wonderful.
(http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Trump.jpg)
Bill Clinton rapes women. I mean, talk about no sense of scale.

I'm not sure what Bill Clinton has to do with this instance of Donald Trump and his remarks towards women, Bean Bag.
And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with wiping email servers in a bathroom.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 18, 2015, 07:41:35 PM
And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with wiping email servers in a bathroom.

Gotcha, so this is just a bunch of deflections because you don't have a legitimate excuse for Trump's remarks. And, at this point, how could you? Dude's a sexist ass. Too bad you didn't say something sooner, "Bill Clinton raped people!" could have been a catchy slogan for one of my posters.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 18, 2015, 08:04:06 PM
And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with wiping email servers in a bathroom.

Gotcha, so this is just a bunch of deflections because you don't have a legitimate excuse for Trump's remarks. And, at this point, how could you? Dude's a sexist ass. Too bad you didn't say something sooner, "Bill Clinton raped people!" could have been a catchy slogan for one of my posters.

 :lol  Bubbles, no. Stay on the trolley here. You're deflecting (with reflexes that are two weeks slow). The real issues are not Donald Trump's tweets about Megyn Kelly.  :lol It's not about menstruation and big meany names.

The country's in the toilet. Illegal Immigration. That's been the lesson of the Trump candidacy. It's the "holy sh*t, can we get reals here" slap in the face that our rotten political system needs. Quite refreshing actually. Does this ring any bells?

The second grade formula you're referring to is where you call someone a Butthead then your opponent, let's say that's me, says something like "a-ha! We got him!  Now go apologize to Jesse Jackson, pull down your britches and go on Oprah and explain yourself."  A little uptight, don't ya think?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 18, 2015, 08:36:02 PM
Bubbles, no. Stay on the trolley here. You're deflecting (with reflexes that are two weeks slow). The real issues are not Donald Trump's tweets about Megyn Kelly. It's not about menstruation and big meany names.

I notice you have this habit of turning people's accusations against you back around at them. "Nooo, you're deflecting!" Talk about second-grade debate formulas. Once again, you're deflecting more instead of giving any meaningful response for what Trump has said. In actuality, I agreed with you at first. Turning a "blood coming out of her eyes" statement into something about menstruation was silly, but then I recently found the full quote and realized that you were being misleading in your post. Perhaps sexism isn't a "real issue" for you, but it is for me.  Seriously, you think I'm slow for bringing up something two weeks old? You just brought up Bill Clinton's allegations!  :lol

Additionally, I don't see how I'm deflecting. I didn't bring up and defend any topics, only to maneuver around actually answering for them.


The country's in the toilet. Illegal Immigration. That's been the lesson of the Trump candidacy. It's the "holy sh*t, can we get reals here" slap in the face that our rotten political system needs. Quite refreshing actually. Does this ring any bells?

No, it doesn't ring any bells. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Regardless, I agree, this country is in the toilet. People are actually willing to nominate a giant, blundering moron like Donald Trump to president? This has been the lesson of the Trump presidency.


The second grade formula you're referring to is where you call someone a Butthead then your opponent, let's say that's me, says something like "a-ha! We got him!  Now go apologize to Jesse Jackson, pull down your britches and go on Oprah and explain yourself."  A little uptight, don't ya think?

No idea what this paragraph means.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 19, 2015, 03:47:05 AM
Your tactics are old Bubbly. Donald Trump tweets something you don't like and it's an accusation against me. I may have misjudged you, I thought you were a little more versed in this stuff. This is why I need an intern.  :lol but I still want to help.

I rarely pull this stunt, cuz it's rude, but I'm lazy (sans intern) so you're just going to have to do the work yourself.  Google bimbo eruptions. And war on women. Think about the term "taking the bait."  And meditate on what you just said and agreed with me about "I agree, this country is in the toilet." Emphasis on that last part, okay?

What do you do with all this information? Put it on a scale. On one side, what you're mad about (grrr, he called her a bimbo, and Bean Bag won't agree with him).  And on the other side goes all the stuff you just researched, which should amount to a mountain of trouble.

Lastly, time is a weird thing. And the time to jump on the Trump/FoxNews debate is over. You had to be real quick.  It was quick and most importantly of little-to-no impact. And by not realizing that, you're taking the bait and opening a wormhole to the past -- that you don't want opened. That no one wants opened.  In a game of chess analogy, you would be exposing your queen.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 19, 2015, 03:48:25 AM
The reason I'm actually excited about Presidential politics for the first time in over a decade:

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2528754/images/o-BERNIE-SANDERS-facebook.jpg)
Yep.  A lot of people feel this way. I'm more and more confident that Hilldog won't be the nominee.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on August 19, 2015, 04:28:01 AM
A loophole is doing something that is neither wrong nor illegal.  But people don't like it for selfish and personal reasons.  That's a loophole.

Worse than a loophole is something that is wrong but still legal.  See slavery or abortion.

You're making up definitions. There is nothing defining a loophole as "neither wrong nor illegal." Not illegal, yes. By definition, a loophole is not illegal. But also by definition, a loophole is "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." So legal, yes, but inadequate or ambiguous. This is hardly the ringing endorsement of "not wrong." A loophole may or may not be morally wrong. But it is pretty much by definition something that is generally seen by the public as inappropriate. As "inadequate" and "ambiguous." That may well be wrong. It may not be wrong. But it's certainly NOT "not wrong" in any blanket sense.

Trying to define moral wrongs as separate from loopholes seems arbitrary. They certainly may be. But they don't have to be.
No, I'm right. People, most often leftists who want to rule people's lives -- and while in the act of doing so, and stroking each other in a self-gratifying manner to celebrate their success in doing the ruling, suddenly realize that We The People just said, "fine, fck you... we'll do it this way" -- and these leftists or Stateist cry and say "loopholes are bad!  Stop them!"  Idiots.

In other words loopholes are the result of the ingenuity of capitalizing individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state. It's the Statists that have us jumping through loops. You can't have a loop-hole without a loop. So, by definition, a loop-hole is a void in logic or intelligence -- or a hole in one's attempt to tell another person what to do. I like that.

We all know I'm wasting time here, but... No you're wrong. What the particular loopholes might be, or any particular loophole being used or complained about, is irrelevant to the definition of what a loophole is. And the definition doesn't state moral rightness or wrongness. If there were some loophole in a law against murder, would you defend ingenuity of the exploiting murderer?

The loophole is just that: a way to get around the intent of the law. Neither the law nor the loophole through it has inherent rightness or wrongness. Exiting cesspool now.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on August 19, 2015, 05:20:00 AM
A loophole is doing something that is neither wrong nor illegal.  But people don't like it for selfish and personal reasons.  That's a loophole.

Worse than a loophole is something that is wrong but still legal.  See slavery or abortion.

You're making up definitions. There is nothing defining a loophole as "neither wrong nor illegal." Not illegal, yes. By definition, a loophole is not illegal. But also by definition, a loophole is "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." So legal, yes, but inadequate or ambiguous. This is hardly the ringing endorsement of "not wrong." A loophole may or may not be morally wrong. But it is pretty much by definition something that is generally seen by the public as inappropriate. As "inadequate" and "ambiguous." That may well be wrong. It may not be wrong. But it's certainly NOT "not wrong" in any blanket sense.

Trying to define moral wrongs as separate from loopholes seems arbitrary. They certainly may be. But they don't have to be.
No, I'm right. People, most often leftists who want to rule people's lives -- and while in the act of doing so, and stroking each other in a self-gratifying manner to celebrate their success in doing the ruling, suddenly realize that We The People just said, "fine, fck you... we'll do it this way" -- and these leftists or Stateist cry and say "loopholes are bad!  Stop them!"  Idiots.

In other words loopholes are the result of the ingenuity of capitalizing individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state. It's the Statists that have us jumping through loops. You can't have a loop-hole without a loop. So, by definition, a loop-hole is a void in logic or intelligence -- or a hole in one's attempt to tell another person what to do. I like that.

We all know I'm wasting time here, but... No you're wrong. What the particular loopholes might be, or any particular loophole being used or complained about, is irrelevant to the definition of what a loophole is. And the definition doesn't state moral rightness or wrongness. If there were some loophole in a law against murder, would you defend ingenuity of the exploiting murderer?

The loophole is just that: a way to get around the intent of the law. Neither the law nor the loophole through it has inherent rightness or wrongness. Exiting cesspool now.
Yes, a loophole might be "technically" legal, but violate the "spirit" or "intent" of the law.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 19, 2015, 06:25:31 PM
If there were some loophole in a law against murder, would you defend ingenuity of the exploiting murderer?
And why aren't there any loopholes in murder?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 19, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Yes, a loophole might be "technically" legal, but violate the "spirit" or "intent" of the law.
And that's what makes them so natural.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: hypehat on August 21, 2015, 01:32:41 PM
So I trust that you believe that every American who owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment are "individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state"?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on August 22, 2015, 03:38:35 PM
I'm voting for Vermin Supreme.  Free ponies for all Americans!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 22, 2015, 08:22:37 PM
So I trust that you believe that every American who owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment are "individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state"?

No Hypehat, do not trust yourself. You're not informed enough.  You forgot that illegal aliens are illegal. Not loopholes.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on August 23, 2015, 12:10:40 PM
So I trust that you believe that every American who owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment are "individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state"?

No Hypehat, do not trust yourself. You're not informed enough.  You forgot that illegal aliens are illegal. Not loopholes.

Question: If it were white Canadians sneaking across the border instead of Mexicans, would you still be bitching about "illegal aliens"?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 23, 2015, 12:12:13 PM
Here is your average Bean Bagger post:

Lump all Democrats and liberal policies together and say they are all bad, because one can only be conservative or liberal. Nothing in between. "Conservativism" = good, liberalism = bad.

Then you bold some words and maybe even italicize some other ones to attract people's eyes to your post.

Also very important: do not forget the words SOLYNDRA, FAST & FURIOUS, LOIS LERNER, HILLARY'S EMAIL, OBUNGLER, OBOZO, and of course BENGHAZIIIIIII!

Also remember to call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" or other childish crap. Maybe point out how the "Democrat Party" or the "Demorat Party" or the "Democratic Socialist Islamo-Nazi" party is ruining the country, and how everybody knows it. And if they don't they're lazy.

Finish off with a photo showing what losers everybody who doesn't suck off Ronald Reagan's dead dick are.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/68/b4/ed/68b4ed7dff254355c56342c5bcc4d99c.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 23, 2015, 01:23:57 PM
So I trust that you believe that every American who owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment are "individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state"?

No Hypehat, do not trust yourself. You're not informed enough.  You forgot that illegal aliens are illegal. Not loopholes.

Question: If it were white Canadians sneaking across the border instead of Mexicans, would you still be bitching about "illegal aliens"?
Seriously? The racist charge? Do you guys on the Left act like this at home?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 23, 2015, 02:17:34 PM
So I trust that you believe that every American who owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment are "individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state"?

No Hypehat, do not trust yourself. You're not informed enough.  You forgot that illegal aliens are illegal. Not loopholes.

Question: If it were white Canadians sneaking across the border instead of Mexicans, would you still be bitching about "illegal aliens"?
Seriously? The racist charge? Do you guys on the Left act like this at home?

Nah. You're not racist Beaner. You even support Jeb (exclamation point!) and sh*t, who, in addition to checking himself off as "Latino" on a voter registration form, also apparently has one Caucasian hand and one darker skinned hand, apparently that of a person of African descent! So this is no regular man we are talking about here! So hay gurl, he's cool.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/22/22-jeb-bush-black-hand.nocrop.w529.h440.2x.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 29, 2015, 10:59:00 PM
Guess Teabag doesn't wanna post in this thread anymore now that Trump is consolidating his lead over the other jokers in the field. And any sane Republican knows that no matter how much they love the Donald, he has no chance to win the general election.

Anyways, I'm loving this election season. Hillary is showing herself to not be ready for prime time, Bernie is wowing crowds across the nation, Jeb is tanking, Rubio apparently got lost on the way to the water cooler cuz he seems to have vanished, and Trump is making every establishment Republican buffoon wanna cry. If Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination.....ah, I can't even imagine. What poetic justice it would be to see a party that caters to stupidity finally being eaten alive by it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on August 30, 2015, 05:28:31 PM
So I trust that you believe that every American who owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment are "individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state"?

No Hypehat, do not trust yourself. You're not informed enough.  You forgot that illegal aliens are illegal. Not loopholes.

Question: If it were white Canadians sneaking across the border instead of Mexicans, would you still be bitching about "illegal aliens"?
Seriously? The racist charge? Do you guys on the Left act like this at home?

I just want to see consistensy in others' anti-immigrant views. If Mexicans shouldn't be able to cross the border into the US, neither should Canadians, or Russians, or English, or Chinese, etc. Either everyone can cross or nobody can.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 30, 2015, 07:21:20 PM
So I trust that you believe that every American who owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment are "individuals triumphing over regulation and in some cases the tyranny of the state"?

No Hypehat, do not trust yourself. You're not informed enough.  You forgot that illegal aliens are illegal. Not loopholes.

Question: If it were white Canadians sneaking across the border instead of Mexicans, would you still be bitching about "illegal aliens"?
Seriously? The racist charge? Do you guys on the Left act like this at home?

I just want to see consistensy in others' anti-immigrant views. If Mexicans shouldn't be able to cross the border into the US, neither should Canadians, or Russians, or English, or Chinese, etc. Either everyone can cross or nobody can.

Anti-illegal immigration.

Additional Comments:  Alex is a bright student, but does not read his assignments thoroughly and frequently misses class, and when he does attend class he's late and distracted.  Usually preoccupied with eating a sandwich.  There's no food in class. ;D


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 30, 2015, 07:25:59 PM
Guess Teabag doesn't wanna post in this thread anymore now that Trump is consolidating his lead over the other jokers in the field. And any sane Republican knows that no matter how much they love the Donald, he has no chance to win the general election.

Anyways, I'm loving this election season. Hillary is showing herself to not be ready for prime time, Bernie is wowing crowds across the nation, Jeb is tanking, Rubio apparently got lost on the way to the water cooler cuz he seems to have vanished, and Trump is making every establishment Republican buffoon wanna cry. If Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination.....ah, I can't even imagine. What poetic justice it would be to see a party that caters to stupidity finally being eaten alive by it.

 :-* I'm here Bo-bo.  Just dunking my head in the toilet.  It inspires me.

You say, Turmp has no chance in the genital election?  Mmmm.  I disagree.  But we may get to find out.  He's a wild card for sure.  Best election cycle in years though, isn't it?!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on August 30, 2015, 08:07:53 PM
I don't have anything against immigration per se, but if you're going to immigrate then do like the Irish and Italians did - ASSIMILATE. You don't want to assimilate? Then keep your third-world bullshit in the third-world. I'd like to see London and Paris NOT spring up in the U.S. and I'm sure many others would as well - you know, because if you want a tolerant society, there is no room for a fifth column.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 31, 2015, 06:09:32 AM
You say, Turmp has no chance in the genital election?  Mmmm.  I disagree.  But we may get to find out.  He's a wild card for sure.  Best election cycle in years though, isn't it?!

Why don't we maker a wager on it pal? You seem so very sure that the teabaggers are gonna win. Since I'm sure you are very, very successful (like the Donald), I'm sure you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, right?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 31, 2015, 06:13:11 AM
You say, Turmp has no chance in the genital election?  Mmmm.  I disagree.  But we may get to find out.  He's a wild card for sure.  Best election cycle in years though, isn't it?!

Why don't we maker a wager on it pal? You seem so very sure that the teabaggers are gonna win. Since I'm sure you are very, very successful (like the Donald), I'm sure you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, right?

Don't call me pal.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 31, 2015, 06:17:41 AM
I don't have anything against immigration per se, but if you're going to immigrate then do like the Irish and Italians did - ASSIMILATE. You don't want to assimilate? Then keep your third-world bullshit in the third-world. I'd like to see London and Paris NOT spring up in the U.S. and I'm sure many others would as well - you know, because if you want a tolerant society, there is no room for a fifth column.

Multi-culturism is yet another faulty bi-product of the weakness of mind found in Liberals.  And that's being nice.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 06:23:59 AM
Multiculturalism is what's destroying Europe. Western civilization does not need the third-world or its inhabitants; its inhabitants need Western civilization. They can either come and assimilate and be good upstanding members of society or they can remain in their third-world areas.

sh*t, Irish, Italians, and Chinese were treated MUCH worse than the third-world trash these days because *gasp* they weren't used as a tool for political power (and in the case of the Chinese, the government actively tried to stifle them). The difference was, of course, Irish, Italians, and Chinese were able to integrate. When the government starts picking "winners" in the immigration game, the game is up. Government serves to enrich itself, not the people it claims to protect from each other and from enemies. Look no further than Europe for proof of this.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on August 31, 2015, 06:51:27 AM
What's with all the damn xenophobia around here?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on August 31, 2015, 07:00:00 AM
Multi-culturalism is cultural suicide.  It's hard to explain that to younger minds.  Children are being taught that American culture is bad, greedy and selfish -- and any attempt to defend it is racist.  They're conversely being told that what made America great is that it embraced multi-culturalism.

Europe is what lies ahead for us if we continue on this path. Multi-culturalism does not work as a single cultural.  A society and culture needs to be together and share its deepest held beliefs.  Otherwise it will fracture and disintegrate.  That's not a maybe.  It will lead to HORRIFIC results.  It's one of the most dangerous things happening today.

Do the math on this equation -- the one's most pushing cultural suicide (or multiculturalism) are the one's most comfortable with devaluing human life at its most silent stage.  One possible answer would HAVE TO BE:  What do you think they would do if we remain silent?

Simple math.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 07:34:08 AM
What's with all the damn xenophobia around here?

Xenophobia is deep-rooted or irrational hatred of foreigners. I'm not xenophobic; I have a very specific bias against people who won't assimilate into Western civilization, hate Western civilization, and want to sponge off of Western civilization. I hold that bias for one very simple reason - I desire a tolerant society. Europe has gone down the shitter and so has its once legendary tolerance. Thanks to whom, you may ask? Why, all of the people that come into those countries every year who won't assimilate into Western civilization, hate Western civilization, and want to sponge off of Western civilization.

If I were Christian, Jewish, a moderate Muslim, or gay in Western Europe, I'd seriously consider moving to the United States. Those people aren't even allowed to DEFEND themselves from that trash in Europe!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 07:36:20 AM
And to borrow a Desmond Tutu quote that liberals love throwing around when yammering on about "tolerance..."

"Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance." - Desmond Tutu

Congratulations. If you're a liberal and you tolerate intolerant people like those I reference in my previous post, you're not only morally bankrupt, you're also a hypocrite.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 07:43:15 AM
Multi-culturalism is cultural suicide.  It's hard to explain that to younger minds.  Children are being taught that American culture is bad, greedy and selfish -- and any attempt to defend it is racist.  They're conversely being told that what made America great is that it embraced multi-culturalism.

We must, however, make note of the fact that a melting pot does not equal multiculturalism. There is nothing wrong with being a melting pot.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 31, 2015, 06:53:50 PM
I wonder what happened to the third stooge.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on August 31, 2015, 08:11:57 PM
You say, Turmp has no chance in the genital election?  Mmmm.  I disagree.  But we may get to find out.  He's a wild card for sure.  Best election cycle in years though, isn't it?!

Why don't we maker a wager on it pal? You seem so very sure that the teabaggers are gonna win. Since I'm sure you are very, very successful (like the Donald), I'm sure you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, right?

Don't call me pal.

Interesting that you don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

That's pretty interesting buddy.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on September 01, 2015, 05:22:52 AM
Ain't your buddy


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 01, 2015, 02:11:21 PM
Ain't your buddy

It's all good friend.



....and now folks you see that despite all his big talk, TeaBag is not at all confident that the GOP will win next year. In fact, he's probably pretty sure the Democrat Party (as he calls it) will win. Interesting that this guy says a lot 'til it's time to put up or shut up.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on September 01, 2015, 08:10:25 PM
oh jeez!  Are you good now?  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 01, 2015, 09:35:40 PM
oh jeez!  Are you good now?  :lol

I think you should do a post where you bold stuff and then italicize too. And then call people who disagree with you names.

And maybe a stupid picture.

(http://www.sabinabecker.com/media/reagan-appeases-terrorists.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on September 03, 2015, 04:17:32 PM
Comparing the Mujahideen to the American Founding Fathers is one of the all-time top keks in politics. But then again...the Founding Fathers were terrorists as far as John Bull's Tyranny were concerned, just as the Mujahideen were terrorists to the communists.

Reagan was great with rhetoric...but he sure loved raising taxes.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Mike's Beard on September 05, 2015, 11:20:16 PM
There's a shop below me that specialises in old board games. They had this on display yesterday and I instantly thought of this thread.

(http://www.gamersalliance.com/Fall04/trumpnewbox.gif)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on September 19, 2015, 11:52:48 AM
Ain't your buddy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on September 21, 2015, 08:29:55 AM
 :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 21, 2015, 08:52:18 AM
:lol

Ready to make that wager yet Bags?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 22, 2015, 09:26:36 PM
Okay well it seems like ol' Bags isn't doing his little candidate profiles anymore so how about I continue them?


Marco Rubio

(http://i.imgur.com/XLGt6.jpg)

So this is the guy that the establishment Republicans want if they can't convince enough fools that El Jebe* is good for them. He will be proof that they totally aren't racists, cuz look, he's one of them Hispanics! If nominated, it will prove that the Republican complaint in 2008 about then-Senator Obama not having enough "experience" was total bullshit, as Senator Rubio is a first term senator, just like President Obama was!

Anyways, in other news, Marco has got a sugar daddy named Sheldon Adelson, a super good lookin' guy who just wants world peace (errr....no. Actually he wants lots of war). Here's a photo of Sheldon. Ladies, don't bother....he's taken.

(http://livedealer.org/dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/adelson.jpg)

Anyways, Marco rode the tea bagger wave in 2010 to get elected, but after getting elected he has stated that he's not a tea bagger. Weird.

Finally, we want you cool kids to know that Marco is pretty hip. He listens to Tubesock Shucker and calls him a poet. So obviously Marco doesn't know much about poetry if he thinks that asshole is a poet. Also, if President Obama talked about Tupac the way Marco does, people like my good friend Bean Bag would be saying, "Broke Obumbler totally supports a cop hating rapist! He's a doodie head! BENGHAZI!!!"

Also, Marco gets thirsty a lot, especially during big speeches. He also enjoys awkwardly reaching for tiny water bottles while staring at cameras. It's fun.

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1263908!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/390-rubio-0214.jpg)

Lastly, I just wanna inform you guys of how commited Mr. Rubio's fans are with a little story...

A met your average white, middle-aged lady. You know, the kind that hates Obama and probably thinks he's a Muslim. But anyways, she tells me one day, "you know who I really like? I'm really liking that new guy, Mark Ruby. I think he's really gonna be great."

So obviously, Marco's (errr...Mark's?) fans are so committed to his cause that they don't know either his first or last name. Anyways, this is a movement people. Watch out for Rubio, the next big thing!

*(pronounced "el Heb-ay)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on September 23, 2015, 04:12:29 AM
  Rubio: No home runs but staying on base with singles and doubles. Jeb: On base via a bunt.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 05:43:12 AM
More is coming out about the "birther issue" which now, seems to have originated in Hillary's 2008 campaign docs and statements...before she was not nominated for the spot.

Stay tuned.

Fox rocks!  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 06:14:23 AM
More is coming out about the "birther issue" which now, seems to have originated in Hillary's 2008 campaign docs and statements...before she was not nominated for the spot.

Stay tuned.

Fox rocks!  :lol

For someone who calls herself a Democrat you sure believe whatever garbage Fox throws at ya, don't you filledaplagee?

Here's a link for ya to help figure out whether Hillary was the "original birther"...

Was Hillary Clinton the Original ‘Birther’? (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/)

Also, while we're at it, where do you believe the President was born?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 06:29:16 AM
 :woot
More is coming out about the "birther issue" which now, seems to have originated in Hillary's 2008 campaign docs and statements...before she was not nominated for the spot.

Stay tuned.

Fox rocks!  :lol

For someone who calls herself a Democrat you sure believe whatever garbage Fox throws at ya, don't you filledaplagee?
Oh, yes, but I'm more of a more moderate and conservative democrat.  I'm not a socialist. The party has not been balanced for a couple of decades.  That is the difference. And, they are breaking stories that no one dares report.  If a dem doesn't want to "redistribute the wealth" there is no place for them.  

Last night Geraldo did an interesting immigration analysis.  He looked at numbers of working Hispanics who were deported and replaced by immigrants of another nation. So, his interpretations that the U.S. only swapped one immigrant group for another. The numbers game was played.  He has an interesting background which has run from activist-lawyer-whistleblower, and tends to bring an interesting viewpoint,  and his very varied legal background, working in poverty law, and with a break-out story on neglect and abuse of patients with intellectual disabilities, who were at the Staten Island Wilowbrook State School.  

And, I get my news from more than one source, contrasting liberal against conservative (which ironically is investigating and reporting out some of the corruption in govt., ) even if it is election politics. And then weighing that against some of the foreign press.  No steady diet of one flavor of press for me.  But they (Fox) broke the stories.  And bravo from me!
 :woot


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 06:33:20 AM
:woot
More is coming out about the "birther issue" which now, seems to have originated in Hillary's 2008 campaign docs and statements...before she was not nominated for the spot.

Stay tuned.

Fox rocks!  :lol

For someone who calls herself a Democrat you sure believe whatever garbage Fox throws at ya, don't you filledaplagee?
Oh, yes, but I'm more of a more moderate and conservative democrat.  I'm not a socialist. The party has not been balanced for a couple of decades.  That is the difference. And, they are breaking stories that no one dares report.  If a dem doesn't want to "redistribute the wealth" there is no place for them.  

Last night Geraldo did an interesting immigration analysis.  He looked at numbers of working Hispanics who were deported and replaced by immigrants of another nation. So, his interpretations that the U.S. only swapped one immigrant group for another. The numbers game was played.  He has an interesting background which has run from activist-lawyer-whistleblower, and tends to bring an interesting viewpoint,  and his very varied legal background, working in poverty law, and with a break-out story on neglect and abuse of patients with intellectual disabilities, who were at the Staten Island Wilowbrook State School.  

And, I get my news from more than one source, contrasting liberal against conservative (which ironically is investigating and reporting out some of the corruption in govt., ) even if it is election politics. And then weighing that against some of the foreign press.  No steady diet of one flavor of press for me.  But they (Fox) broke the stories.  And bravo from me!
 :woot


Interesting that you ducked the question on President Obama's birthplace...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 06:42:32 AM
:woot
More is coming out about the "birther issue" which now, seems to have originated in Hillary's 2008 campaign docs and statements...before she was not nominated for the spot.

Stay tuned.

Fox rocks!  :lol

For someone who calls herself a Democrat you sure believe whatever garbage Fox throws at ya, don't you filledaplagee?
Oh, yes, but I'm more of a more moderate and conservative democrat.  I'm not a socialist. The party has not been balanced for a couple of decades.  That is the difference. And, they are breaking stories that no one dares report.  If a dem doesn't want to "redistribute the wealth" there is no place for them.  

Last night Geraldo did an interesting immigration analysis.  He looked at numbers of working Hispanics who were deported and replaced by immigrants of another nation. So, his interpretations that the U.S. only swapped one immigrant group for another. The numbers game was played.  He has an interesting background which has run from activist-lawyer-whistleblower, and tends to bring an interesting viewpoint,  and his very varied legal background, working in poverty law, and with a break-out story on neglect and abuse of patients with intellectual disabilities, who were at the Staten Island Wilowbrook State School.  

And, I get my news from more than one source, contrasting liberal against conservative (which ironically is investigating and reporting out some of the corruption in govt., ) even if it is election politics. And then weighing that against some of the foreign press.  No steady diet of one flavor of press for me.  But they (Fox) broke the stories.  And bravo from me!
 :woot


Interesting that you ducked the question on President Obama's birthplace...
Hey Jim - I didn't give birth to him. I don't have his birth certificate. I was not there.

But, Hillary suggested during the campaign in 2008 (and you maybe should have followed up on what I posted) that his mother was in Africa and pregnant in a more or less a situation where she she might not have been able to travel (Hillary's words not mine, for clarity) and that post-partum, departed for Hawaii to "register his birth."

Now, that is what I heard last night, so it might still be on line for you do do your own homework.  It was news to me, but I saw interview footage. So you can go check that out.

And the FBI has been able to retrieve some emails from the server. 



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 07:20:04 AM
:woot
More is coming out about the "birther issue" which now, seems to have originated in Hillary's 2008 campaign docs and statements...before she was not nominated for the spot.

Stay tuned.

Fox rocks!  :lol

For someone who calls herself a Democrat you sure believe whatever garbage Fox throws at ya, don't you filledaplagee?
Oh, yes, but I'm more of a more moderate and conservative democrat.  I'm not a socialist. The party has not been balanced for a couple of decades.  That is the difference. And, they are breaking stories that no one dares report.  If a dem doesn't want to "redistribute the wealth" there is no place for them.  

Last night Geraldo did an interesting immigration analysis.  He looked at numbers of working Hispanics who were deported and replaced by immigrants of another nation. So, his interpretations that the U.S. only swapped one immigrant group for another. The numbers game was played.  He has an interesting background which has run from activist-lawyer-whistleblower, and tends to bring an interesting viewpoint,  and his very varied legal background, working in poverty law, and with a break-out story on neglect and abuse of patients with intellectual disabilities, who were at the Staten Island Wilowbrook State School.  

And, I get my news from more than one source, contrasting liberal against conservative (which ironically is investigating and reporting out some of the corruption in govt., ) even if it is election politics. And then weighing that against some of the foreign press.  No steady diet of one flavor of press for me.  But they (Fox) broke the stories.  And bravo from me!
 :woot


Interesting that you ducked the question on President Obama's birthplace...
Hey Jim - I didn't give birth to him. I don't have his birth certificate. I was not there.

But, Hillary suggested during the campaign in 2008 (and you maybe should have followed up on what I posted) that his mother was in Africa and pregnant in a more or less a situation where she she might not have been able to travel (Hillary's words not mine, for clarity) and that post-partum, departed for Hawaii to "register his birth."

Now, that is what I heard last night, so it might still be on line for you do do your own homework.  It was news to me, but I saw interview footage. So you can go check that out.

And the FBI has been able to retrieve some emails from the server.  



Okay. Thank you for that.

Smiley Smile Message Board, we now know that filledtheplagel is a birther.


Big surprise there.

And no, Hillary did not suggest anything like what you are saying. But you lying is not exactly a new thing.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on September 23, 2015, 08:03:27 AM
YAAAAWN.  Sorry.... the last debate was a big snoozer to me.  Anyone else?  I may have to check out till February.   :lol

Perhaps being a conservative (aka: thinking human being) -- these debates and their questions aren't for me?  I have to assume that's their goal -- to make stupid people watch and hate the candidates.  Because it was really, really stupid.  I felt like Albert Einstein, by comparison -- and that's not good!  It was waaaay too John Stewart, waaaay too HuffPo tabloid for me.

You can see the turds coming before they axe 'em.  As long as the "media"  :quote (aka liberal quacks masquerading as "journalists") continue to pretend to be "moderators" in these phony "debates" we're just gonna be stuck on stupid, America.  Someone really needs to slap them around.  They're really holding the country back.


"Mr Trump would you like to turn and face Ms. Fiorina -- and address the comments you made regarding what you said about her face."
"Ah... not really."

"Why --"
"Because you're a $%^&$ moron."

"But you said Ms Fiorina has a --"
"Ah... no, Jake.  I just said -- if you roll back the tape -- I just said you were a %^$%@$# moron. M'kay?"

"But the American people have the right to know how much you hate women."
"They have a right to know that you're a shthead and a fcking moron."

"Ok. Mr. Carson.  Why do you hate Muslims?  Just how much of a bigot are you?"
"Slightly less of bigot than you, Jake."

"Alrighty then.  Mr. Cruz.  Everyone in the Newsroom hates Christians -- so why do you exist?  Can you just get out of the race, please?  You bigot."

"Rubio.  Want some water?"
"Sure.

"Gotchya!!  See... America, he drinks water... and he has a boat."
"hillary has more money than I do..."

"Why do you hate women."



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 08:04:04 AM
:woot
More is coming out about the "birther issue" which now, seems to have originated in Hillary's 2008 campaign docs and statements...before she was not nominated for the spot.

Stay tuned.

Fox rocks!  :lol

For someone who calls herself a Democrat you sure believe whatever garbage Fox throws at ya, don't you filledaplagee?
Oh, yes, but I'm more of a more moderate and conservative democrat.  I'm not a socialist. The party has not been balanced for a couple of decades.  That is the difference. And, they are breaking stories that no one dares report.  If a dem doesn't want to "redistribute the wealth" there is no place for them.  

Last night Geraldo did an interesting immigration analysis.  He looked at numbers of working Hispanics who were deported and replaced by immigrants of another nation. So, his interpretations that the U.S. only swapped one immigrant group for another. The numbers game was played.  He has an interesting background which has run from activist-lawyer-whistleblower, and tends to bring an interesting viewpoint,  and his very varied legal background, working in poverty law, and with a break-out story on neglect and abuse of patients with intellectual disabilities, who were at the Staten Island Wilowbrook State School.  

And, I get my news from more than one source, contrasting liberal against conservative (which ironically is investigating and reporting out some of the corruption in govt., ) even if it is election politics. And then weighing that against some of the foreign press.  No steady diet of one flavor of press for me.  But they (Fox) broke the stories.  And bravo from me!
 :woot


Interesting that you ducked the question on President Obama's birthplace...
Hey Jim - I didn't give birth to him. I don't have his birth certificate. I was not there.

But, Hillary suggested during the campaign in 2008 (and you maybe should have followed up on what I posted) that his mother was in Africa and pregnant in a more or less a situation where she she might not have been able to travel (Hillary's words not mine, for clarity) and that post-partum, departed for Hawaii to "register his birth."

Now, that is what I heard last night, so it might still be on line for you do do your own homework.  It was news to me, but I saw interview footage. So you can go check that out.

And the FBI has been able to retrieve some emails from the server.  

Okay. Thank you for that.

Smiley Smile Message Board, we now know that filledtheplagel is a birther.


Big surprise there.

And no, Hillary did not suggest anything like what you are saying. But you lying is not exactly a new thing.
Here is a link. Original author source Bloomberg editor John Heilemann, formally of CBS News.  

http://birtherreport.com/2015/09/affirmed-fox-news-host-hillary-clinton.html

Hope it copies. I don't care for the screaming font print.  

Please don't call me a liar.  

Mods, please take notice.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 08:29:48 AM
Please don't call me a liar.  

But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 08:31:22 AM
YAAAAWN.  Sorry.... the last debate was a big snoozer to me.  Anyone else?  I may have to check out till February.   :lol

Perhaps being a conservative (aka: thinking human being) -- these debates and their questions aren't for me?  I have to assume that's their goal -- to make stupid people watch and hate the candidates.  Because it was really, really stupid.  I felt like Albert Einstein, by comparison -- and that's not good!  It was waaaay too John Stewart, waaaay too HuffPo tabloid for me.

You can see the turds coming before they axe 'em.  As long as the "media"  :quote (aka liberal quacks masquerading as "journalists") continue to pretend to be "moderators" in these phony "debates" we're just gonna be stuck on stupid, America.  Someone really needs to slap them around.  They're really holding the country back.


"Mr Trump would you like to turn and face Ms. Fiorina -- and address the comments you made regarding what you said about her face."
"Ah... not really."

"Why --"
"Because you're a $%^&$ moron."

"But you said Ms Fiorina has a --"
"Ah... no, Jake.  I just said -- if you roll back the tape -- I just said you were a %^$%@$# moron. M'kay?"

"But the American people have the right to know how much you hate women."
"They have a right to know that you're a shthead and a fcking moron."

"Ok. Mr. Carson.  Why do you hate Muslims?  Just how much of a bigot are you?"
"Slightly less of bigot than you, Jake."

"Alrighty then.  Mr. Cruz.  Everyone in the Newsroom hates Christians -- so why do you exist?  Can you just get out of the race, please?  You bigot."

"Rubio.  Want some water?"
"Sure.

"Gotchya!!  See... America, he drinks water... and he has a boat."
"hillary has more money than I do..."

"Why do you hate women."



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

And now for all to see, it is obvious that little ol' Bags lives in an alternate reality. He apparently transcribed quotes from the debate that were never said by anyone except the voices in his head.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 08:43:04 AM
Please don't call me a liar.  

But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.

If you have an open mind and watched the video, your position might be different. 

That is the second time you called me a liar. Mod alert.

And, I substantiated what the earlier post was concerning, taking the time to find the link, while you offered no opposing evidence. 

So, I backed up what I saw and shared from last night which was built on not one (Fox)news source, but three.  Fox relied on Bloomberg which had 2008 documentation from CBS.  So their sources were solid. 

If you want to reject my info and position, fine, but please find your own, and rebut intelligently and civilly, and one of Obama's famous (which is a Harvard mantra) expressions,"We can disagree without being disagreeable."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 08:54:19 AM
Please don't call me a liar.  

But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.

If you have an open mind and watched the video, your position might be different. 

That is the second time you called me a liar. Mod alert.

And, I substantiated what the earlier post was concerning, taking the time to find the link, while you offered no opposing evidence. 

So, I backed up what I saw and shared from last night which was built on not one (Fox)news source, but three.  Fox relied on Bloomberg which had 2008 documentation from CBS.  So their sources were solid. 

If you want to reject my info and position, fine, but please find your own, and rebut intelligently and civilly, and one of Obama's famous (which is a Harvard mantra) expressions,"We can disagree without being disagreeable."


I posted a link BEFORE YOU DID debunking the whole "Hillary birther" thing from the nonpartisan fact check website. But just like every other thing on this board where you're concerned, you just steamroll through without paying attention to what anyone else is saying.

So for you to say that I just respond without thought is pretty rich.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 09:01:23 AM
Please don't call me a liar.  

But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.

If you have an open mind and watched the video, your position might be different. 

That is the second time you called me a liar. Mod alert.

And, I substantiated what the earlier post was concerning, taking the time to find the link, while you offered no opposing evidence. 

So, I backed up what I saw and shared from last night which was built on not one (Fox)news source, but three.  Fox relied on Bloomberg which had 2008 documentation from CBS.  So their sources were solid. 

If you want to reject my info and position, fine, but please find your own, and rebut intelligently and civilly, and one of Obama's famous (which is a Harvard mantra) expressions,"We can disagree without being disagreeable."


I posted a link BEFORE YOU DID debunking the whole "Hillary birther" thing from the nonpartisan fact check website. But just like every other thing on this board where you're concerned, you just steamroll through without paying attention to what anyone else is saying.

So for you to say that I just respond without thought is pretty rich.
Your link was earlier in time; this is "new" news. Old, really, if you consider that now that the candidates are becoming smaller in number, the researchers are going back at least 8 years into the previous campaigns to find "prior inconsistent statements."

And, in the coming days the other news outlets will likely start picking up the story.  The truth has a way of coming out...just like "wiped with a cloth" email servers. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 09:26:06 AM
Please don't call me a liar. 

But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.

If you have an open mind and watched the video, your position might be different. 

That is the second time you called me a liar. Mod alert.

And, I substantiated what the earlier post was concerning, taking the time to find the link, while you offered no opposing evidence. 

So, I backed up what I saw and shared from last night which was built on not one (Fox)news source, but three.  Fox relied on Bloomberg which had 2008 documentation from CBS.  So their sources were solid. 

If you want to reject my info and position, fine, but please find your own, and rebut intelligently and civilly, and one of Obama's famous (which is a Harvard mantra) expressions,"We can disagree without being disagreeable."


I posted a link BEFORE YOU DID debunking the whole "Hillary birther" thing from the nonpartisan fact check website. But just like every other thing on this board where you're concerned, you just steamroll through without paying attention to what anyone else is saying.

So for you to say that I just respond without thought is pretty rich.
Your link was earlier in time; this is "new" news. Old, really, if you consider that now that the candidates are becoming smaller in number, the researchers are going back at least 8 years into the previous campaigns to find "prior inconsistent statements."

And, in the coming days the other news outlets will likely start picking up the story.  The truth has a way of coming out...just like "wiped with a cloth" email servers. 

The entire thing you posted is obviously some crazy right wing site. And linked videos don't show any proof of what they are talking about. The closest to the truth is possibly that some Hillary supporters were doing the birther thing to slow down Obama in 2008. However, there isn't a smidgen of anything to suggest that Hillary herself or her campaign had anything to do with all that.


Lastly, I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. You've proven that you are just another .....something..... if you actually believe that President Obama's birth information is all made up. We are allowed to disagree about ideas and opinions, but not about facts. And the adults in the Republican Party agree with me. But you of course have thrown in with the Trumps and Cruz's and choose to believe this nonsense.

P.S. You are aware that even if Barack Obama was born to his American born mother in another country, he would still be eligible for President, correct? Apparently Ted Cruz is eligible even though he is a Canadian-born Cuban. So what exactly is the right-wing trying to say with all the Obama birther stuff anyways?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 09:40:16 AM
Please don't call me a liar. 

But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.

If you have an open mind and watched the video, your position might be different. 

That is the second time you called me a liar. Mod alert.

And, I substantiated what the earlier post was concerning, taking the time to find the link, while you offered no opposing evidence. 

So, I backed up what I saw and shared from last night which was built on not one (Fox)news source, but three.  Fox relied on Bloomberg which had 2008 documentation from CBS.  So their sources were solid. 

If you want to reject my info and position, fine, but please find your own, and rebut intelligently and civilly, and one of Obama's famous (which is a Harvard mantra) expressions,"We can disagree without being disagreeable."


I posted a link BEFORE YOU DID debunking the whole "Hillary birther" thing from the nonpartisan fact check website. But just like every other thing on this board where you're concerned, you just steamroll through without paying attention to what anyone else is saying.

So for you to say that I just respond without thought is pretty rich.
Your link was earlier in time; this is "new" news. Old, really, if you consider that now that the candidates are becoming smaller in number, the researchers are going back at least 8 years into the previous campaigns to find "prior inconsistent statements."

And, in the coming days the other news outlets will likely start picking up the story.  The truth has a way of coming out...just like "wiped with a cloth" email servers. 

The entire thing you posted is obviously some crazy right wing site. And linked videos don't show any proof of what they are talking about. The closest to the truth is possibly that some Hillary supporters were doing the birther thing to slow down Obama in 2008. However, there isn't a smidgen of anything to suggest that Hillary herself or her campaign had anything to do with all that.


Lastly, I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. You've proven that you are just another .....something..... if you actually believe that President Obama's birth information is all made up. We are allowed to disagree about ideas and opinions, but not about facts. And the adults in the Republican Party agree with me. But you of course have thrown in with the Trumps and Cruz's and choose to believe this nonsense.

P.S. You are aware that even if Barack Obama was born to his American born mother in another country, he would still be eligible for President, correct? Apparently Ted Cruz is eligible even though he is a Canadian-born Cuban. So what exactly is the right-wing trying to say with all the Obama birther stuff anyways?
That site I referenced was the first hit. It had the both links on one site.  The evidence is derivative.  Just because a news source is one that doesn't fit with political affiliation, doesn't mean all contained within it is false.  Look how Hillary disparaged Snowden and wanted him criminally charged. Now, that time has passed and his cred has risen, he is now not a traitor but more of a whistle blower.  It is also relative to what happened in time.  She was first to condemn him for exposing "state secrets." Time will tell what "state secrets" she was involved in.

The challenge is finding the truth on both sides and weighing it for yourself. Never mind stereotyping right and left "wing nuts."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 09:50:37 AM
Please don't call me a liar. 

But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.

If you have an open mind and watched the video, your position might be different. 

That is the second time you called me a liar. Mod alert.

And, I substantiated what the earlier post was concerning, taking the time to find the link, while you offered no opposing evidence. 

So, I backed up what I saw and shared from last night which was built on not one (Fox)news source, but three.  Fox relied on Bloomberg which had 2008 documentation from CBS.  So their sources were solid. 

If you want to reject my info and position, fine, but please find your own, and rebut intelligently and civilly, and one of Obama's famous (which is a Harvard mantra) expressions,"We can disagree without being disagreeable."


I posted a link BEFORE YOU DID debunking the whole "Hillary birther" thing from the nonpartisan fact check website. But just like every other thing on this board where you're concerned, you just steamroll through without paying attention to what anyone else is saying.

So for you to say that I just respond without thought is pretty rich.
Your link was earlier in time; this is "new" news. Old, really, if you consider that now that the candidates are becoming smaller in number, the researchers are going back at least 8 years into the previous campaigns to find "prior inconsistent statements."

And, in the coming days the other news outlets will likely start picking up the story.  The truth has a way of coming out...just like "wiped with a cloth" email servers. 

The entire thing you posted is obviously some crazy right wing site. And linked videos don't show any proof of what they are talking about. The closest to the truth is possibly that some Hillary supporters were doing the birther thing to slow down Obama in 2008. However, there isn't a smidgen of anything to suggest that Hillary herself or her campaign had anything to do with all that.


Lastly, I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. You've proven that you are just another .....something..... if you actually believe that President Obama's birth information is all made up. We are allowed to disagree about ideas and opinions, but not about facts. And the adults in the Republican Party agree with me. But you of course have thrown in with the Trumps and Cruz's and choose to believe this nonsense.

P.S. You are aware that even if Barack Obama was born to his American born mother in another country, he would still be eligible for President, correct? Apparently Ted Cruz is eligible even though he is a Canadian-born Cuban. So what exactly is the right-wing trying to say with all the Obama birther stuff anyways?
That site I referenced was the first hit. It had the both links on one site.  The evidence is derivative.  Just because a news source is one that doesn't fit with political affiliation, doesn't mean all contained within it is false.  Look how Hillary disparaged Snowden and wanted him criminally charged. Now, that time has passed and his cred has risen, he is now not a traitor but more of a whistle blower.  It is also relative to what happened in time.  She was first to condemn him for exposing "state secrets." Time will tell what "state secrets" she was involved in.

The challenge is finding the truth on both sides and weighing it for yourself. Never mind stereotyping right and left "wing nuts."

And you prove my point that when confronted with facts, you change the argument. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing that it wasn't Hillary but possibly her supporters who tried the birther thing, you just start talking about Hillary's email and Republican TV networks.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 23, 2015, 10:06:05 AM
Please don't call me a liar. 
But you are a liar. And ever since you've joined the board all you do is willingly misrepresent facts.

If you have an open mind and watched the video, your position might be different. 

That is the second time you called me a liar. Mod alert.

And, I substantiated what the earlier post was concerning, taking the time to find the link, while you offered no opposing evidence. 

So, I backed up what I saw and shared from last night which was built on not one (Fox)news source, but three.  Fox relied on Bloomberg which had 2008 documentation from CBS.  So their sources were solid. 

If you want to reject my info and position, fine, but please find your own, and rebut intelligently and civilly, and one of Obama's famous (which is a Harvard mantra) expressions,"We can disagree without being disagreeable."


I posted a link BEFORE YOU DID debunking the whole "Hillary birther" thing from the nonpartisan fact check website. But just like every other thing on this board where you're concerned, you just steamroll through without paying attention to what anyone else is saying.

So for you to say that I just respond without thought is pretty rich.
Your link was earlier in time; this is "new" news. Old, really, if you consider that now that the candidates are becoming smaller in number, the researchers are going back at least 8 years into the previous campaigns to find "prior inconsistent statements."

And, in the coming days the other news outlets will likely start picking up the story.  The truth has a way of coming out...just like "wiped with a cloth" email servers. 

The entire thing you posted is obviously some crazy right wing site. And linked videos don't show any proof of what they are talking about. The closest to the truth is possibly that some Hillary supporters were doing the birther thing to slow down Obama in 2008. However, there isn't a smidgen of anything to suggest that Hillary herself or her campaign had anything to do with all that.


Lastly, I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. You've proven that you are just another .....something..... if you actually believe that President Obama's birth information is all made up. We are allowed to disagree about ideas and opinions, but not about facts. And the adults in the Republican Party agree with me. But you of course have thrown in with the Trumps and Cruz's and choose to believe this nonsense.

P.S. You are aware that even if Barack Obama was born to his American born mother in another country, he would still be eligible for President, correct? Apparently Ted Cruz is eligible even though he is a Canadian-born Cuban. So what exactly is the right-wing trying to say with all the Obama birther stuff anyways?
That site I referenced was the first hit. It had the both links on one site.  The evidence is derivative.  Just because a news source is one that doesn't fit with political affiliation, doesn't mean all contained within it is false.  Look how Hillary disparaged Snowden and wanted him criminally charged. Now, that time has passed and his cred has risen, he is now not a traitor but more of a whistle blower.  It is also relative to what happened in time.  She was first to condemn him for exposing "state secrets." Time will tell what "state secrets" she was involved in.

The challenge is finding the truth on both sides and weighing it for yourself. Never mind stereotyping right and left "wing nuts."

And you prove my point that when confronted with facts, you change the argument. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing that it wasn't Hillary but possibly her supporters who tried the birther thing, you just start talking about Hillary's email and Republican TV networks.
No, I didn't prove your point. The "Republican network" label used other news sources. It was a democratic pre-primary fight for the nomination in 2008.

In a campaign, there may be "loose cannons," and competing interests are often nasty. But, ultimately, the candidate is liable for whether is put out there.  So her staff may have done the research to load the discussion but ultimately, she is on the hook for acts and omissions of her staff.  These are her statements. She is trying to distance herself from those statements.  One interview was slso from a guy from 60 Minutes. Did she retract it? In 2008? She was competing against Obama for the nomination.

The "birther" thing is interesting.  If his mother was an American citizen, of course, that would pass to him.  Few countries have jus soli (citizen of the technical land of birth) citizenships.  Jus sanguinis is not determined by place of birth but by parent citizenship.  It is mostly defined by treaties with defininitions imposed by the international community.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on September 23, 2015, 10:26:58 AM
 Rubio: No home runs but staying on base with singles and doubles. Jeb: On base via a bunt.

Yeah, I think you're right.  Here's my take....


Trump:  I would stop going to the debates if I were him.  It's not hurting him by showing up, but they're such a relic of the "old system."  It's a stupid scripted little slow dance among the media/Party/power/elites.  I swear, I can hear Journey playing "Open Arms" while the media and Parties are swaying back 'n forth.  Knock it off... we're over it.  I still believe Trump represents a way out of this staid format.  But I wish somebody would seize on this and put this turkey out of its misery.  It's just awful.  Anyway...

Rubio:  He's passionate and does good with his time, I suppose.  As you said, Moon Dawg, he's on base.  But I don't think the Party's base voters are waving him around.

Jeb:  On life support.  From the donor money -- but more so from the liberal/media-elite/power-complex -- who want him so badly it hurts.  They're keeping him alive with a faint pulse, because they already have their script written if he faces Hillary.  So they're gonna keep placing him center stage next to The Donald.  Another reason why Donald should just stop going...

Cruz:  Slow and steady.  But too steady -- he may have to loosen up a bit.  Don't think I've ever seen that side of him, so maybe he shouldn't.  As a Conservative, though, I think he's been great of course.

Carson:  I'm surprised, I have to admit, that he's doing so well.  As much as I like him, I just thought he was walking into too much, too soon.  But again, it just shows-to-go-ya how sick of it all Americans are.  He's connecting with people.  The media machine is going to continue to ramp up their attacks.  They can't have this...

Carly:  Once she got noticed in the first debate, the media went to work.  They have to.  They don't have a reliable script for Hillary vs Another Woman.  They do, but it's a thin one -- and it requires a lot of prep work.  So their strategy was to prop her up as a "battered woman" -- so they can yank the rug out from under her.  So she's wisely pivoted from that track and is showing a softer side.  So we'll see if she can continue to out run the hounds in the media.  Because -- write this down:  they WILL NOT allow a woman to run against Hillary.


And then there's the rest...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on September 23, 2015, 05:01:32 PM
Okay well it seems like ol' Bags isn't doing his little candidate profiles anymore so how about I continue them?


Marco Rubio

(http://i.imgur.com/XLGt6.jpg)

So this is the guy that the establishment Republicans want if they can't convince enough fools that El Jebe* is good for them. He will be proof that they totally aren't racists, cuz look, he's one of them Hispanics! If nominated, it will prove that the Republican complaint in 2008 about then-Senator Obama not having enough "experience" was total bullshit, as Senator Rubio is a first term senator, just like President Obama was!

Anyways, in other news, Marco has got a sugar daddy named Sheldon Adelson, a super good lookin' guy who just wants world peace (errr....no. Actually he wants lots of war). Here's a photo of Sheldon. Ladies, don't bother....he's taken.

(http://livedealer.org/dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/adelson.jpg)

Anyways, Marco rode the tea bagger wave in 2010 to get elected, but after getting elected he has stated that he's not a tea bagger. Weird.

Finally, we want you cool kids to know that Marco is pretty hip. He listens to Tubesock Shucker and calls him a poet. So obviously Marco doesn't know much about poetry if he thinks that asshole is a poet. Also, if President Obama talked about Tupac the way Marco does, people like my good friend Bean Bag would be saying, "Broke Obumbler totally supports a cop hating rapist! He's a doodie head! BENGHAZI!!!"

Also, Marco gets thirsty a lot, especially during big speeches. He also enjoys awkwardly reaching for tiny water bottles while staring at cameras. It's fun.

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1263908!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/390-rubio-0214.jpg)

Lastly, I just wanna inform you guys of how commited Mr. Rubio's fans are with a little story...

A met your average white, middle-aged lady. You know, the kind that hates Obama and probably thinks he's a Muslim. But anyways, she tells me one day, "you know who I really like? I'm really liking that new guy, Mark Ruby. I think he's really gonna be great."

So obviously, Marco's (errr...Mark's?) fans are so committed to his cause that they don't know either his first or last name. Anyways, this is a movement people. Watch out for Rubio, the next big thing!

*(pronounced "el Heb-ay)

  "Your average white, middle-aged lady...the kind that hates Obama....probably think he's a Muslim."

 Dude - Your thinking has become increasingly stereotypical. You are putting people in boxes of your own construction. Do you have data to suggest most white middle aged women hate Obama or is this but another example of the "identity politics" mindset that has crippled independent thinking today in the United States??


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 23, 2015, 07:47:33 PM
 "Your average white, middle-aged lady...the kind that hates Obama....probably think he's a Muslim."

 Dude - Your thinking has become increasingly stereotypical. You are putting people in boxes of your own construction. Do you have data to suggest most white middle aged women hate Obama or is this but another example of the "identity politics" mindset that has crippled independent thinking today in the United States??

Let me clarify. I do in fact know the lady I was talking about. She is a customer at my business. I make it a point not to talk politics with my customers for obvious reasons, but of course you still get the odd reference to "the n***** in the White House" or "Obama raised my taxes" even though the person in question then asks if they can use EBT.

Anyway, I know for a fact that she hates President Obama. She's said as much before. The only thing I'm unsure about was whether she thinks he's a Muslim, which is why I said "probably" on that issue. I just find it amusing that there are people like this lady and others who are decrying Obama while using their EBT cards and complaining that their Social Security check hasn't come quickly enough. Apparently socialism is fine with them, as long as its....ya know....for THEM.

And by the way, many middle-aged white women I know actually like President Obama quite a bit. So I was not in any way saying that all think the same way. Now if you asked the same about most of our southern-born male customers, I might have a different answer.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on September 24, 2015, 06:10:54 AM
Let's have bean and sweetdudejim meet up at a bar and debate Sam Adams style! :afro


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on September 25, 2015, 06:05:07 AM
Let's have bean and sweetdudejim meet up at a bar and debate Sam Adams style! :afro

Sounds good to me SMiLE Brian! However, noticing how ol' Bags seems to disappear around these parts when things get rough, I have a feeling he wouldn't show up for said debate!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on September 25, 2015, 06:57:31 AM
Let's have bean and sweetdudejim meet up at a bar and debate Sam Adams style! :afro

Sounds good to me SMiLE Brian! However, noticing how ol' Bags seems to disappear around these parts when things get rough, I have a feeling he wouldn't show up for said debate!
We're all in different time zones, here. This whole "disappearing act" is getting very offensive.

People get called out for not responding in "your time zone?" Or, on "your" schedule.  We're all on our own schedules and check a "message board" - "whenever."  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 18, 2015, 06:57:33 AM
Larry David as Sen. Sanders. Alec Baldwin as Sen. Webb. I had a few good laughs. (It actually did a nice job of capturing the gist of the "debate"...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on October 18, 2015, 03:42:59 PM
Larry David as Sen. Sanders. Alec Baldwin as Sen. Webb. I had a few good laughs. (It actually did a nice job of capturing the gist of the "debate"...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o

That was pretty funny.  Larry David as Bernie Sanders is inspired casting to say the least.  And Kate McKinnon's portrayal of Hillary Clinton just keeps getting better.  She's one of the few reasons to watch SNL these days.

As for the debate itself, I thought Hillary and Bernie both made pretty convincing cases.  I'm probably voting for Bernie in the primaries but I really wouldn't be disappointed if (or when) Hillary makes it.  I thought Martin O'Malley did a surprisingly fine job as well.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him picked as a running mate for either candidate (though like the sketch implies, people are pretty sure of a Clinton/Sanders ticket already).


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on October 18, 2015, 06:48:41 PM
I don't see Sanders getting any part of the Democratic nomination for either president or vice president. I don't see the Democrats EVER nominating a Jewish man for any presidential office. If Hillary were to choose him as a running mate she had probably better not count on the Sanders supporters voting for her because I've seen little positive feelings for her out of his camp. Jim Webb won the debate with his "25 percent of Congress" statement with regard to failed foreign policy. Imagine that...he was the only Democrat in that debate who DIDN'T come off as a crazy isolationist.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on October 18, 2015, 08:09:03 PM
Jim Webb won the debate with his "25 percent of Congress" statement with regard to failed foreign policy. Imagine that...he was the only Democrat in that debate who DIDN'T come off as a crazy isolationist.

You're the first person I've ever heard say that Jim Webb won the debate.  His complaining about how they weren't giving him enough time to speak just made him look petty and actually ended up wasting more of his time, he completely missed the point of "Black Lives Matter" and made himself look ignorant in regards to the movement, only saying that he's worked closely with the African American "situation" which couldn't be more vague and he pretty much defended the NRA with some nonsense about how the middle class should openly carry guns because they can't afford bodyguards.  Maybe that appeals to conservatives but running in the Democratic primaries isn't doing him any favors.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on October 20, 2015, 06:07:16 AM
Larry David as Sen. Sanders. Alec Baldwin as Sen. Webb. I had a few good laughs. (It actually did a nice job of capturing the gist of the "debate"...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o

That was pretty funny.  Larry David as Bernie Sanders is inspired casting to say the least.  And Kate McKinnon's portrayal of Hillary Clinton just keeps getting better.  She's one of the few reasons to watch SNL these days.

As for the debate itself, I thought Hillary and Bernie both made pretty convincing cases.  I'm probably voting for Bernie in the primaries but I really wouldn't be disappointed if (or when) Hillary makes it.  I thought Martin O'Malley did a surprisingly fine job as well.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him picked as a running mate for either candidate (though like the sketch implies, people are pretty sure of a Clinton/Sanders ticket already).

As an overtaxed president of the state of Maryland, I can tell you that any support towards Martin O'Malley would be a gigantic mistake.  The man took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit almost overnight.  What was his solution?  Taxes.  Raise the sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and my personal favorite, the rain tax (which was repealed by Governor Larry Hogan). 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on October 20, 2015, 07:38:30 AM
Owe'Malley won't make it past the primaries. His supporters are like Jill Stein supporters in 2012 - endlessly myopic and offering little besides buzzwords.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on October 20, 2015, 07:54:49 AM
Owe'Malley won't make it past the primaries. His supporters are like Jill Stein supporters in 2012 - endlessly myopic and offering little besides buzzwords.

I hope you're right.  Just in case, I actually changed my affiliation from Republican to Democrat for the sole purpose of voting against Owe Malley in the primaries. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on October 20, 2015, 07:01:59 PM
A friend of mine is a major supporter of his. She also thinks there is such a thing as "rape culture." The stupid burns and it follows both parties' respective acolytes.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 21, 2015, 02:24:50 PM
That Democrat "debate" was like a play. A jolly little skip through the park at club Fantasy Island.  Holding hands and acting like they were all angry for my benefit.  Just a bunch of cluess rich boobs, angry at imaginary shadows -- which included other rich people (besides them) the "climate" and the National Rifle Organization.

It was more entertaining than I was expexting. Don't all lives matter? Only one could answer!  :lol :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 21, 2015, 04:15:40 PM
I don't think it was any more pathetic than the Republican debates have been (which were, of course, extremely pathetic). None of them are substantive in the least, but more importantly, none of them are debates. We've had more fireworks at the Republican ones, I guess. But fireworks aren't substantive, necessarily, either. (Usually the opposite.) The Republicans haven't pre-approved their candidate, which is nice. But the eventual candidate will inevitably suck, which isn't. The Democrats have, which isn't nice. And she will, which isn't. And as usual, Americans will get to plug their noses and vote for the candidate who wins the "slightly less offensive to my taste" prize. Huzzah.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on October 21, 2015, 05:39:11 PM
I genuinely hope that Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination. I think America would be best off with him, and I agree with the views he has.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on October 21, 2015, 06:03:36 PM
I typed in "What would happen if" as part of a Google search, but stopped there to read what other people had been searching. The fourth one that came up was "What would happen if Trump won." :P


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on October 21, 2015, 06:05:28 PM
I typed in "What would happen if" as part of a Google search, but stopped there to read what other people had been searching. The fourth one that came up was "What would happen if Trump won." :P

Honestly, I and virtually everyone I know view Trump as an eccentric joke. Like an American Clive Palmer  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 21, 2015, 06:25:49 PM
I would caution people from taking the possibility too lightly. I say that from experience: in my state (Minnesota), nobody--NOBODY--thought a boa-wearing former pro wrestler was seriously going to become governor ... until Jesse "The Body" Ventura beat both capital-city mayor Norm Coleman (Republican) and political-family powerhouse Skip Humphrey (Democrat) for the office, mostly by playing up outsider status and feeding a cult of personality. It can happen.

The reality is (and I'm not sure who on the national stage realizes this), Ventura was a precursor to the near-libertarian populism we see now. Circa '98, that didn't seem to be happening anywhere, but this wrestler / suburban mayor (Brooklyn Park, Minn.) was preaching low taxes, smaller government, and social / personal liberty. He was a statewide kind of Ron Paul phenomenon. Except, you know, with pink feather boas, wraparound sunglasses, doo-rags, and crazy biceps. Not my political cup of tea, but he absolutely (as he said at the time) "shocked the world."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 21, 2015, 07:21:21 PM
Honestly, I and virtually everyone I know view Trump as an eccentric joke. Like an American Clive Palmer  :lol

You might wanna ax the Republican Party if Donald Trump is an eccentric joke.  (They're still betting on that by the way).  One might expect the Media/Crats to eventually take The Donald more seriously, but as of now.... they're stuck on the Island.

You didn't hear this from me... but as I was topping off Jeb's pitcher, I saw Bern and Hillary checking in!  Complete with Hawaiian shirts, umbrella drinks.  Last I heard they was talking about how there's gonna be free college (or collage, if you're already a college student) for everyone.

(http://images.realclear.com/295088_5_.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on October 21, 2015, 08:51:03 PM
This is going to be my final word on #FeelTheBern and socialism in general. I cannot summarize it better than this.

"Demagoguery flourishes where something can be said in a few catchy words that would take volumes to disprove." - Thomas Sowell

Such is why someone like Bernie Sanders commands the attention of so many of the "oppressed proletariat" - people who are not really oppressed but who are ignorant by choice enough to believe anything if it confirms their bias. This explains ninety-nine percent of anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Comparing low-wage workers to slaves is insulting to people who were or are actually slaves (meaning held against their will without any way to defend their person). People who work as package handlers are performing low-skilled work. Low-skilled labor is widely available (as anyone can pick up and move a few boxes), therefore the price for the labor is cheaper. The rarer and more in-demand the skill, the higher the cost for the labor. Supply and demand is really a simple concept; neither any amount of government distortion nor the cries of people peddling sound bites will change supply and demand as the one and only thing that determines prices, including those for labor.

If someone is working a job as a package handler while having children after college age without any other marketable skills, then there is a major problem. If people do not have marketable skills, how do they expect to get by in life? Sure, we can argue all we want about "a fair wage" or "a living wage" but at the end of the day, if someone is not worth anything to a potential employer, there's something wrong and it's not the fault of capitalism or the one percent. Capitalism is a system that depends on participation and voluntary exchange. The worker must make himself valuable to his employer, not the other way around - and especially if the worker expects his employer to pay a princely sum for his work. The employer could easily hire any number of equally or better-qualified candidates. Socialism may sound good on paper but it is in the domain of fairy tales or the most utopian of science fiction. There will never be "post-scarcity" because scarcity will ALWAYS exist. And the idea of "I worked hard on this" means nothing. The labor theory of value, much like socialism itself, is also the hallmark of fairy tales. No one cares if someone worked hard on something. They only care if the work enriches them. The worker got paid for the work to begin with; why should people care if said worker worked hard on it? Are they paying the worker? Yes? The fact that they're paying the worker means that the work is already valued and it doesn't matter "how hard" it was worked on - just that it was done.

People who live in the U.S. are part of the GLOBAL one percent. How come only the rich in this country should share their wealth? I bet people in Bangladesh would love to have the greedy American ninety-nine percenters share their wealth with them. People in the Third World subsist on far less per day than the "oppressed proletariat" here. How are the "oppressed proletariat" oppressed in this country? Notwithstanding their iPhones, Starbucks diets, Netflix subscriptions, high-speed internet, large-screen televisions, a library of video games and a high-end computer, kids born out of wedlock thanks to bad decision-making, closets full of "nothing to wear," and most likely a nice check from the state every so often, of course.

If the American "oppressed proletariat" lived in Bangladesh with their cries of "we are the ninety-nine percent," the Bangladeshi poor would loot, rape, and murder them all in their sleep because the American "oppressed proletariat" are not only greedy; they are vain and arrogant in their thinking. They think they're owed something. For what? Just because? Doesn't work that way. No one is owed anything - not respect, not validation, not consideration, not compensation, NOTHING. That is not how the world works. Those who think otherwise are selling something. There will never be such a thing as an egalitarian society because egalitarianism goes against human liberty.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 28, 2015, 08:25:04 AM
Debate tonight.  It will be far more substantive than the sloganeering and pretend anger we got from the Democrat's little pep rally of a "debate."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on October 28, 2015, 09:17:56 AM
I recently talked to some friends who legitimately thought Donald Trump is a Democrat in disguise and that his goal is to make a mockery of the Republican Party.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on October 28, 2015, 02:29:21 PM
Honestly, given his long history of donating to Democrats (particularly Hillary Clinton) it's not too far off as far as conspiracy theories go. That said, he has about as much hope of getting the Republican nomination as Bernie Sanders has of getting the Democratic nomination - not a hope in hell. Thou shalt not besmirch the good old boys of Washington.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 28, 2015, 04:27:19 PM
Well, the JV team's debate is over. It, uh, happened.

I'd love to see pre-general election multiparty debates. I'd love to see more formal debates. I'd love to see non-debate conversations. I'd love to see minor-party candidates being the questioners of major-party candidates. Something. Anything. The nonsense we get is just atrocious. This isn't pointed specifically to the GOP debates. This is both parties' problem. Don't get me wrong it was pleasant to hear Santorum and Graham joke about who is the better beer-loving candidate, or Jindal talk about how he has improved Louisiana's economy. And nobody loves total non-answers more than I do. f*** the question, say what you wanted to say (again)...

It would be nice to say I'm looking forward to the varsity team's event tonight, but thank goodness there is NBA basketball in season again. I'll flip back and forth between the comedy and the sports until the Wolves' season opener, to which I'll dedicate my attention. Sadly I don't anticipate a great game, partly because both teams (they're in LA against the formerly Minneapolis Lakers) are bad, and mostly because of the death of president / coach Flip Saunders over the weekend. (With the unexpected epilepsy-driven midseason retirement of U of MN football coach Jerry Kill this morning, it's been a shitty week for Minnesota sports.) But I digress. In closing, enjoy the nonsensical soundbites that rouse the simple and dim.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 28, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Cruz is so pathetic. Asked a specific policy question, he nonanswers with a cliched Gingrichian "media is so liberal and trying to play gotcha" joke. Then when first warned his time is running out, then when his time has run out, he begins whining that they won't let him answer the question he'd just spent well over a minute not answering. Sen. Cruz is a joke. Sadly just like almost everyone on both parties' stages.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 28, 2015, 07:33:21 PM
Ted Cruz nailed cNBC's balls to the wall!!!
At this point and going forward -- I don't know how the Republicans can continue to allow the Democrat Communication Department to "moderate" their "interrogation."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/28/cruz_rips_press_at_cnbc_debate_this_debate_illustrates_why_we_can_not_trust_the_media.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/28/cruz_rips_press_at_cnbc_debate_this_debate_illustrates_why_we_can_not_trust_the_media.html)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 28, 2015, 07:38:58 PM
Tired old ploy. Boring. Pathetic. This isn't coming from a liberal/Democrat (which I'm not), but from a cynical observer. Cruz is a clown among clowns.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on October 28, 2015, 08:16:10 PM
Cruz got asked a tough question, made up some pandering bullshit about how they don't get asked tough questions, ran out his time, and then complained that he couldn't answer.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 28, 2015, 08:28:58 PM
Yeah, but you guys don't matter.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 28, 2015, 08:33:29 PM
Democracy in action!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on October 28, 2015, 08:44:41 PM
Yeah, but you guys don't matter.
Neither does Ted Cruz, really.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 29, 2015, 05:15:49 AM
Yeah, but you guys don't matter.
Neither does Ted Cruz, really.

Somebody went to journalism school.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on October 29, 2015, 07:58:34 AM
Yeah, but you guys don't matter.
Neither does Ted Cruz, really.

Somebody went to journalism school.

Yes, Bean Bag, I'm sure somebody has indeed gone to journalism school.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on October 29, 2015, 08:03:07 AM
Yeah, but you guys don't matter.
Neither does Ted Cruz, really.

Somebody went to journalism school.

Yes, Bean Bag, I'm sure someone has indeed gone to journalism school.
I can validate this. My ex's ex went.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 29, 2015, 08:48:36 AM
My degree is in journalism. (Im also not sure what's going on right now.)

But let me assure you, the education was truly Masonic: we drank aborted babies' blood, vowed to push a SUPER-GAY AGENDA, plotted the theft of guns from law-abiding people, and DEFINITELY mean to steal Christmas. It's all terrible, especially at the academic level. Luckily once those corrupted graduates are in the employ of the beacon of all that is holy, massive corporations, some turn to battle for good. (They work for Fox, Breitbart, etc., valiantly fighting that wholly rotted institution (they remain a profitable part of).

Hopefully those messiahs Sen. Cruz and absentee Sen. Rubio can remove the scales from the eyes of godfearers everywhere, teaching them to get their information only from the gospels, aka right-wing blogs. Everything else is propaganda.

PS, vaccines make your kids stupid.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 29, 2015, 08:17:03 PM
Tired old ploy. Boring. Pathetic. This isn't coming from a liberal/Democrat (which I'm not), but from a cynical observer. Cruz is a clown among clowns.

Tired?  Pathetic?  Old ploy?  You wouldn't be talking about the Lefties (which you are!) crying about Fox News? :lol  Oh no, of course not... of course not...

Perhaps this will all be equalized when Hillary and Bernstein show up for the Right Wing Talk Radio debate -- when is that again?  Oh.... is that not happening?  Hmmm.  Tell you what, PM me when the sissies on the Left wanna go a few rounds with some, what was it? -- oh yeah, "Democracy In Action!"   :lol :lol :lol

 :smokin

Remember Captain.  I've highlighted your complaints -- "no substance from Trump."  Was the Comic Book candidate question the substance you need?  It was.  It was.



Hypocrisy in action.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 29, 2015, 08:42:35 PM
You can't possibly be this dense. I've hoped for months that you're not. It's a shame you've wasted my time and energy.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 29, 2015, 09:03:13 PM
 :lol  You think they'll buy that shtick?

Listen, you're doing great... just stick with it, you big lug. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on October 30, 2015, 02:15:09 AM
I've got to return to my suspicion that you're just a troll. If not that, you're apparently the homeless lunatic on the corner, screaming about invisible spiders and snakes, making everyone on the block uncomfortably switch to the other side of the street. Anyone addressing you, trying to help, gets an earful about these spiders and snakes (not to mention covered in your diseased spittle). Eventually everyone stops addressing you. And you, also coated in your own filth, wonder where everyone went when there are all these damn spiders and snakes to deal with. But you're satisfied because at least you've won. Congratulations on that.

I need to cross the street now, just like the people who have PM'd me from over there. People who don't post here specifically because you're insufferable. I know in your mind that you're winning. That's fine. Post your last-word, self-congratulatory post, and then get back to screaming at the fewer and fewer passersby about the invisible spiders and snakes.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 30, 2015, 07:35:04 AM
I've got to return to my suspicion that you're just a troll. If not that, you're apparently the homeless lunatic on the corner, screaming about invisible spiders and snakes, making everyone on the block uncomfortably switch to the other side of the street. Anyone addressing you, trying to help, gets an earful about these spiders and snakes (not to mention covered in your diseased spittle). Eventually everyone stops addressing you. And you, also coated in your own filth, wonder where everyone went when there are all these damn spiders and snakes to deal with. But you're satisfied because at least you've won. Congratulations on that.

I need to cross the street now, just like the people who have PM'd me from over there. People who don't post here specifically because you're insufferable. I know in your mind that you're winning. That's fine. Post your last-word, self-congratulatory post, and then get back to screaming at the fewer and fewer passersby about the invisible spiders and snakes.

I'm stickin' with my suspicion that you're better than that.  Trolls simply post mean and inflammatory things, which is pretty much all you've done whenever I've shown support for a candidate that you prefer to belittle.  Whenever I've pointed out Leftist hypocrisy, you immediately bust out a big nasty bowl of Frosted Troll-flakes.

By all means, run to the other side of the street, but remember... it was YOU (not me) who just called all of them "invisible spiders and snakes."


I'm not a homeless lunatic either.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on October 30, 2015, 07:48:58 AM
Ted Cruz nailed cNBC's balls to the wall!!!
At this point and going forward -- I don't know how the Republicans can continue to allow the Democrat Communication Department to "moderate" their "interrogation."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/28/cruz_rips_press_at_cnbc_debate_this_debate_illustrates_why_we_can_not_trust_the_media.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/28/cruz_rips_press_at_cnbc_debate_this_debate_illustrates_why_we_can_not_trust_the_media.html)

Yes, and it got the Harvard Law school analysis (where Cruz went) to the jury. The public. 

He dissected and returned the volley for each candidate that had been pigeonholed by (MS) NBC/Comcast/xfinity/ General Electric/Telemundo - conglomerate.  Good for him.  He ran the analysis quickly.  MSNBC ran the agenda -driven party/debate. 

Too bad it blew up in their faces.  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Peter Reum on October 30, 2015, 03:31:54 PM
The right, center, and left need to come to some consensus on how to talk civilly to each other
What has changed since Senator Kennedy and Senator Simpson left the Senate has been an unwillingness to build consensus using the give and take of the political process. The election of idealogues rather than practical problem solvers has led to the deterioration of dialogue among ordinary people. I'd love to see more cooperation between legislators regardless of their philosophical bias. What's broken seems to be the assumption that people of differing political stances can be honorable and cooperative for our nation's common good. :-[


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on October 31, 2015, 07:39:58 PM
Republicans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU)
Democrats (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yxGsWHx9o)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on October 31, 2015, 07:41:48 PM
Republicans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU)
Democrats (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yxGsWHx9o)

Those were both entertaining.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 01, 2015, 06:37:50 PM
Beanghazi


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 05, 2015, 05:13:02 AM
Beanghazi

Bern-ghazi

He (Bernie) is "so" tired of hearing about her emails...

That ain't over yet.  New movie coming out. 

Potential indictments...

Stay tuned... ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 05, 2015, 07:44:24 AM
Beanghazi

Bern-ghazi

He (Bernie) is "so" tired of hearing about her emails...

That ain't over yet.  New movie coming out. 

Potential indictments...

Stay tuned... ;)

Get used to saying "madam President", dipshit.


And a movie? Whoopty doo. There's also a movie about the JFK assassination. That was totally truthful too, right?

And the Benghazi hearing was a hell of a success....


For Hillary.

The only people getting in legal trouble this campaign should be Marco Rubio (for illegally using state credit cards), Chris Christie (for ordering a traffic jam in NJ) and Ben Carson (for general idiocy.....the pyramids were built to store grain? Riiiiiiight).


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 05, 2015, 08:00:39 AM

And the Benghazi hearing was a hell of a success....


For Hillary.

Even my mom (this is saying something; as of now she supports Trump but will swing all over the right side and support each Republican candidate in turn before the end of the primaries) was yammering about how Hillary knocked them out at the Benghazi hearing.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 05, 2015, 08:35:36 AM
Beanghazi

Bern-ghazi

He (Bernie) is "so" tired of hearing about her emails...

That ain't over yet.  New movie coming out.  

Potential indictments...

Stay tuned... ;)

Get used to saying "madam President", dipshit.


And a movie? Whoopty doo. There's also a movie about the JFK assassination. That was totally truthful too, right?

And the Benghazi hearing was a hell of a success....


For Hillary.

The only people getting in legal trouble this campaign should be Marco Rubio (for illegally using state credit cards), Chris Christie (for ordering a traffic jam in NJ) and Ben Carson (for general idiocy.....the pyramids were built to store grain? Riiiiiiight).
Another false narrative. Obama will not allow his legacy to be tainted with her.  He'd sooner throw her under the bus, come January or so, and maybe Uncle Joe will get a tap on the shoulder to jump back  in. JFK did not jump in to the race, until January.  Her poll numbers came up after he made that press conference announcement.  It is like everything else.  A "definite maybe."

Obama is shifting military gears with Putin's involvement in the Middle East.  The Dems have no one.  Christie is a non-issue. I agree on "bridge gate." The Republicans are tripping over each other with candidates.  

Lies have a way of catching up to people; ask the "Cos." And the Benghazi victims' families and actual military defense group members have come forward with the "video story" as a lie so they know the truth as well.  This is a brush fire, gathering strength.

Only the networks, and hosts such as Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton's press secretary, who have poured money into Billary's coffers (Clinton Foundation,) and the democratic analysts, are calling the hearing a "win."  It was no "win." They can spin it inside out, and it isn't a win.

Just because you announce you are the victor, doesn't mean you are. The game is just beginning. It is a long way to next November. This is the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.  


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 05, 2015, 08:52:06 PM
Get used to saying "madam President", dipshit.

Sweetdude -- I would consider it a great favor to me, if you directed insults like that towards me from now on.  That's no disrespect to anyone.  But I would just feel better about all we do here if comments like that were directed towards someone who actually deserves them.  You owe me that much at least.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on November 06, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
I actually wouldn't mind Ben Carson as the next president - he's obviously an incredibly intelligent man.

Never mind.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on November 06, 2015, 11:15:58 PM
I actually wouldn't mind Ben Carson as the next president - he's obviously an incredibly intelligent man.

Never mind.
Yup!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 07, 2015, 04:55:02 AM
I actually wouldn't mind Ben Carson as the next president - he's obviously an incredibly intelligent man.

Never mind.
Yup!

Carson's campaign manager must be ready to throttle him.  It was his to lose. 

What is it with these candidates who are on top? 

A dope with a credit card? (Rubio)

A bigger dope with an "I was a punk when I was a kid" story. Although he was probably approached to go to West Point.  Some pol would have sponsored him.

This is just getting very interesting.     :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 09, 2015, 07:21:59 AM
It's (not) amazing the scrutiny Dr. Carson is getting by the Democrat/Media's alleged (and increasingly bogus) claims of discrepancies regarding his book.  But let's not be so transparent.  Questions about sh-t that happened when he was 13 is PARAMOUNT to electing a qualified lea-dur.

Meanwhile, back at Headquarters, the criminal and convict-able discrepancies of Hilljob Clinton's testimony... well, that amounts to "a good week for her."   :lol  :lol  :lol  :lol  :lol  :lol


Bizarro World.  Dr. Carson saved lives.  Hillary Nixon kills them -- and sloppily covers up her tracks.  She's way more kwalified.  Duuuuuuuh.

(http://www.crowbarbenson.com/comics/2009-11-111-dunce-cap.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on November 09, 2015, 01:29:27 PM
It's (not) amazing the scrutiny Dr. Carson is getting by the Democrat/Media's alleged (and increasingly bogus) claims of discrepancies regarding his book.

Yeah, like that famous Democrat/media-man Donald Trump: "Carson is 'going to have to explain a lot of things away: the scholarship situation, the dinner with [General William] Westmoreland when Westmoreland wasn't there,' he added." That guy's the worst, am I right?

Bizarro World.  Dr. Carson saved lives.  Hillary Nixon kills them -- and sloppily covers up her tracks.  She's way more kwalified.  Duuuuuuuh.
You are so right, BB. Ben Carson saved (http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/ben-carson-karly-bailey-wishes-she-never-met-him/) peoples' (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/ben-carson-was-sued-for-malpractice-at-least-eight-times.html) lives! That automatically makes him qualified... to... run a country. Yeah. He's turned those stabbing tendencies into helpful ones! Now he'll stab your brain instead of your abdomen. Isn't that what's important? Who even cares that surgeons are the #5 job that psychopaths are attracted to, and CEO is #1 (like, y'know, being the CEO of a country or whatever.) When you add that together with a history of violence as a youth, what do you get? Why, a well-rounded individual. A man of science. A man of science who doesn't believe in science because of the bible and the punctuation therein: "I don't know how old the earth is. It says, 'In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,' and then there's a period there. You don't know how much time elapsed." Right you are, Dr. Carson. It's impossible to know. Where in the bible does it say "carbon dating?" I dare you pinko liberal commies to find where it says that. Go on, I dare you.

But, I digress. I long to see  Pres. Dr. Carson, the incredibly qualified... life... saving... president.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 09, 2015, 01:58:37 PM
 :-D  Who is qualified Bubbles?  Tell me.  Who.    :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 09, 2015, 02:47:25 PM
It's (not) amazing the scrutiny Dr. Carson is getting by the Democrat/Media's alleged (and increasingly bogus) claims of discrepancies regarding his book.

Yeah, like that famous Democrat/media-man Donald Trump: "Carson is 'going to have to explain a lot of things away: the scholarship situation, the dinner with [General William] Westmoreland when Westmoreland wasn't there,' he added." That guy's the worst, am I right?

Bizarro World.  Dr. Carson saved lives.  Hillary Nixon kills them -- and sloppily covers up her tracks.  She's way more kwalified.  Duuuuuuuh.
You are so right, BB. Ben Carson saved (http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/ben-carson-karly-bailey-wishes-she-never-met-him/) peoples' (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/ben-carson-was-sued-for-malpractice-at-least-eight-times.html) lives! That automatically makes him qualified... to... run a country. Yeah. He's turned those stabbing tendencies into helpful ones! Now he'll stab your brain instead of your abdomen. Isn't that what's important? Who even cares that surgeons are the #5 job that psychopaths are attracted to, and CEO is #1 (like, y'know, being the CEO of a country or whatever.) When you add that together with a history of violence as a youth, what do you get? Why, a well-rounded individual. A man of science. A man of science who doesn't believe in science because of the bible and the punctuation therein: "I don't know how old the earth is. It says, 'In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,' and then there's a period there. You don't know how much time elapsed." Right you are, Dr. Carson. It's impossible to know. Where in the bible does it say "carbon dating?" I dare you pinko liberal commies to find where it says that. Go on, I dare you.

But, I digress. I long to see  Pres. Dr. Carson, the incredibly qualified... life... saving... president.

:kiss


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on November 09, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
I assume it goes without saying, but just to be safe: there was no punctuation in the texts that eventually became the Bible (until well after they became the Bible). Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of the original texts included punctuation.

Basing anything on punctuation in the Bible puts a lot of faith into a couple millenia of translators, scribes, editors, and such, not into the god who purportedly inspired the text.* (I won't get into the text itself, which is a whole other thread--though it is one of my main interests, so if anyone is interested in that, I'm in.)



*Depending on how far you're willing to go with inspiration. You might think the god also inspired later such people's punctuation, editing, translations, and so on, though that wouldn't really clarify why there are so many different versions.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 12, 2015, 05:22:56 AM
:-D  Who is qualified Bubbles?  Tell me.  Who.    :lol

Trump said some "magic words" the other day, relating to that horrible VA Hospital system.  He said that any vet should be able to take his/her Veteran's ID and go into any hospital or health care facility in the country and get the best care available, never mind that substandard system they are relegated to.  Music to my ears.  They deserve it. It is about time.   



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on November 12, 2015, 07:54:20 AM
VA is what happens when the state runs health care. And people think that if this model is extended to the entire country it will magically work. It must be great living in the fairy land of gumdrops, rainbows, and unicorns.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 12, 2015, 07:59:14 AM
:-D  Who is qualified Bubbles?  Tell me.  Who.    :lol

Trump said some "magic words" the other day, relating to that horrible VA Hospital system.  He said that any vet should be able to take his/her Veteran's ID and go into any hospital or health care facility in the country and get the best care available, never mind that substandard system they are relegated to.  Music to my ears.  They deserve it. It is about time.  


I agree! I would extend your thought and say that any US citizen should be able to do that!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 12, 2015, 08:25:17 AM
:-D  Who is qualified Bubbles?  Tell me.  Who.    :lol

Trump said some "magic words" the other day, relating to that horrible VA Hospital system.  He said that any vet should be able to take his/her Veteran's ID and go into any hospital or health care facility in the country and get the best care available, never mind that substandard system they are relegated to.  Music to my ears.  They deserve it. It is about time.  


I agree! I would extend your thought and say that any US citizen should be able to do that!
Emily - it is a very sad state of affairs.

What a lot of people don't understand is that if the VA finds any other medical insurance, they hit that policy first.  So, all the care is not free as is the assumption. Quality varies among the different regions of the US.

The VA is full of second rate docs or many uncommitted new docs who are often there to wipe out their tuition loans.  And have no true interest in the medical needs of vets. They have their "other hospitals" (more elite) where they intend to spend their careers.

The parking lots are full of the hacks on the weekdays, who couldn't cut red tape with a scissors if they tried, while thousands have died waiting for treatment.  And are empty on the weekend, except for the very few cars of family members who travel to visit their loved ones.  Cruise by on a weekday and then a weekend day if there is one in your vicinity.  It is a business.

They take the medicare cards and other insurance and are wholly unprepared for the injured vets coming home.   So, if vets health care was absorbed into the private medical system, the state of the art treatments for all maladies, might be better matched and more transparent, than to the VA system which has become the place of last recourse for those who have served and have not had the service returned in kind.    JMHO

At least this campaign season is getting the issue out on the table for some transparency. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 12, 2015, 09:27:59 AM
:-D  Who is qualified Bubbles?  Tell me.  Who.    :lol

Trump said some "magic words" the other day, relating to that horrible VA Hospital system.  He said that any vet should be able to take his/her Veteran's ID and go into any hospital or health care facility in the country and get the best care available, never mind that substandard system they are relegated to.  Music to my ears.  They deserve it. It is about time.  


I agree! I would extend your thought and say that any US citizen should be able to do that!
Emily - it is a very sad state of affairs.

What a lot of people don't understand is that if the VA finds any other medical insurance, they hit that policy first.  So, all the care is not free as is the assumption. Quality varies among the different regions of the US.

The VA is full of second rate docs or many uncommitted new docs who are often there to wipe out their tuition loans.  And have no true interest in the medical needs of vets. They have their "other hospitals" (more elite) where they intend to spend their careers.

The parking lots are full of the hacks on the weekdays, who couldn't cut red tape with a scissors if they tried, while thousands have died waiting for treatment.  And are empty on the weekend, except for the very few cars of family members who travel to visit their loved ones.  Cruise by on a weekday and then a weekend day if there is one in your vicinity.  It is a business.

They take the medicare cards and other insurance and are wholly unprepared for the injured vets coming home.   So, if vets health care was absorbed into the private medical system, the state of the art treatments for all maladies, might be better matched and more transparent, than to the VA system which has become the place of last recourse for those who have served and have not had the service returned in kind.    JMHO

At least this campaign season is getting the issue out on the table for some transparency. 
I know the deal. I was in the army. If, as I suggested above, we apply your plan for all citizens, then vets and a lot of other people who are just as valuable in life as veterans will be better off.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 12, 2015, 09:59:34 AM
:-D  Who is qualified Bubbles?  Tell me.  Who.    :lol

Trump said some "magic words" the other day, relating to that horrible VA Hospital system.  He said that any vet should be able to take his/her Veteran's ID and go into any hospital or health care facility in the country and get the best care available, never mind that substandard system they are relegated to.  Music to my ears.  They deserve it. It is about time.  
I agree! I would extend your thought and say that any US citizen should be able to do that!
Emily - it is a very sad state of affairs.

What a lot of people don't understand is that if the VA finds any other medical insurance, they hit that policy first.  So, all the care is not free as is the assumption. Quality varies among the different regions of the US.

The VA is full of second rate docs or many uncommitted new docs who are often there to wipe out their tuition loans.  And have no true interest in the medical needs of vets. They have their "other hospitals" (more elite) where they intend to spend their careers.

The parking lots are full of the hacks on the weekdays, who couldn't cut red tape with a scissors if they tried, while thousands have died waiting for treatment.  And are empty on the weekend, except for the very few cars of family members who travel to visit their loved ones.  Cruise by on a weekday and then a weekend day if there is one in your vicinity.  It is a business.

They take the medicare cards and other insurance and are wholly unprepared for the injured vets coming home.   So, if vets health care was absorbed into the private medical system, the state of the art treatments for all maladies, might be better matched and more transparent, than to the VA system which has become the place of last recourse for those who have served and have not had the service returned in kind.    JMHO

At least this campaign season is getting the issue out on the table for some transparency. 
I know the deal. I was in the army. If, as I suggested above, we apply your plan for all citizens, then vets and a lot of other people who are just as valuable in life as veterans will be better off.
First, Emily, thank you so much, for your service.  I wish I could take credit for this concept but it isn't mine. It is getting a lot of press and social media attention. And, I've spent time with family in the different VA hospitals, both days, nights, weekends, so I've had a chance to make an assessment among about 5 VA hospitals.  I learned recently that the difference between the VA and other hospitals is that it is run by "procurement" and, maybe someone with real business knowledge might be able to explain those economic concepts better. 

Second, thanks for being such a passionate BB fan. When friends of my kids went off to basic (I have two vets.) they got a BB's CDs at their going away party, so when they could use their "electronics"  they would hear the best American music ever.  While visiting one of mine at Army basic graduation, he brought me into the PX and bought me Sounds of Summer- which was a CD/DVD as I remember and he was laughing at the register saying, "I know you have all these songs already," but it was cool for him to get someone he knew I'd love. 

But, I think the vets should come first.  Without them, we would not be a free country.  They've waited at the end of the line too long.  They need to be at the front of the line.  ;)

Thanks again for your service.   :love     


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 12, 2015, 10:27:01 AM
The Beach Boys bring that peculiar sound of "home" when one is overseas.
Honestly, don't thank me too much, all I did was balance loads. Nothing scary.  :-\
And every citizen participates.
But I appreciate your sentiments and thank you for them.
And, it sounds like you've got some loved ones dealing with rough medical conditions and I'm very sorry for that.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 12, 2015, 10:31:50 AM
It's not the government's job to take care of anyone.  Only because they can't.  Neither one of those statements are opinion.  It's reality.  And it's being proven.

For example.. if I save someone's life, by pushing them out of the way of a moving car -- but I get injured as a result, am I owed something?  Was that why I did it?  I did it out of duty -- I acted without thinking, most likely... not an expectation of reward.

Food for thought.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 12, 2015, 10:40:59 AM
It's not the government's job to take care of anyone.  Only because they can't.  Neither one of those statements are opinion.  It's reality.  And it's being proven.

For example.. if I save someone's life, by pushing them out of the way of a moving car -- but I get injured as a result, am I owed something?  Was that why I did it?  I did it out of duty -- I acted without thinking, most likely... not an expectation of reward.

Food for thought.
I guess the government's job is whatever we define it to be. My definition differs from yours.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 12, 2015, 10:41:42 AM
The Beach Boys bring that peculiar sound of "home" when one is overseas.
Honestly, don't thank me too much, all I did was balance loads. Nothing scary.  :-\
And every citizen participates.
But I appreciate your sentiments and thank you for them.
And, it sounds like you've got some loved ones dealing with rough medical conditions and I'm very sorry for that.

The deal with the VA and all those different locations for service is that, they don't have specialties in each location so the vets have to travel, sometimes 50 or 100 miles to get the serviced that they can't get in a facility that handles, or should handle the range of specialties that most hospitals do under "one roof." To get all your care, you have to go to all these different locations.  So a vet could end up going to four or five hospitals to get comprehensive treatment when it should be under one roof as other hospitals are.  

A recent assessment of VA facilities, in the news, had CA (Irvine, I think) at the top.  The New England area was fourth from the bottom.  So I guess they need to become more uniform in service delivery.  

You served and that should not be minimized.  And you got through that rigorous basic training.  That is enormous. Bravo!

And, yes the BB music sounds "like home."  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 12, 2015, 10:44:39 AM
Ugh. Basic was the worst.
That's a very good point about the VA system. If a specialty is needed and the local VA doesn't provide it, they should certainly provide coverage for the patient to go to a local alternative. I certainly agree that enforced travel when local alternatives exist is an unwarranted onus. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 12, 2015, 10:49:51 AM
It's not the government's job to take care of anyone.  Only because they can't.  Neither one of those statements are opinion.  It's reality.  And it's being proven.

For example.. if I save someone's life, by pushing them out of the way of a moving car -- but I get injured as a result, am I owed something?  Was that why I did it?  I did it out of duty -- I acted without thinking, most likely... not an expectation of reward.

Food for thought.

Bean Bag - lifetime medical care part of a "benefits package" is an "inducement" for signing up for the military. It is a contract.  You put life and limb in harms way to defend the country, and if you get hurt, they have a duty to care for your medical needs.  The VA should not have to be shamed into doing their job.  They contracted to care for vets when they signed up to join the military.  It is the cost of doing business for the defense of the country.  

It is their job to provide medical care.  And, if you "change the variables" and compared being injured in the military to being injured in the workplace, you would get worker's compensation to provide care for injuries that "arose in the course of employment." Employers pay workers comp premiums.  It is the cost of doing business.

And, if you are a Good Samaritan, and get injured, our public policy finds a way of taking care of you if you have no coverage.  It is because we live in a compassionate society.  It isn't winning a vacation, it is caring for a person in need.  We are not barbarians.      ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 12, 2015, 10:54:46 AM
Ugh. Basic was the worst.
That's a very good point about the VA system. If a specialty is needed and the local VA doesn't provide it, they should certainly provide coverage for the patient to go to a local alternative. I certainly agree that enforced travel when local alternatives exist is an unwarranted onus.  

And that is why there should be a voucher-type system or a uniform health card that lets them walk into any medical facility of their choice with a doc of their choice.  And it should be as good as the Tri-Care that the Congress and the military "brass" gets.  ;)

Ya, Basic.  You did it!  ;)  


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 12, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
Ugh. Basic was the worst.
That's a very good point about the VA system. If a specialty is needed and the local VA doesn't provide it, they should certainly provide coverage for the patient to go to a local alternative. I certainly agree that enforced travel when local alternatives exist is an unwarranted onus.  

And that is why there should be a voucher-type system or a uniform health card that lets them walk into any medical facility of their choice with a doc of their choice.  And it should be as good as the Tri-Care that the Congress and the military "brass" gets.  ;)

Ya, Basic.  You did it!  ;)  
You've sold me. Ultimately, I support nationalized health care (blasphemy!) but yes, this is something that should be offered to veterans.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 12, 2015, 11:19:51 AM
Ugh. Basic was the worst.
That's a very good point about the VA system. If a specialty is needed and the local VA doesn't provide it, they should certainly provide coverage for the patient to go to a local alternative. I certainly agree that enforced travel when local alternatives exist is an unwarranted onus.  

And that is why there should be a voucher-type system or a uniform health card that lets them walk into any medical facility of their choice with a doc of their choice.  And it should be as good as the Tri-Care that the Congress and the military "brass" gets.  ;)

Ya, Basic.  You did it!  ;)  
You've sold me. Ultimately, I support nationalized health care (blasphemy!) but yes, this is something that should be offered to veterans.
And, like many "contemporaries" on this board, I'm a boomer.  Lots of us became acquainted as kids with the VA healthcare system, when our dad's went there for care.  He went to one VA hospital for one medical department, and another hospital for another medical department.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 12, 2015, 11:55:36 AM
VA is what happens when the state runs health care. And people think that if this model is extended to the entire country it will magically work. It must be great living in the fairy land of gumdrops, rainbows, and unicorns.

Or the land of every industrialized country who have, by far and away, a far more efficient health care system than the malfunctioning expensive privatized mess that is US health care.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 12, 2015, 12:18:53 PM
It's not the government's job to take care of anyone.  Only because they can't.  Neither one of those statements are opinion.  It's reality.  And it's being proven.

For example.. if I save someone's life, by pushing them out of the way of a moving car -- but I get injured as a result, am I owed something?  Was that why I did it?  I did it out of duty -- I acted without thinking, most likely... not an expectation of reward.

Food for thought.

Bean Bag - lifetime medical care part of a "benefits package" is an "inducement" for signing up for the military. It is a contract.  You put life and limb in harms way to defend the country, and if you get hurt, they have a duty to care for your medical needs.  The VA should not have to be shamed into doing their job.  They contracted to care for vets when they signed up to join the military.  It is the cost of doing business for the defense of the country.  

It is their job to provide medical care.  And, if you "change the variables" and compared being injured in the military to being injured in the workplace, you would get worker's compensation to provide care for injuries that "arose in the course of employment." Employers pay workers comp premiums.  It is the cost of doing business.

And, if you are a Good Samaritan, and get injured, our public policy finds a way of taking care of you if you have no coverage.  It is because we live in a compassionate society.  It isn't winning a vacation, it is caring for a person in need.  We are not barbarians.      ;)

Exactly, we are not barbarians.  We're the greatest, most compassionate nation to ever exist, despite Hillary's shrugging off of the whole debacle that is the VA.  The VA has been a debacle for generations.

Hillary's shrugging off is the point, though.  Only a barbarian would put their veteran's care in the hands of these people.  Haven't they suffered enough?

And I don't think the correct answer is to simply wait for a more compassionate politician to come along and fix it, and make it better.  Government, by the very Laws of Nature, cannot care for it's people.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 12, 2015, 12:21:14 PM
It's not the government's job to take care of anyone.  Only because they can't.  Neither one of those statements are opinion.  It's reality.  And it's being proven.

For example.. if I save someone's life, by pushing them out of the way of a moving car -- but I get injured as a result, am I owed something?  Was that why I did it?  I did it out of duty -- I acted without thinking, most likely... not an expectation of reward.

Food for thought.
I guess the government's job is whatever we define it to be. My definition differs from yours.

While true, I would NOT give government a "job" they cannot do.  Not one as important as caring for our Vets.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 12, 2015, 07:05:26 PM
Great debate Tuesday night.  Bad day for the opposition, cuz we actually got to learn about Republican Candidates -- rather than the Mediacrat opinion of Republican Candidates.

To not have to sit through a liberal-media gang-bang (with Democrats pretending to be moderators) was a refreshing change for the adults.  Adults discussing big, grown-up issues and solutions -- rather than the tween'er tabloid, BS-playdough the Left doodles around with.  Put the kids to bed, fix a drink(s) and be an adult for a bit.  If only for a bit...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 12, 2015, 07:31:46 PM
Ted Cruz

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_Congress.jpg)

The very mention of Lincoln's name -- sorry, Cruz's name -- causes the owning-class to shriek in terror.  Ted Cruz has been a tough candidate, and his stock is only rising.  The Republican Party just can't get rid of him.  And the Left... well, they're hoping to hell they don't have to.  They're hoping Jeb's Republicans can keep him sidelined just a little longer.

Like me (I'm only guessing, never met him) but Ted loves to be hated.  Well, by that I mean it's vindication that he's on the right track.  Like the old adage -- I want to be judged by who my enemies are.  You know... there's very little guidance in this world... 'cept from your enemies.

Anyway... Ted Cruz continues to have a lot of big debate moments.  Tee-hee.

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 13, 2015, 07:17:45 AM
Where do you think Cruz will end up?

Do you think he would be a VP candidate or post-election (I am getting ahead of myself) maybe a cabinet post?



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 14, 2015, 09:06:15 AM
Ted Cruz

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_Congress.jpg)

The very mention of Lincoln's name -- sorry, Cruz's name -- causes the owning-class to shriek in terror.  Ted Cruz has been a tough candidate, and his stock is only rising.  The Republican Party just can't get rid of him.  And the Left... well, they're hoping to hell they don't have to.  They're hoping Jeb's Republicans can keep him sidelined just a little longer.

Like me (I'm only guessing, never met him) but Ted loves to be hated.  Well, by that I mean it's vindication that he's on the right track.  Like the old adage -- I want to be judged by who my enemies are.  You know... there's very little guidance in this world... 'cept from your enemies.

Anyway... Ted Cruz continues to have a lot of big debate moments.  Tee-hee.

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)

Dear God, please let Ted Cruz be the Republican nominee!

Where do you think Cruz will end up?

Do you think he would be a VP candidate or post-election (I am getting ahead of myself) maybe a cabinet post?



He would never take a cabinet post after now being a Senator. His next job will either be President (*shudder*) or, if he decides to vacate his Senate seat, professional political asshole who writes books where he stands in front of the American flag with his arms crossed and a stern look on his face (a job also shared by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Ann Coulter, etc). He would never accept even such a prestigious position as Secretary of State. Mark my words.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 14, 2015, 09:35:03 AM
sweetdudejim - our last two Secretaries of State, Clinton and Kerry were both failed presidential candidates.  It is "where they go." It is a high profile and powerful position as you are supposed to be the "eyes and ears" of the President, in a way.  He could get any number of cabinet posts. There is still nearly a year to go.

If he loses, the party will still need to throw him a bone. If you do the job, well, the high profile status keeps you in the loop as a future candidate. He is young. He has time to "mark time" until is his "turn."

     


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on November 14, 2015, 10:02:59 AM
filledelplage - one thing that may well complicate things in this case, however, is that Sen. Cruz has made a career of making enemies within as well as outside of his party. It seems he's only slightly more palatable to the party's leadership than Trump or Carson, which to me implies that his prospects would be dimmer than the typical ex-candidate's. A Sen.-to-Sec. Clinton or Kerry fall well within the establishment they shared with their president. A Sen.-to-Sec. Cruz likely would fall outside of that (all of this, of course, assuming an establishment candidate were to end up getting the nomination and the presidency).

Sen. Cruz getting a cabinet position under an establishment candidate is pretty unlikely. I think he'd balk at a position, and I think those in position to offer it would balk at him.

There is of course the possibility that his kind of Republican becomes increasingly mainstream for that party. (I think if that would happen, it would just turn into the same kind of mainstream that happens every time a party has its little revolution, though. It's inevitable: you can't remain a rebel when you're the institution.)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 14, 2015, 10:23:02 AM
filledelplage - one thing that may well complicate things in this case, however, is that Sen. Cruz has made a career of making enemies within as well as outside of his party. It seems he's only slightly more palatable to the party's leadership than Trump or Carson, which to me implies that his prospects would be dimmer than the typical ex-candidate's. A Sen.-to-Sec. Clinton or Kerry fall well within the establishment they shared with their president. A Sen.-to-Sec. Cruz likely would fall outside of that (all of this, of course, assuming an establishment candidate were to end up getting the nomination and the presidency).

Sen. Cruz getting a cabinet position under an establishment candidate is pretty unlikely. I think he'd balk at a position, and I think those in position to offer it would balk at him.

There is of course the possibility that his kind of Republican becomes increasingly mainstream for that party. (I think if that would happen, it would just turn into the same kind of mainstream that happens every time a party has its little revolution, though. It's inevitable: you can't remain a rebel when you're the institution.)
Yes, Captain - you are correct about a lot of this.  Those are very good points you've raised.  But, this is not a "conventional" election season.  What is "outside" the norm, if it brings in a new "constituency" - in making enemies, pushes the party boundaries.  I am less familiar with Cruz than those who have come "from nowhere."  Sometimes those who are not "party liners" still become a force to be reckoned with. 

Yes, it is relative and as you say maybe more "palatable"  to the leadership, than a Trump, Carson or even, Florina. But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

A lot of Democrats are sick of the borderline socialist agenda of the party and are looking for options.  And there are a lot of Republicans from whom to choose.   It is still pretty much wide open.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on November 14, 2015, 10:25:04 AM
I find it interesting that the two leading Republican are the ones with the least amount of experience.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 10:30:12 AM
sweetdudejim - our last two Secretaries of State, Clinton and Kerry were both failed presidential candidates.  It is "where they go." It is a high profile and powerful position as you are supposed to be the "eyes and ears" of the President, in a way.  He could get any number of cabinet posts. There is still nearly a year to go.

If he loses, the party will still need to throw him a bone. If you do the job, well, the high profile status keeps you in the loop as a future candidate. He is young. He has time to "mark time" until is his "turn."

     
I think what he does depends on how quickly he wants lots of money. If he wants it now - Fox News and Best-sellers. If he can wait - then a cabinet post will earn him more potential future money and more potential cred for a future run, of course dependent on outcome.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 10:36:46 AM

A lot of Democrats are sick of the borderline socialist agenda of the party and are looking for options. 

It's strange. What you say may be true. But I'd say a lot more Democrats (and I say this from polls and opinion pieces from mainstream publications and anecdotal interactions online and in person with lots of Democrats who are not as left as I) have felt that Obama has been too conservative on fiscal and non-social domestic policy. Out of the gate, with the corporate bail-outs, he's been disappointingly Wall Streety for a lot of Democrats.
Simultaneously, throughout his presidency, Republicans have spoken of him as extremely left/socialist. It's a strange dual-perception.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on November 14, 2015, 10:39:42 AM
But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

I don't fully disagree, except on the actual point of argument, that Sen. Cruz would be that person. Again, all just assuming that we're talking about an establishment candidate who wins (so Gov. Bush or Sen. Rubio being the most realistic in that camp), that candidate would absolutely try to feign whatever the grass roots is pushing, try to incorporate factions. But that president would also need to be wary of a self-serving cabinet member who doesn't really serve the president, but himself. That's the senator's reputation to date. It's hard to imagine him deferring to the president, to the establishment, to serve in such a cabinet. My guess would be that were an establishment Republican to win, s/he'd use language familiar to fans of Trump or Cruz, and to name some cabinet members who can be identified as similar, but that's about it.

Your comment about Democrats is correct, but actually so is the exact opposite, hence the popularity of Sen. Sanders. And honestly the Democrats wouldn't behave any differently than the Republicans if they win the presidency. A President Clinton would not appoint Sen. Sanders to the cabinet. She's do what she's doing now, which is pretending to be far-left, pretending to be populist. But she wouldn't actually appoint him, or Sen. Warren, or anyone further left than them. Because major parties just don't do that.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on November 14, 2015, 10:42:10 AM

A lot of Democrats are sick of the borderline socialist agenda of the party and are looking for options. 

It's strange. What you say may be true. But I'd say a lot more Democrats (and I say this from polls and opinion pieces from mainstream publications and anecdotal interactions online and in person with lots of Democrats who are not as left as I) have felt that Obama has been too conservative on fiscal and non-social domestic policy. Out of the gate, with the corporate bail-outs, he's been disappointingly Wall Streety for a lot of Democrats.
Simultaneously, throughout his presidency, Republicans have spoken of him as extremely left/socialist. It's a strange dual-perception.


Agreed: everyone I know who self-describes as liberal believes the Democratic party--president included--is centrist or center-right, and that the Republican party is fringe right, with its Tea Party types being batshit crazy right. And those who consider themselves conservative tend to believe the Republicans are centrist, with Democrats being very liberal, with the Sanderses or Warrens being full-on socialists. Dual perception indeed.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 14, 2015, 11:01:58 AM
But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

I don't fully disagree, except on the actual point of argument, that Sen. Cruz would be that person. Again, all just assuming that we're talking about an establishment candidate who wins (so Gov. Bush or Sen. Rubio being the most realistic in that camp), that candidate would absolutely try to feign whatever the grass roots is pushing, try to incorporate factions. But that president would also need to be wary of a self-serving cabinet member who doesn't really serve the president, but himself. That's the senator's reputation to date. It's hard to imagine him deferring to the president, to the establishment, to serve in such a cabinet. My guess would be that were an establishment Republican to win, s/he'd use language familiar to fans of Trump or Cruz, and to name some cabinet members who can be identified as similar, but that's about it.

Your comment about Democrats is correct, but actually so is the exact opposite, hence the popularity of Sen. Sanders. And honestly the Democrats wouldn't behave any differently than the Republicans if they win the presidency. A President Clinton would not appoint Sen. Sanders to the cabinet. She's do what she's doing now, which is pretending to be far-left, pretending to be populist. But she wouldn't actually appoint him, or Sen. Warren, or anyone further left than them. Because major parties just don't do that.
Sanders is a wild card for the Dems. And, he just picked up an endorsement from the Postal Workers' Union.  Depending on how the "kingmakers" in the party want this to go down, he could be the VP nominee, if he keeps bringing in endorsements that translate to poll workers, money and media.  Second is the FBI investigation of Clinton. 

It is certainly interesting. People are so sick of the establishment candidates who feel they are "promoted and groomed from within" and, even if they don't have political experience, have other kinds of experience or maybe a skill set that we might need more than a career politician.

And Emily's point of the bail out...like the cash-for-clunkers program, who did that help?  Did it help the car makers more than the drivers? 

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 11:17:12 AM
But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

I don't fully disagree, except on the actual point of argument, that Sen. Cruz would be that person. Again, all just assuming that we're talking about an establishment candidate who wins (so Gov. Bush or Sen. Rubio being the most realistic in that camp), that candidate would absolutely try to feign whatever the grass roots is pushing, try to incorporate factions. But that president would also need to be wary of a self-serving cabinet member who doesn't really serve the president, but himself. That's the senator's reputation to date. It's hard to imagine him deferring to the president, to the establishment, to serve in such a cabinet. My guess would be that were an establishment Republican to win, s/he'd use language familiar to fans of Trump or Cruz, and to name some cabinet members who can be identified as similar, but that's about it.

Your comment about Democrats is correct, but actually so is the exact opposite, hence the popularity of Sen. Sanders. And honestly the Democrats wouldn't behave any differently than the Republicans if they win the presidency. A President Clinton would not appoint Sen. Sanders to the cabinet. She's do what she's doing now, which is pretending to be far-left, pretending to be populist. But she wouldn't actually appoint him, or Sen. Warren, or anyone further left than them. Because major parties just don't do that.
Sanders is a wild card for the Dems. And, he just picked up an endorsement from the Postal Workers' Union.  Depending on how the "kingmakers" in the party want this to go down, he could be the VP nominee, if he keeps bringing in endorsements that translate to poll workers, money and media.  Second is the FBI investigation of Clinton. 

It is certainly interesting. People are so sick of the establishment candidates who feel they are "promoted and groomed from within" and, even if they don't have political experience, have other kinds of experience or maybe a skill set that we might need more than a career politician.

And Emily's point of the bail out...like the cash-for-clunkers program, who did that help?  Did it help the car makers more than the drivers? 

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   
You see, from my, and a lot of Democrats perspective, it would've been better to send those funds to the demand side, not the supply side. Suggestions ranged from using the funds for public works projects with a focus on projects that bring income to lesser skilled workers, to workers in industries that were in a particular slump, and to smaller businesses around the country rather than to a few giant corporations (infrastructure repair, which we need anyway, was the most popular suggestion and would've fit the bill on all three counts);to providing better and longer unemployment compensation for those who lost work during the 2008 debacle; to extensive assistance to those facing foreclosure. Instead, the funds went directly to the supply side - the big corporations and banks. Had the funds gone to the demand side, it would've filtered to supply as it was spent on goods and services that are desired by demand (the way the economy is supposed to work). As it was, it was an unearned (even negatively earned) give away to Wall Street.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on November 14, 2015, 11:19:56 AM
filledeplage, I guess I put less faith than you in the parties doing much beyond lip service based on "what the people want." I think the people are at best a peripheral concern to the two parties.

I'd bet you neither Sanders nor Cruz will be a VP or cabinet member. Let's talk in a year!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 14, 2015, 11:26:21 AM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 14, 2015, 11:31:11 AM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 14, 2015, 11:34:41 AM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)



I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 11:41:20 AM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)


all of these are the same or subsets of the same. And, yes, not really to do with socialism.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 14, 2015, 11:47:34 AM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 14, 2015, 11:48:58 AM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)
all of these are the same or subsets of the same. And, yes, not really to do with socialism.
Socialism is both political and economic.

Purple is my favorite color!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 14, 2015, 11:53:12 AM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

No, it's not that difficult -- you defined it pretty well above and it is a pretty definitive definition. Not sure what you mean about it not having a single definition.

Quote
Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.

Wealth redistribution is not socialism neither by your definition nor any official definition of the term. If that were the definition then just about every leader in first world countries since the industrial revolution has been a raging socialist.

Like you say, socialism is about the common ownership of means of production. Moving wealth around has nothing to do with ownership.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 14, 2015, 11:54:04 AM

Socialism is both political and economic.



Politics and economics are essentially interchangeable words. Why are you separating them here and what do you mean by this?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 12:17:42 PM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.

I guess the problem with this definition in this instance, unlike when it was originally used for p**n, is that there will be a really wide variation on people's opinion on whether they are seeing it.
If the above example is socialism then, everything and anything done by the government is socialism. So, then, unless one is an anarchist, one is a socialist,


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 14, 2015, 12:18:46 PM

Socialism is both political and economic.


Politics and economics are essentially interchangeable words. Why are you separating them here and what do you mean by this?
CSM - I never thought of politics and economics as interchangeable. Maybe you're correct.  I think of politics as a type of social organization. And the manipulation of that organization to suit different factions.  But l suppose that politics can influence economics with policy making or policy changing, driven by factions or by money.  Sort of like lobbying.  

But, if you look up the definition of socialism, it gives two definitions.  One is political and one economic, and emphasizes the difficulty in defining either or both. It can be subjective and I am thinking subjectively, perhaps.

When I took a course on Constitutional Law, one Supreme Court case concerning the hard to define standard of "what is pornography," in Jacobellis v. Ohio, from 1964, Judge Potter Stewart used the expression, "I know it when I see it."  (but, hard to define)  


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 12:22:26 PM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

No, it's not that difficult -- you defined it pretty well above and it is a pretty definitive definition. Not sure what you mean about it not having a single definition.

Quote
Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.

Wealth redistribution is not socialism neither by your definition nor any official definition of the term. If that were the definition then just about every leader in first world countries since the industrial revolution has been a raging socialist.

Like you say, socialism is about the common ownership of means of production. Moving wealth around has nothing to do with ownership.
I think communism and socialism are getting conflated here.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 12:24:01 PM

Socialism is both political and economic.


Politics and economics are essentially interchangeable words. Why are you separating them here and what do you mean by this?
CSM - I never thought of politics and economics as interchangeable. Maybe you're correct.  I think of politics as a type of social organization. And the manipulation of that organization to suit different factions.  But l suppose that politics can influence economics with policy making or policy changing, driven by factions or by money.  Sort of like lobbying.  

But, if you look up the definition of socialism, it gives two definitions.  One is political and one economic, and emphasizes the difficulty in defining either or both. It can be subjective and I am thinking subjectively, perhaps.

When I took a course on Constitutional Law, one Supreme Court case concerning the hard to define standard of "what is pornography," in Jacobellis v. Ohio, from 1964, Judge Potter Stewart used the expression, "I know it when I see it."  (but, hard to define)  


Economic policy is a subset of public policy.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 14, 2015, 12:26:33 PM

Socialism is both political and economic.


Politics and economics are essentially interchangeable words. Why are you separating them here and what do you mean by this?
CSM - I never thought of politics and economics as interchangeable. Maybe you're correct.  I think of politics as a type of social organization. And the manipulation of that organization to suit different factions.  But l suppose that politics can influence economics with policy making or policy changing, driven by factions or by money.  Sort of like lobbying.  

But, if you look up the definition of socialism, it gives two definitions.  One is political and one economic, and emphasizes the difficulty in defining either or both. It can be subjective and I am thinking subjectively, perhaps.

When I took a course on Constitutional Law, one Supreme Court case concerning the hard to define standard of "what is pornography," in Jacobellis v. Ohio, from 1964, Judge Potter Stewart used the expression, "I know it when I see it."  (but, hard to define)  

Yes, but as I said, with p**n, most people agree whether or not they're seeing it. There's a gray area, but the gray area is pretty narrow. With the definition of socialism, if the cash for clunkers can be considered socialism, then that gray area is so big, that almost everything can be socialism to someone and the term is rendered meaningless.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 14, 2015, 12:40:56 PM
CSM - I never thought of politics and economics as interchangeable. Maybe you're correct.

I think there are other variables, like level of authority that is involved when one is talking about politics, which is quite apart from economic system. But otherwise I think a political system is essentially an economic one.

Quote
But, if you look up the definition of socialism, it gives two definitions.  One is political and one economic, and emphasizes the difficulty in defining either or both. It can be subjective and I am thinking subjectively, perhaps.

Where are you looking up the definition? You have to remember that the definition of socialism has been wildly distorted by decades upon decades of intense propaganda. Contemporary definitions of socialism in say, a mainstream dictionary usually define socialism in the same way that one would define capitalism in direct opposition to Adam Smith's theory. And if it were the case that someone would define a term in opposition to the way the term was essentially defined in the first place, then we'd have to conclude that this new definition is false. That's what tends to be the case when one looks up definitions of socialism. Ultimately, socialism means that workers own the means of production. It categorically does not mean wealth redistribution.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 14, 2015, 12:42:11 PM
Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. ;)


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

No, it's not that difficult -- you defined it pretty well above and it is a pretty definitive definition. Not sure what you mean about it not having a single definition.

Quote
Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.

Wealth redistribution is not socialism neither by your definition nor any official definition of the term. If that were the definition then just about every leader in first world countries since the industrial revolution has been a raging socialist.

Like you say, socialism is about the common ownership of means of production. Moving wealth around has nothing to do with ownership.
I think communism and socialism are getting conflated here.

You're right -- I should have said collective and co-operative rather than common.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 15, 2015, 10:40:40 AM
I find it interesting that the two leading Republican are the ones with the least amount of experience.

It is interesting, I agree.  And it is exactly the kind of experience they lack, that is giving them the lead.  Or so I believe.

Nothing new.  You saw it in 08, with the Turd, Al-Obama.  He brought the country unfettered radicalism of the Leftward Collegiate variety.  One of the worst strains, I've always believed.  And now, people hope, these two Republican leading candidates will offer something equally strong in the ANYTHING BUT direction.  There's very little patience for the big-money, heavily managed, empty suits types like Jeb.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 15, 2015, 10:54:05 AM
Snooze-fest Dem debate last night, BTW.  Regarding national security, all we got was a lot of corporate-slogans --

"we need to better."
"we need to have better."
"we need to work with the world better."

Wow.  Inspiring.  I'd feel safe with one of those dunces calling the shots.

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/30acbe7/2147483647/resize/1160x>/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F6f%2F24%2F7eaff5e74b108bec394f76d2733e%2F151113-clinton-sanders-omalley-ap-1160.jpg)


Here's my quick analysis...  :P
Bernie Sander:  I take back everything nice I'd ever about "The Bern." In your best Yogi Bear voice, just say "Climate Change" with your hands up in the air.  What a loon.
O'Mally:  Oh boy.  I'll just be nice and say "light weight."
Hillary:  With this competition, if I were her, I wouldn't get too comfortable.  Because there's a REAL good chance that Jeb isn't going to be your opponent.  I'll leave it at that.

Talk about JV squad.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 15, 2015, 11:18:28 AM
There's very little patience for the big-money, heavily managed, empty suits types like Jeb.

Yet Beans will happily vote for Jeb? after he carpetbombs all the other Republicans in a scorched earth primary and wins the nomination. Somehow Jeb?'s empty suit will then seem presidential.

Odd.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 16, 2015, 03:19:09 PM
Ted Cruz

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_Congress.jpg)

Ted Cruz is awesome. Anybody up for a few reasons for why he's so awesome?

Anyways, first he, according to the NY Times, had a "stint in the policy shop of George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, a dynastic enterprise that was as pure an expression of the Republican establishment’s wishes as could be."

So yeah, Rafi is super anti-establishment. Right.

He also can't stand how stupid and liberal Supreme Court Justice (and two time Obamacare constitutionality advocate) John Roberts is. Except for the fact that the NY Times pointed out how "there’s rarely mention of his role in recruiting John Roberts, who would later get a seat on the Supreme Court, to the legal team doing battle for Bush during the 2000 Florida recount. No, that would undercut his rants now about Roberts’s insufficiently pure conservatism as the high court’s chief justice."

Whoopsie!

Lastly, Rafi is a regular guy. No big freakin' elitist! He's a man of the people. Yet, in a GQ article by Jason Zengerle it was pointed out that Cruz was known at Harvard Law School for a reluctance to “study with anyone who hadn’t been an undergrad at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale."

Shoot, the NY Times pointed out how one of Cruz’s law-school roommates, Damon Watson, told Zengerle: “He said he didn’t want anybody from ‘minor Ivies’ like Penn or Brown.”

Gosh, that doesn't seem elitist at all. I mean, I know none of us would wanna associate with the minor Ivies either! Yuck. What low class idiot scumbags.

So yeah, Ted Cruz is the real deal. And liberals are shaking in their boots at the thought of him running.

Go Ted!

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 16, 2015, 05:00:00 PM
Apparently quality image management (my current posting theme) is the most important qualification to be president.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 17, 2015, 12:49:46 PM
Sure is weird that certain posters disappear when facts are presented that contrast with the fairy tales they are trying to push on us.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Bean Bag on November 19, 2015, 04:50:02 AM
Wow, look who's back!  It's sweetdudjim!  Talk about disappearing acts. My oh my. Why i havent seen him since he lost that election. Way to get back on that horse!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on November 19, 2015, 06:08:38 AM
I really don't think he has a chance, but as a Maryland native, I can honestly say if Martin O'Malley were to get elected, I would seriously consider heading north to Canada. 

I find it comical that he tries to list "accomplishments" as Governor of Maryland. 

-Turning a budget surplus into a deficit almost overnight.  And still operating with a deficit despite high taxes and revenues from recently legalized gambling. 

-Raising tolls and taxes on everything, including the rain!!!!



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on November 19, 2015, 06:12:29 AM
They don't call him "Owe'Malley" for nothing. But to the liberal masses, he's too conservative for them. He's not Bernie Sanders (not that he has a chance, either).


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 19, 2015, 06:24:23 AM
They don't call him "Owe'Malley" for nothing. But to the liberal masses, he's too conservative for them. He's not Bernie Sanders (not that he has a chance, either).
ÖweMalley"-now that is funny! :lol

Dems are so desperate for a non-leftist. Those three?

But, anyone moderate or fiscally conservative as  is instantly blackballed in the party.

They need a couple of losses to get the message.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 19, 2015, 06:31:31 AM
Wow, look who's back!  It's sweetdudjim!  Talk about disappearing acts. My oh my. Why i havent seen him since he lost that election. Way to get back on that horse!

Weird that you had not opinion on the proof that Ted Cruz is a fraudulent, elitist piece of sh*t. Very surprising that you'd ignore it.

And yeah, I "lost an election." In your mind.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on November 19, 2015, 06:33:58 AM
They don't call him "Owe'Malley" for nothing. But to the liberal masses, he's too conservative for them. He's not Bernie Sanders (not that he has a chance, either).
ÖweMalley"-now that is funny! :lol

Dems are so desperate for a non-leftist. Those three?

But, anyone moderate or fiscally conservative as  is instantly blackballed in the party.

They need a couple of losses to get the message.  ;)

My wife and I actually changed our affiliations to Democrat, temporarily, for the sole purpose of voting against O' Malley in the primaries. 

Even registered Democrats in Maryland have turned their backs on him.  I think his most recent MD approval rating was around 2%. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 19, 2015, 08:55:04 AM

Dems are so desperate for a non-leftist.

I assure you, this, while it may be true for some, is not for most.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 19, 2015, 09:20:23 AM

Dems are so desperate for a non-leftist.

I assure you, this, while it may be true for some, is not for most.
Many I know are looking for alternatives this election. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 20, 2015, 05:25:28 AM
Ted Cruz

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_Congress.jpg)

The very mention of Lincoln's name -- sorry, Cruz's name -- causes the owning-class to shriek in terror.  Ted Cruz has been a tough candidate, and his stock is only rising.  The Republican Party just can't get rid of him.  And the Left... well, they're hoping to hell they don't have to.  They're hoping Jeb's Republicans can keep him sidelined just a little longer.

Like me (I'm only guessing, never met him) but Ted loves to be hated.  Well, by that I mean it's vindication that he's on the right track.  Like the old adage -- I want to be judged by who my enemies are.  You know... there's very little guidance in this world... 'cept from your enemies.

Anyway... Ted Cruz continues to have a lot of big debate moments.  Tee-hee.

(http://www.americanflagstore.com/media/catalog/category/outdoor-american-flag.jpg)
BB - Ted Cruz has filed a bill, following the lead of the UK, Norway, Australia Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Canada, (who have enumerated offenses such as spying, treason and terrorism) to strip citizenship of those who leave to fight as terrorists.  The Uk has had a law on the books called the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. 

Cruz just got my attention.  It will be interesting how this goes down.   ;)   


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on November 20, 2015, 03:57:21 PM
I saw Cruz on an episode of Louder with Crowder last night. He's not Rand Paul but a close second. His taste in music is good as well.

I got a big kick out of him saying that his favorite film is The Princess Bride.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 21, 2015, 10:22:01 AM
I saw Cruz on an episode of Louder with Crowder last night. He's not Rand Paul but a close second. His taste in music is good as well.

I got a big kick out of him saying that his favorite film is The Princess Bride.

Is it? Last time I heard him talking about music he was saying he abandoned the entire genre of "rock music" because "he didn't like how they responded" to 9/11. And instead "converted" to country music. Sounds like a guy that's full of sh*t when it comes to his music taste.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 21, 2015, 10:49:52 AM
I saw Cruz on an episode of Louder with Crowder last night. He's not Rand Paul but a close second. His taste in music is good as well.

I got a big kick out of him saying that his favorite film is The Princess Bride.

Is it? Last time I heard him talking about music he was saying he abandoned the entire genre of "rock music" because "he didn't like how they responded" to 9/11. And instead "converted" to country music. Sounds like a guy that's full of sh*t when it comes to his music taste.
Wait. Did ha really say that? I don't think I'm going to stop laughing for a week. Everyone's going to think I'm a maniac.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on November 21, 2015, 10:52:32 AM
He sure did.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on November 21, 2015, 10:57:46 AM
He sure did.
That's awesome.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on November 21, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
I saw Cruz on an episode of Louder with Crowder last night. He's not Rand Paul but a close second. His taste in music is good as well.

I got a big kick out of him saying that his favorite film is The Princess Bride.

A little dorky but, really sweet that he likes the Princess Bride...he sounds like a romantic...It is very disarming. 

There are so many candidates that it is hard to get to know what their positions are. 





Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on November 21, 2015, 09:08:41 PM
There are so many candidates that it is hard to get to know what their positions are. 

Yeah, if only there was a way to access sites which gave you information about all of the candidates.

Shoot...


If only...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on January 30, 2016, 11:32:20 AM
So, how do we feel about Trump's plan for a universal health care system


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on January 30, 2016, 11:37:34 AM
So, how do we feel about Trump's plan for a universal health care system
Every cloud has a silver lining.
He's a demagogue so he found support by people who love demagogues and don't really think about whether his philosophy or goals align with the ones their last favorite demagogue supported.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 30, 2016, 01:04:19 PM
A dimestore demagogue at that. This is a celebrity running for president. ::)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on January 30, 2016, 01:12:11 PM
A dimestore demagogue at that. This is a celebrity running for president. ::)

Well, it worked for Ronald Reagan.

And don't forget what my home state did with Arnold Schwarzenegger.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on January 30, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
Reagan didn't make the direct leap of celebrity to presidential candidate, though. He got involved in politics as a corporate speaker, then obviously was a two-term governor in California.

A Trump presidency would be unprecedented, unless I'm mistaken: he'd be the only president ever to have no previous political or military experience. Hopefully Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for him.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 01:28:08 PM
Reagan didn't make the direct leap of celebrity to presidential candidate, though. He got involved in politics as a corporate speaker, then obviously was a two-term governor in California.

A Trump presidency would be unprecedented, unless I'm mistaken: he'd be the only president ever to have no previous political or military experience. Hopefully Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for him.

That is true, captain, but he came into office after a similar weak presidency with Carter and having multiple American hostages.  

Reagan did get involved in the system before running, you're right. .  

This country was not in the same sad state of affairs that is in now.  

So did many others like Sonny Bono, run after being in entertainment.

It should not preclude a person from running for office after being in entertainment,  after being bitten by the "public service" bug.    ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on January 30, 2016, 01:35:27 PM
Reagan didn't make the direct leap of celebrity to presidential candidate, though. He got involved in politics as a corporate speaker, then obviously was a two-term governor in California.

A Donald "I think I am a nice person" Trump presidency would be unprecedented, unless I'm mistaken: he'd be the only president ever to have no previous political or military experience. Hopefully Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for him.

Now, now, Captain. We all know that Trump has "always felt that [he] was in the military" thanks to his military-themed boarding school and "because [he] dealt with those people." He'll have you know that he has had "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military." Maybe you'll consider that before you go running your mouth off next time.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 30, 2016, 01:38:34 PM
Trump will leave the Republican Party in ruins like every other group of people he has dealt with. This guy gets his money and leaves others to pick up the wreckage.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on January 30, 2016, 06:01:52 PM
I'm just glad that Bernie's really caught up, and putting Hillary in serious trouble......


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 07:07:17 AM
I'm just glad that Bernie's really caught up, and putting Hillary in serious trouble......

And Ben and Jerry's formulated an ice cream flavor for him and both of them are out on "the stump" for Bernie. 

Who would have thought that he would do so well?  All he needs is for O'Malley's people to commit to him.

It will be an interesting week.  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on February 01, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
Seems that Ted Cruz has won on the Republican side of the Iowa Caucus. On the Democratic side, O'Malley's finally dropped out and it's virtually a tie between Sanders and Clinton with no clear winner as of yet (fingers crossed for Sanders!)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 01, 2016, 10:32:55 PM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on February 01, 2016, 10:43:48 PM
(http://s30.postimg.org/qjomo0c9t/ouch.png)

Ouch.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on February 01, 2016, 11:02:25 PM
Loser.com (http://Loser.com)

huh


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: ZenobiaUnchained on February 02, 2016, 12:35:34 AM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.

Trump's gonna be our next president. Im calling it now. Not that Im happy about it. Anyway, one minor loss wont stop him. Iowa was one of the few states he was expected to lose. Hell win NH and keep going strong


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on February 02, 2016, 01:14:33 AM
At this point from what I've observed all I can really say is that we really should expect the unexpected. You never really know what's going to happen. Just look at Jeb Bush for instance. He went from a potential front-runner to an all but forgotten candidate


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: ZenobiaUnchained on February 02, 2016, 03:35:36 AM
Yes, and that was due to Trump dominating him at every debate, drilling the phrase "low energy" into him so hard he ought to have it tattooed on his forehead, and showing him up for the putz he always was. Nobody wanted another Bush and it was viscerally satisfying to watch Trump eviscerate him whether you like Trump or not. I think there IS a clear theme here, that people are sick of the same business as usual, gridlocked, phony, bought and paid for politicians. Thats why an independent who styles himself a Socialist and an outsider like Trump are doing so much better than anyone thought. Unfortunately, Bernie's campaign was sort of stonewalled by media blackout and his own lack of charisma. This was offset by people liking his policies, his passion and genuineness but not enough to get him the nomination Im predicting. Trump is a genius, whether you like him or not. The way he has run his campaign has been totally masterful and there will be books written about it, analyzing it, for decades after this. He has completely dominated the media, controlled the narrative at times (skipping the debate and making it irrelevant in the process for example), and demolished any candidates or moderators who tried to stop him. While I agree with Megan Kelly's points against him, she even got a new more masculine haircut after he called her a bimbo, for example. And Jeb started the attacks against the two in the first debate, he just had no idea what he was unleashing. After that, many were reluctant to criticize Trump in the debates or suffer the same.

I urge everyone to read Scott Adams blog. Its not amazing, but hes a trained hypnotist who knows about the art of persuasion and how people can be manipulated on a subconscious level. He's been analyzing Trump's moves from day one, from an objective standpoint--he doesnt support the policies so its not blind fanboyism. I dislike most of his policies too, and would have wanted Bernie, but on an objective level Im fascinated by what Trump has done and since it seems inevitable to me at this point, Ive resigned myself to enjoy the show. Anyway, think what you want about him, but hes not beholden to anyone and is doing a great job reforming the long irrelevant, often embarassing Republican party. What won me over to start studying him rather than call him a joke was how he skipped the last debate and stuck it to Fox. That, and he's run a great campaign, one of the most effective Ive seen in my life time if not the most.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on February 02, 2016, 05:56:21 AM
Seems that Ted Cruz has won on the Republican side of the Iowa Caucus. On the Democratic side, O'Malley's finally dropped out and it's virtually a tie between Sanders and Clinton with no clear winner as of yet (fingers crossed for Sanders!)

I guess Owe Malley finally saw the writing on the wall. 

Since there'll be no need to vote against him in the primaries, I can change my affiliation back to Republican. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 06:42:30 AM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.
Good ol' boys is right.  They won't want either Bernie or Trump. 

If Bernie was smart, he would have Ben and Jerry handing out ice cream samples at the polls. They are rock stars in their own right.  :lol

It beats all those trees that are cut down for that propaganda they shove in your face at the polls. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 06:56:00 AM
Loser.com (http://Loser.com)

huh
Real out-loud laughter here.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 07:00:22 AM
Yes, and that was due to Trump dominating him at every debate, drilling the phrase "low energy" into him so hard he ought to have it tattooed on his forehead, and showing him up for the putz he always was. Nobody wanted another Bush and it was viscerally satisfying to watch Trump eviscerate him whether you like Trump or not. I think there IS a clear theme here, that people are sick of the same business as usual, gridlocked, phony, bought and paid for politicians. Thats why an independent who styles himself a Socialist and an outsider like Trump are doing so much better than anyone thought. Unfortunately, Bernie's campaign was sort of stonewalled by media blackout and his own lack of charisma. This was offset by people liking his policies, his passion and genuineness but not enough to get him the nomination Im predicting. Trump is a genius, whether you like him or not. The way he has run his campaign has been totally masterful and there will be books written about it, analyzing it, for decades after this. He has completely dominated the media, controlled the narrative at times (skipping the debate and making it irrelevant in the process for example), and demolished any candidates or moderators who tried to stop him. While I agree with Megan Kelly's points against him, she even got a new more masculine haircut after he called her a bimbo, for example. And Jeb started the attacks against the two in the first debate, he just had no idea what he was unleashing. After that, many were reluctant to criticize Trump in the debates or suffer the same.

I urge everyone to read Scott Adams blog. Its not amazing, but hes a trained hypnotist who knows about the art of persuasion and how people can be manipulated on a subconscious level. He's been analyzing Trump's moves from day one, from an objective standpoint--he doesnt support the policies so its not blind fanboyism. I dislike most of his policies too, and would have wanted Bernie, but on an objective level Im fascinated by what Trump has done and since it seems inevitable to me at this point, Ive resigned myself to enjoy the show. Anyway, think what you want about him, but hes not beholden to anyone and is doing a great job reforming the long irrelevant, often embarassing Republican party. What won me over to start studying him rather than call him a joke was how he skipped the last debate and stuck it to Fox. That, and he's run a great campaign, one of the most effective Ive seen in my life time if not the most.
I don't really think of Trump as much different from all the other populist demagogues who have gotten a grouchy public's attention throughout history. It's always effective when played to the right crowd at the right time. He's been doing the same schtick since the 80s but the time is right for it to catch on.
How can a haircut have a gender?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 07:01:53 AM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.
Good ol' boys is right.  They won't want either Bernie or Trump. 

If Bernie was smart, he would have Ben and Jerry handing out ice cream samples at the polls. They are rock stars in their own right.  :lol

It beats all those trees that are cut down for that propaganda they shove in your face at the polls. 
Yeah. It's way better to kill cows than trees.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 07:23:20 AM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.
Good ol' boys is right.  They won't want either Bernie or Trump. 

If Bernie was smart, he would have Ben and Jerry handing out ice cream samples at the polls. They are rock stars in their own right.  :lol

It beats all those trees that are cut down for that propaganda they shove in your face at the polls. 
Yeah. It's way better to kill cows than trees.
Wow.

Dairy is a great American business.  And it would be a great campaign strategy.

And, if that comparison is to be made. 

Better cows (Ben and Jerry's) than babies (Planned Parenthood.)

Nursing mothers don't die as a result of feeding their young.   ;)
 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 07:28:11 AM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.
Good ol' boys is right.  They won't want either Bernie or Trump. 

If Bernie was smart, he would have Ben and Jerry handing out ice cream samples at the polls. They are rock stars in their own right.  :lol

It beats all those trees that are cut down for that propaganda they shove in your face at the polls. 
Yeah. It's way better to kill cows than trees.
Wow.

Dairy is a great American business.  And it would be a great campaign strategy.

And, if that comparison is to be made. 

Better cows (Ben and Jerry's) than babies (Planned Parenthood.)

Nursing mothers don't die as a result of feeding their young.   ;)
 
Like a lot of 'great' American businesses it's unhealthy for the consumers and the planet.
In order to have a nursing mother, including a cow producing milk, you have to have a baby. What do you think happens to all those calves? Dairy farmers don't double their cattle populations annually and nobody wants that many bulls.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 08:36:28 AM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.
Good ol' boys is right.  They won't want either Bernie or Trump. 

If Bernie was smart, he would have Ben and Jerry handing out ice cream samples at the polls. They are rock stars in their own right.  :lol

It beats all those trees that are cut down for that propaganda they shove in your face at the polls. 
Yeah. It's way better to kill cows than trees.
Wow.

Dairy is a great American business.  And it would be a great campaign strategy.

And, if that comparison is to be made. 

Better cows (Ben and Jerry's) than babies (Planned Parenthood.)

Nursing mothers don't die as a result of feeding their young.   ;)
 
Like a lot of 'great' American businesses it's unhealthy for the consumers and the planet.
In order to have a nursing mother, including a cow producing milk, you have to have a baby. What do you think happens to all those calves? Dairy farmers don't double their cattle populations annually and nobody wants that many bulls.
Emily - I do not buy into this global warming theory. Nor do I believe in cap and trade. The science was manipulated by the EPA.  I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate but was only subject to few very controlled public hearings leading up to Paris under an accelerated schedule to manage the opposition and prefer one energy industry over another.   What I support is wind and solar energy to remove dependency on foreign oil. 

You would not agree with my position. 

The agribusiness can control means and methods for animal development to use as a food source.  And they should. 

And, I meant human nursing mothers.  If there is an area to start, for correction in my opinion, it is the infant formula business, that shoved free packs of formula at mothers, with which the hospitals cooperated, providing expensive and less healthy means of nourishment for infants and children, in much the same way the tobacco industry used candy cigarettes and real ones put into children's hands to foster an unhealthy lifestyle.    JMHO

 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 08:46:38 AM

Emily - I do not buy into this global warming theory. Nor do I believe in cap and trade. The science was manipulated by the EPA.  I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate but was only subject to few very controlled public hearings leading up to Paris under an accelerated schedule to manage the opposition and prefer one energy industry over another.   What I support is wind and solar energy to remove dependency on foreign oil. 

You would not agree with my position. 

The agribusiness can control means and methods for animal development to use as a food source.  And they should. 

And, I meant human nursing mothers.  If there is an area to start, for correction in my opinion, it is the infant formula business, that shoved free packs of formula at mothers, with which the hospitals cooperated, providing expensive and less healthy means of nourishment for infants and children, in much the same way the tobacco industry used candy cigarettes and real ones put into children's hands to foster an unhealthy lifestyle.    JMHO

 
I'm not sure what the antecedent for 'it' is in this sentence, so I can't really respond:
"I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate..."

Regarding formula marketing, I wholly agree with you!   :woot


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 09:02:55 AM

Emily - I do not buy into this global warming theory. Nor do I believe in cap and trade. The science was manipulated by the EPA.  I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate but was only subject to few very controlled public hearings leading up to Paris under an accelerated schedule to manage the opposition and prefer one energy industry over another.   What I support is wind and solar energy to remove dependency on foreign oil. 

You would not agree with my position. 

The agribusiness can control means and methods for animal development to use as a food source.  And they should. 

And, I meant human nursing mothers.  If there is an area to start, for correction in my opinion, it is the infant formula business, that shoved free packs of formula at mothers, with which the hospitals cooperated, providing expensive and less healthy means of nourishment for infants and children, in much the same way the tobacco industry used candy cigarettes and real ones put into children's hands to foster an unhealthy lifestyle.    JMHO 
I'm not sure what the antecedent for 'it' is in this sentence, so I can't really respond:
"I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate..."

Regarding formula marketing, I wholly agree with you!   :woot



And big tobacco?  Huh?

My thoughts would start be to start, with infant nutrition,  and education, and really get on top of agribusiness. (That would take a week of discussion, just for HFCS - high fructose corn syrup)

It is hard to fight a million battles and win them all. I like targeting a few that can be accomplished well and not glossed over, to be PC.  (not an insult, by the way)  :lol






Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on February 02, 2016, 09:30:51 AM
I can't say I'm shocked. They're looking for good ol' boys and they're gonna get 'em. I smell a Cruz v. Hillary in 2016. Gods help us.
Good ol' boys is right.  They won't want either Bernie or Trump. 

If Bernie was smart, he would have Ben and Jerry handing out ice cream samples at the polls. They are rock stars in their own right.  :lol

It beats all those trees that are cut down for that propaganda they shove in your face at the polls. 
Yeah. It's way better to kill cows than trees.
Wow.

Dairy is a great American business.  And it would be a great campaign strategy.

And, if that comparison is to be made. 

Better cows (Ben and Jerry's) than babies (Planned Parenthood.)

Nursing mothers don't die as a result of feeding their young.   ;)
 
Like a lot of 'great' American businesses it's unhealthy for the consumers and the planet.
In order to have a nursing mother, including a cow producing milk, you have to have a baby. What do you think happens to all those calves? Dairy farmers don't double their cattle populations annually and nobody wants that many bulls.
Emily - I do not buy into this global warming theory. Nor do I believe in cap and trade. The science was manipulated by the EPA.  I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate but was only subject to few very controlled public hearings leading up to Paris under an accelerated schedule to manage the opposition and prefer one energy industry over another.   What I support is wind and solar energy to remove dependency on foreign oil. 

You would not agree with my position. 

The agribusiness can control means and methods for animal development to use as a food source.  And they should. 

And, I meant human nursing mothers.  If there is an area to start, for correction in my opinion, it is the infant formula business, that shoved free packs of formula at mothers, with which the hospitals cooperated, providing expensive and less healthy means of nourishment for infants and children, in much the same way the tobacco industry used candy cigarettes and real ones put into children's hands to foster an unhealthy lifestyle.    JMHO

 

Just last week, we were shoveling and plowing two and a half week of global warming. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 09:46:29 AM

Emily - I do not buy into this global warming theory. Nor do I believe in cap and trade. The science was manipulated by the EPA.  I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate but was only subject to few very controlled public hearings leading up to Paris under an accelerated schedule to manage the opposition and prefer one energy industry over another.   What I support is wind and solar energy to remove dependency on foreign oil. 

You would not agree with my position. 

The agribusiness can control means and methods for animal development to use as a food source.  And they should. 

And, I meant human nursing mothers.  If there is an area to start, for correction in my opinion, it is the infant formula business, that shoved free packs of formula at mothers, with which the hospitals cooperated, providing expensive and less healthy means of nourishment for infants and children, in much the same way the tobacco industry used candy cigarettes and real ones put into children's hands to foster an unhealthy lifestyle.    JMHO 
I'm not sure what the antecedent for 'it' is in this sentence, so I can't really respond:
"I would use science in quotes because it was not subject to vigorous debate..."

Regarding formula marketing, I wholly agree with you!   :woot



And big tobacco?  Huh?

My thoughts would start be to start, with infant nutrition,  and education, and really get on top of agribusiness. (That would take a week of discussion, just for HFCS - high fructose corn syrup)

It is hard to fight a million battles and win them all. I like targeting a few that can be accomplished well and not glossed over, to be PC.  (not an insult, by the way)  :lol

The wonder is that I suspect I agree with you on everything you mentioned in this post! It's a Groundhog Day miracle!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on February 03, 2016, 12:34:35 PM
This is really sad (https://vine.co/v/iJrvE0H1e2h)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 03, 2016, 12:44:17 PM
This is really sad (https://vine.co/v/iJrvE0H1e2h)

Not to sound like a Bush supporter, which I'm not by a long shot (though if you'd told me a year ago I'd dislike half a dozen candidates more than I disliked him, I'd have bee shocked), but I don't think it's as bad as it's being painted. People are saying he was "begging" the crowd to clap, that it was pathetic. I think it just wasn't clear he was done. I'd bet he meant it almost as a little joke. Like, "Yeah, I'm done. Clap." Not like a "love me, love me, please clap or I'll be sad."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on February 03, 2016, 10:35:59 PM
Rand Paul and Rick Santorum are both history as well.... Shame about the former, thought he was the most decent Republican by far.....


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on February 04, 2016, 05:22:40 AM
If John Kasich can make this happen, he's got my vote:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-kasich-pink-floyd/

(Before anyone flips out, I say this purely in jest.  I would not vote for anybody for a four year term based solely of the slim chance of a four song set by my favorite band). 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 04, 2016, 10:23:41 AM
If John Kasich can make this happen, he's got my vote:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-kasich-pink-floyd/

(Before anyone flips out, I say this purely in jest.  I would not vote for anybody for a four year term based solely of the slim chance of a four song set by my favorite band). 

You stupid dirty so-and-so, how dare you!? 😉

(And before anyone ELSE flips out, I'd never go crazy on someone just for liking such a mediocre band enough to vote for one of the less offensive Republican candidates. KDS can keep his Floyd, I'll keep my ear worms and Queen's Hot Space, and we're all good!)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on February 04, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
If John Kasich can make this happen, he's got my vote:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-kasich-pink-floyd/

(Before anyone flips out, I say this purely in jest.  I would not vote for anybody for a four year term based solely of the slim chance of a four song set by my favorite band). 

You stupid dirty so-and-so, how dare you!? 😉

(And before anyone ELSE flips out, I'd never go crazy on someone just for liking such a mediocre band enough to vote for one of the less offensive Republican candidates. KDS can keep his Floyd, I'll keep my ear worms and Queen's Hot Space, and we're all good!)

Ha Ha.  If you take Hot Space, I'll take the rest of Queen's catalog.  :) 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 04, 2016, 01:14:44 PM
If John Kasich can make this happen, he's got my vote:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-kasich-pink-floyd/

(Before anyone flips out, I say this purely in jest.  I would not vote for anybody for a four year term based solely of the slim chance of a four song set by my favorite band). 

You stupid dirty so-and-so, how dare you!? 😉

(And before anyone ELSE flips out, I'd never go crazy on someone just for liking such a mediocre band enough to vote for one of the less offensive Republican candidates. KDS can keep his Floyd, I'll keep my ear worms and Queen's Hot Space, and we're all good!)

Ha Ha.  If you take Hot Space, I'll take the rest of Queen's catalog.  :) 

Let the record show that I did NOT agree to that!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on February 04, 2016, 01:17:20 PM
If John Kasich can make this happen, he's got my vote:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-kasich-pink-floyd/

(Before anyone flips out, I say this purely in jest.  I would not vote for anybody for a four year term based solely of the slim chance of a four song set by my favorite band). 

You stupid dirty so-and-so, how dare you!? 😉

(And before anyone ELSE flips out, I'd never go crazy on someone just for liking such a mediocre band enough to vote for one of the less offensive Republican candidates. KDS can keep his Floyd, I'll keep my ear worms and Queen's Hot Space, and we're all good!)

Ha Ha.  If you take Hot Space, I'll take the rest of Queen's catalog.  :) 

Let the record show that I did NOT agree to that!

I don't blame you, it's not a fair trade at all.  Maybe if I included the Flash Gordon album.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 04, 2016, 01:32:48 PM
I think I was the only person who had seen that movie in my theater when it was parodied in "Ted" :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 04, 2016, 02:46:25 PM
Rand Paul and Rick Santorum are both history as well.... Shame about the former, thought he was the most decent Republican by far.....

Regarding Sen. Paul, I hope his exit from the race leads to him returning to his pre-campaign (or pre-pre-campaign?) shift toward the GOP mainstream. I couldn't see myself ever voting for him or someone who agrees with him on most things, but I think the country can use more viewpoints on issues than The Big Two, and Sen. Paul, like his dad, is good for that. He shows how conservatism isn't necessarily a single thing. Any- and everything that helps break up the monolith (dualith?) of American politics is valuable.

The senate needs more Sanderses and more Pauls (and plenty of other diverse voices).

Regarding Santorum...the best I can say is he seemed to presage this cycle's Republican vibe: newfound populist rhetoric coupled with the hawkish talk and obligatory religiosity. He was hitched to that wagon last time around, when populism wasn't yet so prominent in the mix. But he has been overshadowed by his, uh, louder colleagues.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 04, 2016, 02:50:40 PM
I fail to see what about Rand Paul's positions is extreme despite the constant blabbing of leftists on the subject.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 04, 2016, 03:01:07 PM
I don't mean to say he began or became extreme. Just that he was different than the mainstream party, especially before his run. His foreign policy positions, for example. Or his NSA / surveillance position. Being an early champion of reform of prison sentencing, for another. On things like that, he differed from his party, which is refreshing. I like when people can explain some coherent set of ideas and ideals (ideally without calling names), and the more of those discussed, the better the outcome. At least that's kind of the idea of democracy...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on February 05, 2016, 08:18:00 AM
I fail to see what about Rand Paul's positions is extreme despite the constant blabbing of leftists on the subject.

Actually I think he became a major sellout. I really was into a lot of what he stood for. And then as it became time for him to gear up to run for president, all of a sudden he became buddies with the heinous Mitch McConnell and started insinuating that he wasn't so anti-war as he seemed, and started doing things like speeches on aircraft carriers where he touted how tough he would be.

A major disappointment, all in all. Hopefully, if and when he runs again he will be truer to himself. Instead of dumbing his sh*t down to the level that most of the douchebag Republicans like.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 05, 2016, 10:03:22 AM
A friend of mine who is also a supporter of Rand called it "playing politics" to become popular with the mainstream GOP. I don't see the mainstream GOP coming around to those kinds of positions even if it means votes. Of course, I always considered Rand a much worse version of his father. I'll give Rand credit for trying to appeal more openly to women and minorities; no other GOP politician has tried to do that. But the same reason a guy like Rand would never get the nomination is why Trump and Sanders would receive similar treatment. Both major parties want "good old boys" as their nominees. Admittedly that's one thing I respect about Sanders despite disagreeing heavily with his economic policies. He's not a "good old boy" and that rustles the DWSocrats so bad. He's unelectable as long as Debbie Wasserman Schultz controls the Democratic strings.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on February 05, 2016, 11:49:43 AM
A friend of mine who is also a supporter of Rand called it "playing politics" to become popular with the mainstream GOP. I don't see the mainstream GOP coming around to those kinds of positions even if it means votes. Of course, I always considered Rand a much worse version of his father. I'll give Rand credit for trying to appeal more openly to women and minorities; no other GOP politician has tried to do that. But the same reason a guy like Rand would never get the nomination is why Donald "Some, I assume, are good people" Trump and Sanders would receive similar treatment. Both major parties want "good old boys" as their nominees. Admittedly that's one thing I respect about Sanders despite disagreeing heavily with his economic policies. He's not a "good old boy" and that rustles the DWSocrats so bad. He's unelectable as long as Debbie Wasserman Schultz controls the Democratic strings.

This year seems to be the people's favorite vs. the establishment's favorite on both sides.
It will be interesting to see what happens.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: DonnyL on February 05, 2016, 04:18:23 PM
It'll be Trump vs. Bernie, and Bernie will win.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 05, 2016, 04:29:29 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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 05, 2016, 05:12:28 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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 05, 2016, 07:57:18 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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain 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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. 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.

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/97e3bd5/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F70%2F60%2F5dc0a722400a9ac748216e4b9874%2F020616-marco-rubio-gty-1160.jpg)

"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???"


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain 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.)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 08:28:32 AM
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.   ;) 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: 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


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain 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/



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man 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


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:32:17 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.     ;)    


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: 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.)

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."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:44:37 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.  ;)

 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: 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?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 09:55:09 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.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:57:05 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.)

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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 07, 2016, 09:59:31 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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:03:04 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.)

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.'  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: 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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:10:55 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.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:17:01 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.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 07, 2016, 10:20:53 AM
So you agree that Obama has not used executive orders with unusual frequency?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 07, 2016, 10:25:09 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.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:26:41 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? :lol

I'm kidding.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 07, 2016, 10:30:48 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? :lol

I'm kidding.   ;)
It seems like a trick answer.   :-D


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain 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...


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:35:43 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.    ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:37:46 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? :lol

I'm kidding.   ;)
It seems like a trick answer.   :-D
Not really.  It is not the number of orders, but whether the substance of the order is one that Congress is tasked with.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 07, 2016, 10:39:49 AM
So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:45:22 AM
So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  ;) 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 07, 2016, 10:50:07 AM
So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  ;) 
So you still believe that Obama has used executive orders with unusual frequency. You've been shown documentation that refutes that. Do you have documentation that supports your assertion? And I don't mean someone saying so; I mean someone showing a count that's more accurate than the data in the link I provided.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 07, 2016, 10:52:52 AM
So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  ;) 

That wasn't the question. The question was about number. You agreed.

You can agree on one point while maintaining it isn't what should be the point, or the measure of the issue.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 10:58:37 AM
So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  ;) 
So you still believe that Obama has used executive orders with unusual frequency. You've been shown documentation that refutes that. Do you have documentation that supports your assertion? And I don't mean someone saying so; I mean someone showing a count that's more accurate than the data in the link I provided.
Emily - I linked the GW Bush executive orders just to show an example of the range of orders and not the impact. Running the government by executive fiat, bypassing the process is results in a dictatorship. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 07, 2016, 11:00:20 AM
I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 11:13:09 AM
I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_fedral_executive_orders

Hope it copies.  Of course, Roosevelt is high on the list.  He was into his 4th term.  Obama has one-tenth of Roosevelt but the impact is where it's at.  ;)

It is not Obama's role to legislate. That is outside of his job description and what he was elected to do. ;)

http://www.presidency.uscb.edu/data/orders.php

"The form, substance and numbers of presidential orders has varied dramatically in the history of the US Presidency." (from above)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 07, 2016, 11:27:10 AM
I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_fedral_executive_orders

Hope it copies.  Of course, Roosevelt is high on the list.  He was into his 4th term.  Obama has one-tenth of Roosevelt but the impact is where it's at.  ;)

It is not Obama's role to legislate. That is outside of his job description and what he was elected to do. ;)
I agree it's not the president's role to legislate, but an executive order may not run counter to standing law or it can be stayed judicially.   If it's within the letter but against the intent, Congress can override any executive order at will.  If they are finding that executive orders are frequently counter to the intent of the law but within the letter, they should write their legislation more carefully.
Given that you tacitly agree, though won't say so, that Obama has not used executive orders peculiarly frequently, then we've got an ideological question. On the matter of the rightness of the use I find, no doubt unsurprisingly, The Republican presidents' use more noxious, though I'm hardly a fan of Democratic presidents' policies either, for the most part. The problem is, I find, that there's a particular disingenuousness with the right-wing media, starting in the late 80's but gaining significant strength in the 90's. And their followers have forgotten how to distinguish fact from opinion.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 11:30:11 AM
I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_fedral_executive_orders

Hope it copies.  Of course, Roosevelt is high on the list.  He was into his 4th term.  Obama has one-tenth of Roosevelt but the impact is where it's at.  ;)

It is not Obama's role to legislate. That is outside of his job description and what he was elected to do. ;)
I agree it's not the president's role to legislate, but an executive order may not run counter to standing law or it can be stayed judicially.   If it's within the letter but against the intent, Congress can override any executive order at will.  If they are finding that executive orders are frequently counter to the intent of the law but within the letter, they should write their legislation more carefully.
Given that you tacitly agree, though won't say so, that Obama has not used executive orders peculiarly frequently, then we've got an ideological question. On the matter of the rightness of the use I find, no doubt unsurprisingly, The Republican presidents' use more noxious, though I'm hardly a fan of Democratic presidents' policies either, for the most part. The problem is, I find, that there's a particular disingenuousness with the right-wing media, starting in the late 80's but gaining significant strength in the 90's. And their followers have forgotten how to distinguish fact from opinion.
Emily - the distinguishing as you say of "fact from opinion" is correct. And why it needs to be focused upon in schools where kids learn that skill so they don't drink the Koolaid.    :ohyeah


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on February 07, 2016, 11:56:42 AM
You gotta love flippedscrgel for her ability to not answer questions directly if the answer doesn't help further promote her agenda.

The deflects are also wonderful.

And then she ends it with a ;) so everybody will accept her bullshit "answers" in good humor.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 12:07:09 PM
You gotta love flippedscrgel for her ability to not answer questions directly if the answer doesn't help further promote her agenda.

The deflects are also wonderful.

And then she ends it with a ;) so everybody will accept her bullshit "answers" in good humor.
sweetdudejim - you may not like or agree with my responses but they are mine.

Before i responded to some, I did a little homework.

Those are personal attacks. Just sayin'. 



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 14, 2016, 07:06:05 AM
That Republicans are promising to block the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia is a joke. I have yet to hear a single reason. Yes, it's an election year. And...? The president's duties and responsibilities extend throughout his term. Does Article II, Section II say that the president shall nominate Supreme Court Justices during the first three years or his term? The fact that the other party may or may not win the presidency is wholly irrelevant. OK, Republicans would prefer a Republican nominee. No sh*t. But who cares? Contrary to the past eight years of their existence, you ought not try to take your ball and go home out of fear you might not get your way.

The president won the election, and thus the responsibility of nominating justices. He's obviously going to go for a liberal, but he also obviously realizes the opposition against anything he says or does. Throughout history, he'd nominate a semi-moderate liberal and the GOP-led Senate would approve the nominee unless s/he was incompetent--but not because s/he was of a non-GOP ideology.

I'm so frustrated with the idiocy. I really am. We're really going to get to a point where nobody can do anything unless they control both houses and the presidency. Bunch of fucking idiots.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 14, 2016, 07:07:41 AM
You know what, what about a president's third year? After all, that's getting pretty close to his fourth year, in which he's a lame duck. Better not approve any nominations.

And second year? That's a midterm election! No, no nominations should be vetted and passed then either.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on February 15, 2016, 07:53:40 PM
That Republicans are promising to block the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia is a joke. I have yet to hear a single reason. Yes, it's an election year. And...? The president's duties and responsibilities extend throughout his term. Does Article II, Section II say that the president shall nominate Supreme Court Justices during the first three years or his term? The fact that the other party may or may not win the presidency is wholly irrelevant. OK, Republicans would prefer a Republican nominee. No sh*t. But who cares? Contrary to the past eight years of their existence, you ought not try to take your ball and go home out of fear you might not get your way.

The president won the election, and thus the responsibility of nominating justices. He's obviously going to go for a liberal, but he also obviously realizes the opposition against anything he says or does. Throughout history, he'd nominate a semi-moderate liberal and the GOP-led Senate would approve the nominee unless s/he was incompetent--but not because s/he was of a non-GOP ideology.

I'm so frustrated with the idiocy. I really am. We're really going to get to a point where nobody can do anything unless they control both houses and the presidency. Bunch of fucking idiots.
It will be quite interesting to see if Obama can pull this off. Also,  if the Republicans just out and out block him, this will be a very good issue for the Democrats to use in the election. The Republicans being the party who has shut down the govt, did nothing but vote to end the ACA over 50 times and impeded the President's duties under the Constitution.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 16, 2016, 07:49:24 AM
Funny how the Democrats want a new Supreme Court Justice appointed so quickly and without question...I guess they don't remember the events of 1987-88.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 16, 2016, 08:13:54 AM
Funny how the Democrats want a new Supreme Court Justice appointed so quickly and without question...I guess they don't remember the events of 1987-88.

Can't speak for anyone else but my complaint isn't to imply the president's nominee needs to be pushed through and approved. It's that the process should commence and be carried out without unnecessary hesitation. The senate absolutely has the right to reject the nominee.

I also believe a qualified nominee should take into consideration the realities of the nation's politics, as evidenced by elected officials. And that qualified nominees should, absent SERIOUS problems (not political concerns) be approved. As election winners love to say, elections have consequences.

So in this in this case, the president should nominate someone he likes, but not the most liberal candidate imaginable (as both houses are Republican). And unless vetting shows an ax murder or something... But the whole "the process must be delayed until next year" nonsense is sh*t. I would say this regardless of who was in power and my preferred candidates. I was opposed to Dem objections to Bush's appointees, too.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 16, 2016, 08:29:27 AM
Of course, just because Obama nominates someone doesn't mean he or she should be approved or rejected just because. The process shouldn't be delayed, either. The Democratic-controlled Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork in 1987. There was no rush to approve the Republican president's nominees (Anthony Kennedy was the third candidate, approved more than a year after Lewis Powell resigned). Let's also not forget how the "tolerance" party treated Clarence Thomas. The Democrats shouldn't be surprised if said gridlock happens again this time.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 16, 2016, 08:51:04 AM
I generally agree. I think my criticism of both parties is well documented.

Though to be fair, Thomas's allegations seemed pretty credible


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 16, 2016, 09:01:11 AM
Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 16, 2016, 10:15:01 AM
Long dong silver. Pubic hair on my Coke can.

A black man can be conservative, I have no issue there. (One of my best friends, who is also my financial advisor, is a black, male conservative.) just speaking for myself, I don't have qualms with that. Others might. Not my problem or point. And ABSOLUTELY there was, and increasingly is, partisanship involved in nominating and vetting appointments. But there was at least smoke warranting investigation for fire with Thomas. And he (obviously) got approved anyway, unlike what's going to happen with the laughably "Constitution worshipping" GOP.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 16, 2016, 10:33:30 AM
Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.
As do yours, my proclivities shade my perspective: my memory is clearer of Anita Hill being pilloried for being a 'Delilah'. Those hearings were part of the formation of my feminism.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on February 17, 2016, 01:05:19 AM
Funny how the Democrats want a new Supreme Court Justice appointed so quickly and without question...I guess they don't remember the events of 1987-88.

Can't speak for anyone else but my complaint isn't to imply the president's nominee needs to be pushed through and approved. It's that the process should commence and be carried out without unnecessary hesitation. The senate absolutely has the right to reject the nominee.

I also believe a qualified nominee should take into consideration the realities of the nation's politics, as evidenced by elected officials. And that qualified nominees should, absent SERIOUS problems (not political concerns) be approved. As election winners love to say, elections have consequences.

So in this in this case, the president should nominate someone he likes, but not the most liberal candidate imaginable (as both houses are Republican). And unless vetting shows an ax murder or something... But the whole "the process must be delayed until next year" nonsense is sh*t. I would say this regardless of who was in power and my preferred candidates. I was opposed to Dem objections to Bush's appointees, too.
This!

Our system is really broken. I was just reading that the Senate has approved only one Federal Appellate Court opening out of 12 since the Republicans took the Senate. As most Americans are Pro-choice, this process is going to be closely watched. The obstruction may well backfire at the ballot box for the Republican party! Americans want Washington to start getting things done!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 17, 2016, 08:06:21 AM
Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.
As do yours, my proclivities shade my perspective: my memory is clearer of Anita Hill being pilloried for being a 'Delilah'. Those hearings were part of the formation of my feminism.
Let's not forget that men can be feminists, too!  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 17, 2016, 04:50:09 PM
They're not men; they're women with penises.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 17, 2016, 04:53:53 PM
I know you've said some things about gender roles before that probably are outside the mainstream, but using the below definitions, are male feminists really just "women with penises?"

Feminist: a person who supports feminism
Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

I'm not talking about any accompanying baggage associated with the term, but just the definition: a man who supports women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

(Also if you're just making a joke, whoops.)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on February 17, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
I was being facetious.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 17, 2016, 05:29:45 PM
The real satirist  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on February 17, 2016, 05:49:01 PM
Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.

Yeah, that was it.  Had nothing at all to do with Anita Hill.  ::)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 17, 2016, 06:16:14 PM
Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.
As do yours, my proclivities shade my perspective: my memory is clearer of Anita Hill being pilloried for being a 'Delilah'. Those hearings were part of the formation of my feminism.
Let's not forget that men can be feminists, too!  ;)
  ??? My reply to TRBB made no implication whatsoever about men and feminism.  ???


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 17, 2016, 06:26:27 PM
I was being facetious.

Glad I covered for my stupidity up front.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 22, 2016, 02:28:38 PM
My daughter's selfie with Hillary Clinton:
(http://s18.postimg.org/dtbzhnce1/IMG_0421.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 22, 2016, 04:00:45 PM
My daughter's selfie with Hillary Clinton:
(http://s18.postimg.org/dtbzhnce1/IMG_0421.jpg)


Emily - She is very cute.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 22, 2016, 04:06:20 PM
 :) Yes she is. She's a sweetheart (except when we argue, at which times she's a demon).


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on February 22, 2016, 04:18:48 PM
Would be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed with Bernie's loss in Nevada, and I'm genuinely worried about how he'll do on Super Tuesday. If worse comes to worst and Bernie drops out, guess I'll have to support Hillary....


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 22, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Would be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed with Bernie's loss in Nevada, and I'm genuinely worried about how he'll do on Super Tuesday. If worse comes to worst and Bernie drops out, guess I'll have to support Hillary....
Bernie's economic policies are closer to my preferences, but in the end if one party has the house and the House, they pass the party agenda more than the President's. If the branches are split, they pass almost nothing so... <<sigh>> I feel it doesn't really matter who the President is so much. I must confess, the woman aspect appeals to me a bit. I think it would be good for girls growing up that there is/has been a woman President.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on February 22, 2016, 04:33:51 PM
Would be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed with Bernie's loss in Nevada, and I'm genuinely worried about how he'll do on Super Tuesday. If worse comes to worst and Bernie drops out, guess I'll have to support Hillary....

You still live in Australia, correct?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 22, 2016, 04:40:04 PM
:) Yes she is. She's a sweetheart (except when we argue, at which times she's a demon).

They say the "apple never falls far from the tree."

She has a skill.  Girls need that.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 22, 2016, 04:46:12 PM
:) Yes she is. She's a sweetheart (except when we argue, at which times she's a demon).

They say the "apple never falls far from the tree."
:lol You can imagine the dread friends have facing dinner with my family.
She has a skill.  Girls need that.  ;)
indeed they do.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 22, 2016, 04:51:09 PM
I must confess, the woman aspect appeals to me a bit. I think it would be good for girls growing up that there is/has been a woman President.

I agree with you in that it would be inspirational to many, not to mention a good thing in getting that monkey off our nation's back. But I also believe that the best candidate should win, which I don't think Sec. Clinton is. (If/when she wins the nod, I'll have a terrible decision on my hands between a third party candidate with no chance at winning or her, because there's not a Republican I could consider voting for.) The question soon becomes, if not her, who will be the first? Gov. Haley certainly has her backers. Sen. Klobuchar is wildly popular here. Sen. Warren is a legitimate candidate. Who else might be seen to be on deck?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 22, 2016, 05:04:00 PM
:) Yes she is. She's a sweetheart (except when we argue, at which times she's a demon).

They say the "apple never falls far from the tree."
:lol You can imagine the dread friends have facing dinner with my family.  (Mine as well!)  Third generation in my family.  :lol
She has a skill.  Girls need that.  ;)
indeed they do.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 22, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
I must confess, the woman aspect appeals to me a bit. I think it would be good for girls growing up that there is/has been a woman President.

I agree with you in that it would be inspirational to many, not to mention a good thing in getting that monkey off our nation's back. But I also believe that the best candidate should win, which I don't think Sec. Clinton is. (If/when she wins the nod, I'll have a terrible decision on my hands between a third party candidate with no chance at winning or her, because there's not a Republican I could consider voting for.) The question soon becomes, if not her, who will be the first? Gov. Haley certainly has her backers. Sen. Klobuchar is wildly popular here. Sen. Warren is a legitimate candidate. Who else might be seen to be on deck?
There are a bunch who are as qualified and 'respected' as many male candidates: Condoleeza Rice, Susanna Martinez, Kathleen Sebelius, Meg Whitman, Claire McCaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, many more. I mean, if you look at the men who run, they only need a term as governor or senator or a (very) successful business and they're considered adequate to be in the running. Unfortunately women have to be a bit more impressive to even be considered. For selfish reasons (my daughter's nine and I'd like the concept to set in before she realizes how odd it is) I'd rather now than later, but I agree Hillary Clinton is not ideal. Though I still prefer her to, say, Trump.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on February 22, 2016, 11:06:36 PM
Would be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed with Bernie's loss in Nevada, and I'm genuinely worried about how he'll do on Super Tuesday. If worse comes to worst and Bernie drops out, guess I'll have to support Hillary....

You still live in Australia, correct?

Correct, though I still have a keen interest in international politics, particularly the U.S. and the U.K.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on February 22, 2016, 11:28:49 PM
Would be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed with Bernie's loss in Nevada, and I'm genuinely worried about how he'll do on Super Tuesday. If worse comes to worst and Bernie drops out, guess I'll have to support Hillary....

You still live in Australia, correct?

Correct, though I still have a keen interest in international politics, particularly the U.S. and the U.K.

I find it interesting you said you have to support someone in the US presidential race.
There's no reason to support someone you don't believe in if you're not voting to tip the scales.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on February 23, 2016, 01:45:44 AM
Would be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed with Bernie's loss in Nevada, and I'm genuinely worried about how he'll do on Super Tuesday. If worse comes to worst and Bernie drops out, guess I'll have to support Hillary....

You still live in Australia, correct?

Correct, though I still have a keen interest in international politics, particularly the U.S. and the U.K.

I find it interesting you said you have to support someone in the US presidential race.
There's no reason to support someone you don't believe in if you're not voting to tip the scales.

I suppose not, though I should add that whoever is elected President of the United States would have an impact on international affairs, given the country's status as a global power. So the U.S. Presidential election is one that concerns people over here as well, as virtually everyone I know has their favourite candidate (which interestingly enough seems to be Bernie for everyone I've come across). But I suppose you do have a point, and what I said certainly could have been worded better.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 23, 2016, 05:17:27 AM
I must confess, the woman aspect appeals to me a bit. I think it would be good for girls growing up that there is/has been a woman President.

I agree with you in that it would be inspirational to many, not to mention a good thing in getting that monkey off our nation's back. But I also believe that the best candidate should win, which I don't think Sec. Clinton is. (If/when she wins the nod, I'll have a terrible decision on my hands between a third party candidate with no chance at winning or her, because there's not a Republican I could consider voting for.) The question soon becomes, if not her, who will be the first? Gov. Haley certainly has her backers. Sen. Klobuchar is wildly popular here. Sen. Warren is a legitimate candidate. Who else might be seen to be on deck?
There are a bunch who are as qualified and 'respected' as many male candidates: Condoleeza Rice, Susanna Martinez, Kathleen Sebelius, Meg Whitman, Claire McCaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, many more. I mean, if you look at the men who run, they only need a term as governor or senator or a (very) successful business and they're considered adequate to be in the running. Unfortunately women have to be a bit more impressive to even be considered. For selfish reasons (my daughter's nine and I'd like the concept to set in before she realizes how odd it is) I'd rather now than later, but I agree Hillary Clinton is not ideal. Though I still prefer her to, say, Trump.
You are correct that the climb for a woman is longer and more aggressive. 

Perhaps one reason that a party can shoot a one-term senator/governor upward, is that the shorter amount of time in the senate, the less time to become embroiled in controversies that cannot be simply managed and remedied by their media people. Warren is one of those, as well.  Unfortunately, I read that Claire McCaskill has been diagnosed with breast cancer and is probably off the grid for now.  Interesting election season. 



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 23, 2016, 03:31:22 PM
There is no doubt that the trend seems to be to favor people with a shorter track record, especially as a legislator, so that one has few-to-no votes to be thrown back up in negative ads later (usually out of context, as obviously most votes are not the single-issue choices as presented by negative ads, but rather just parts of bigger bills). It's a sad world when we see so many first-term senators, for example, from the president through to Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio. Personally, I would rather see someone with substantial experience even if it means there are the dreaded "skeletons in the closet." Whatever. (Don't get me started on the "s/he's a successful businessman" model. Or neurosurgeon.)

But I think you're exactly right, Emily, that this trend toward less experienced candidates doesn't seem to extend to women. A female Sen. Rubio would be laughed off the stage, in my opinion. A pretty face being handed a career every step of the way paying it back by reciting her lines? Nobody would take her seriously.

Granted, I think the answer would be to take more seriously our male candidates rather than start tossing up less qualified women. (Not that I think anyone was proposing that.)

You have named some realistic choices, there, too. While I wasn't pretending to give an exhaustive list--I was just tossing out some that came to mind--I'm surprised at myself for omitting Rice in particular. She could be a really strong candidate for that party.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 24, 2016, 06:47:17 AM
Regarding Rice, the Republicans are putting out these whackadoodle candidates that only die-hard righties or extreme anti-everythingists can support. They still have some sensible moderate party members that could have a very good chance at catching all of the middle and some conservative Democrats. A lot of these (used to be called 'Rockefeller Republicans', not meaning rich but meaning fiscally conservative but socially at least middle) are still lurking around, but the party zeitgeist ignores them.
The Democrats have an interesting primary in that they've put forward a centrist and a (for American popular politics) leftist.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 24, 2016, 08:24:47 AM
No question it's been an interesting (if sad) purge the past few decades. Every few cycles, the "true conservatives" of the past are derided as RINOs and replaced by even fiercer zealots. If there were more parties truly relevant, I'd care less, but with just two, it's sad. The narrative of the far left/far right divide--a false dichotomy anyway--persists even as the Clinton-and-after Dems have rushed rightward.

Maybe getting trounced with Trump will wake up conservatives, but since he's demonstrably not conservative, I doubt it. They'll keep up the same lunacy: "we just haven't been conservative enough; let's move right!"


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 25, 2016, 06:41:33 PM
Yikes. I'm watching a bit of the Republican debate. Apparently this "religious freedom" issue, a euphemism for the right to discriminate against gays, is an accepted mainstream thing among Republicans. Gross.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 26, 2016, 05:41:13 AM
I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 26, 2016, 05:50:33 AM
Time to breakout those Ventura t-shirts?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 26, 2016, 06:04:17 AM
Time to breakout those Ventura t-shirts?
Heh.

Sometimes I feel like I ought to remind people that Minnesota has produced plenty of really good elected officials, too. Just a few wacko-birds (to use a Sen. McCain term for Sen. Cruz and his filthy ilk) get all the attention.

Though I'll say this for Gov. Ventura: he wasn't partisan, and he was a precursor of sorts to the liberty movement we see mostly on the right, but in some ways on the left as well. Too bad he also felt he was above media scrutiny, maintained his entertainment career throughout his term, and was prone to conspiracy theories. But his libertarian leanings actually seem more commonplace these days.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on February 26, 2016, 07:35:31 AM
Yikes. I'm watching a bit of the Republican debate. Apparently this "religious freedom" issue, a euphemism for the right to discriminate against gays, is an accepted mainstream thing among Republicans. Gross.


Kasich did not take that position.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 26, 2016, 07:50:06 AM
Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 26, 2016, 08:11:51 AM
Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.
I agree. He seemed kind of human.
I knew the "religious freedom" as a right to refuse service (even government services) to gays was a thing. I just thought it was super-fringe. I didn't know it had gotten to majority-of-republican-presidential-candidate level. I avoid TV and the news I read hasn't told me that. I think the whole Sarah Palin thing taught me to not read the day-to-day details of campaigns because I spent the fall of 2008 in a dizzy nightmare state. I better not start paying attention or I'll lose it. It's amazing that people don't see how cartoony they are. They are like a lefties' satire of what a rightie would be in a dystopian horror. Like, most of the candidates are now Sarah Palin level.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 26, 2016, 08:16:44 AM
I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)
Minnesota is so confusing. The source of some of the greatest classic liberals and some of the most off-the-wall conservatives.
And, lol, my brother lives in the 6th! I spend every Thanksgiving there!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 26, 2016, 08:24:35 AM
Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.
I agree. He seemed kind of human.
I knew the "religious freedom" as a right to refuse service (even government services) to gays was a thing. I just thought it was super-fringe. I didn't know it had gotten to majority-of-republican-presidential-candidate level. I avoid TV and the news I read hasn't told me that. I think the whole Sarah Palin thing taught me to not read the day-to-day details of campaigns because I spent the fall of 2008 in a dizzy nightmare state. I better not start paying attention or I'll lose it. It's amazing that people don't see how cartoony they are. They are like a lefties' satire of what a rightie would be in a dystopian horror. Like, most of the candidates are now Sarah Palin level.

It's actually shocking how radical the GOP has been in the past decade or so. Certainly by the 2008 campaign, it seemed that the anti-Bush backlash was leading to "true conservatives" having a stronger voice. The Tea Party was in full swing by '10. By '12, we had Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc., all on the ticket. And so on. It has moved so quickly that while we were saying Reagan-Bush Republicans wouldn't be welcome in the 2008 race (and that Clinton and Obama resembled those positions better than many Republicans), we've again gotten to the point where it seems yesterday's radicals are today's establishment. I mean, Paul Ryan, he of the Ayn Randian fantasy, is being criticized in the "Freedom" (lol) caucus. We're already hearing from non-lunatics of the good ol' days when Gingrich and Clinton could work together. Gingrich. One of the founders of the made-for-TV rhetoric and villainization of the opposition.

Yet the modern Republican continues to lionize those predecessors who would be without question demonized by the party in reality.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 26, 2016, 09:18:28 AM
Unfortunately Kasich seems like an ancient artifact in the modern GOP. He has been one of the few to have glimmers of reality and humanity in this sitcom, but he has no chance whatsoever.
I agree. He seemed kind of human.
I knew the "religious freedom" as a right to refuse service (even government services) to gays was a thing. I just thought it was super-fringe. I didn't know it had gotten to majority-of-republican-presidential-candidate level. I avoid TV and the news I read hasn't told me that. I think the whole Sarah Palin thing taught me to not read the day-to-day details of campaigns because I spent the fall of 2008 in a dizzy nightmare state. I better not start paying attention or I'll lose it. It's amazing that people don't see how cartoony they are. They are like a lefties' satire of what a rightie would be in a dystopian horror. Like, most of the candidates are now Sarah Palin level.


It's actually shocking how radical the GOP has been in the past decade or so. Certainly by the 2008 campaign, it seemed that the anti-Bush backlash was leading to "true conservatives" having a stronger voice. The Tea Party was in full swing by '10. By '12, we had Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc., all on the ticket. And so on. It has moved so quickly that while we were saying Reagan-Bush Republicans wouldn't be welcome in the 2008 race (and that Clinton and Obama resembled those positions better than many Republicans), we've again gotten to the point where it seems yesterday's radicals are today's establishment. I mean, Paul Ryan, he of the Ayn Randian fantasy, is being criticized in the "Freedom" (lol) caucus. We're already hearing from non-lunatics of the good ol' days when Gingrich and Clinton could work together. Gingrich. One of the founders of the made-for-TV rhetoric and villainization of the opposition.

Yet the modern Republican continues to lionize those predecessors who would be without question demonized by the party in reality.
omg. Gingrich. An early eye opener for me on the integrity of public political speakers was seeing him in probably 1994 on some CNN talk/debate show. Hillary Clinton, an early children's rights advocate while in law school (at that time, children's rights meant that there should be some legal limits to how brutally a parent can physically punish a child, there should be better structures for managing orphans and children removed from abusive homes, etc. All commonplace thoughts now), wrote a paper in which there was one phrase in which she said that the rights parents had over their children were akin to the rights that slaveholders had over their slaves (which was factually true). Gingrich, a trained historian, was on TV saying "Hillary Rodham Clinton (he always pronounced the Rodham because her use of her own name was shocking) compared the family to slavery."
But yes, even he seems reasonable compared to what I saw last night.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 26, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
Re the "Rodham" part, that's a common GOP tactic. See: Barack Hussein Obama. (I seem to recall a certain largely absent-these-days member spending a lot of keystrokes on that.) "Ooooh, sh*t, Bobby Jo, he's got a [/i]Muzzlum[/i] name, he's uh tur'rist!" It's great to point out these "gotchas" which are no such thing to anyone but their own fringe/base. Of course, riling the base is the point.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 26, 2016, 12:05:17 PM
I did not see this coming: Christie backs Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Not that I thought he was particularly fond of Sen. Rubio (to say the least) or Sen. Cruz, but wow. I know he says otherwise in the linked story, but seriously, was he promised the Attorney General position in a Trump administration or what? Funny how nicey-nice they play. "Spectacular governor?" I think a review of some of Mr. Trump's earlier statements would contradict his current assessment of Gov. Christie.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on February 26, 2016, 12:10:55 PM
I did not see this coming: Christie backs Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Not that I thought he was particularly fond of Sen. Rubio (to say the least) or Sen. Cruz, but wow. I know he says otherwise in the linked story, but seriously, was he promised the Attorney General position in a Trump administration or what? Funny how nicey-nice they play. "Spectacular governor?" I think a review of some of Mr. Trump's earlier statements would contradict his current assessment of Gov. Christie.
Exactly what I was thinking.  Cabinet posts are nice upwardly-moving political stepping stones.   


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 26, 2016, 12:16:36 PM
I did not see this coming: Christie backs Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Not that I thought he was particularly fond of Sen. Rubio (to say the least) or Sen. Cruz, but wow. I know he says otherwise in the linked story, but seriously, was he promised the Attorney General position in a Trump administration or what? Funny how nicey-nice they play. "Spectacular governor?" I think a review of some of Mr. Trump's earlier statements would contradict his current assessment of Gov. Christie.
Trump's a deal-maker. The way people often, and sometimes I think erroneously, assume things happen in politics is probably actually the way Trump operates.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 26, 2016, 12:36:28 PM
It did occur to me after my 1st post, Christie probably shares something personality-wise with Trump. In fact he was out-Christied by the "straight talk" (i.e. When the going gets tough, just say mean things as if you're in some kind of playground fight) of Trump. So maybe there's an affinity between trash talking assholes.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on February 26, 2016, 12:42:18 PM
It did occur to me after my 1st post, Christie probably shares something personality-wise with Trump. In fact he was out-Christied by the "straight talk" (i.e. When the going gets tough, just say mean things as if you're in some kind of playground fight) of Trump. So maybe there's an affinity between trash talking assholes.
;D most likely.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Jim V. on February 28, 2016, 10:27:16 AM
Hey....anybody know what happened to Bean Bag and his hateful ideals? Did he get banned?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on February 28, 2016, 10:45:18 AM
Looks like he has been online as recently as just under two weeks ago, just hasn't posted in a few months. Not sure why.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Alex on February 29, 2016, 01:59:36 AM
I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)

You guys also gave us Paul Wellstone and Al Franken, so its not all bad.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 06, 2016, 06:22:54 AM
With the GOP race most likely down to Trump and Cruz in essence, if not in technical reality yet, I have a question / thought exercise. I'm not asking about who favors whom, what would be better for the parties, etc., just kind of a thought exercise / prediction.

I think most (and can say with certainty many) people agree that the GOP has become increasingly conservative over the past few decades, and certainly increasingly uncompromising in at least the past eight years. Yet the past couple GOP presidential losses, there has been a loud retort from Republicans that the problem was their candidates (McCain and Romney) not being conservative enough.

On to 2016, and please forgive the presuppositions of a GOP loss. They're just here for purposes of the thought exercise. For those Republicans being pushed aside or left behind by the rightward march, would Trump loss actually reshape the party in any meaningful way? Or wouldn't that just give the (actual) conservatives another opportunity to make that same claim: that they nominated a non-conservative and that was the problem. (Trump isn't so much conservative as an opportunist/populist asshole, after all.) Whereas if Cruz were to win the nomination and lose the race, it would be hard to argue he wasn't conservative enough.

EDIT: Part of what brought on the question, by the way, was listening to David Axelrod's "Axe Files" podcast, where he had Sen. Graham as a guest the other day. Graham basically concedes the election if Trump were to win the nomination, but says it would be a great opportunity to rethink the party. I'm skeptical because, as I said, Trump isn't a "wow, the ship has been off track, we've been wrong, we need to rethink," so much as just an anomaly. A Trump nomination might be a culmination of negativity in tone and heated rhetoric, but not really a good example otherwise.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 06, 2016, 06:27:23 AM
I've watched most of them but thank goodness was busy last night. By the looks of it, I missed little besides a racheting-up of the pro wrestling drama.

As for the "religious freedom" equaling freedom to discriminate, sadly that's not a new development for the GOP last night. They've been touting that nonsense forever.

Oh speaking of! The 2nd District in Minnesota has a GOP primary candidate this year named Jason Lewis, running in a crowded primary in hopes of winning the retiring Rep. Kline's seat in the House. Lewis is apparently a right-wing radio talk show host. Well, it shows. One of his more spectacular arguments so far was along these lines: for those people who think legalizing gay marriage is OK because "it doesn't affect me" (if you're straight and not in that marriage), you should also have made that argument regarding slavery because if someone else owns slaves, you still don't have to, and so it doesn't affect you.

Yep. That's real. And it's just one of his many fabulous statements. (Hint: not a fan of feminism, seemingly women in general, or the Civil War...) Ladies and gentlemen, the state that gave you Michele Bachmann is at it again. Hopefully, him being in the less looney-bin 2nd rather than Bachmann's batshit crazy 6th district, he won't win the nomination. (State party officials are already distancing themselves from him.)

You guys also gave us Paul Wellstone and Al Franken, so its not all bad.

Oh, I know. We've had many other very decent politicians in both parties over the years. But we've had a few too many lunatics for my taste. At least Trump came in third in our caucus on Super Tuesday. There's one sign of aversion to nutjobs.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 06, 2016, 07:46:58 PM
With the GOP race most likely down to Trump and Cruz in essence, if not in technical reality yet, I have a question / thought exercise. I'm not asking about who favors whom, what would be better for the parties, etc., just kind of a thought exercise / prediction.

I think most (and can say with certainty many) people agree that the GOP has become increasingly conservative over the past few decades, and certainly increasingly uncompromising in at least the past eight years. Yet the past couple GOP presidential losses, there has been a loud retort from Republicans that the problem was their candidates (McCain and Romney) not being conservative enough.

On to 2016, and please forgive the presuppositions of a GOP loss. They're just here for purposes of the thought exercise. For those Republicans being pushed aside or left behind by the rightward march, would Trump loss actually reshape the party in any meaningful way? Or wouldn't that just give the (actual) conservatives another opportunity to make that same claim: that they nominated a non-conservative and that was the problem. (Trump isn't so much conservative as an opportunist/populist asshole, after all.) Whereas if Cruz were to win the nomination and lose the race, it would be hard to argue he wasn't conservative enough.

EDIT: Part of what brought on the question, by the way, was listening to David Axelrod's "Axe Files" podcast, where he had Sen. Graham as a guest the other day. Graham basically concedes the election if Trump were to win the nomination, but says it would be a great opportunity to rethink the party. I'm skeptical because, as I said, Trump isn't a "wow, the ship has been off track, we've been wrong, we need to rethink," so much as just an anomaly. A Trump nomination might be a culmination of negativity in tone and heated rhetoric, but not really a good example otherwise.
My guess would be that if Trump wins, the Republican Party will actually have a pretty interesting and unpredictable shake up. If he loses, they will, as they did with their last two losses, focus on not letting the President be successful, even where they philosophically agree, and Not change much. The extremity has a lot of power and it won't lose it until they win and their supporters turn on them.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on March 06, 2016, 07:56:33 PM
Really happy that my man Bernie's been doing well again, with wins in Kansas, Nebraska and now Maine!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 07, 2016, 10:27:51 AM
Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 07, 2016, 12:00:40 PM
Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.
Ah, I think we have a miscommunication. In both of my scenarios I was assuming Trump wins the nomination but in one case loses the general, in the other wins the general.  So I'm only predicting significant party change if he wins the whole burrito. If he wins the nomination but loses the general, I agree that not much will happen, party-wise.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 07, 2016, 03:32:38 PM
Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.
Ah, I think we have a miscommunication. In both of my scenarios I was assuming Trump wins the nomination but in one case loses the general, in the other wins the general.  So I'm only predicting significant party change if he wins the whole burrito. If he wins the nomination but loses the general, I agree that not much will happen, party-wise.

Ah, yes, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but any scenario I was presenting presupposed a Clinton win over the Republican nominee, assuming that nominee were Cruz or Trump (and I do think Clinton--while also presupposing she isn't charged with anything--would beat either of them pretty handily). So my scenarios were strictly along those lines, and the party's reaction to Trump losing the general versus to Cruz losing the general. The former, I think leads to nothing new (except maybe changing the rules to become nominee). Whereas if Cruz loses, I wonder if the party actually does splinter, as the "we didn't nominate a true conservative" line would be pretty much tested and failed.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: undercover-m on March 07, 2016, 04:16:05 PM
I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 07, 2016, 04:33:53 PM
Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.
Ah, I think we have a miscommunication. In both of my scenarios I was assuming Trump wins the nomination but in one case loses the general, in the other wins the general.  So I'm only predicting significant party change if he wins the whole burrito. If he wins the nomination but loses the general, I agree that not much will happen, party-wise.

Ah, yes, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but any scenario I was presenting presupposed a Clinton win over the Republican nominee, assuming that nominee were Cruz or Trump (and I do think Clinton--while also presupposing she isn't charged with anything--would beat either of them pretty handily). So my scenarios were strictly along those lines, and the party's reaction to Trump losing the general versus to Cruz losing the general. The former, I think leads to nothing new (except maybe changing the rules to become nominee). Whereas if Cruz loses, I wonder if the party actually does splinter, as the "we didn't nominate a true conservative" line would be pretty much tested and failed.
That latter is an interesting point that I hadn't thought of. I'd thought that if they get a 'true conservative' (which of course we're not using the definition that word had until about a decade ago) in the White House, they'd have a bit of a collapse because what they want to happen wouldn't happen; but I hadn't thought of what if they nominated one and he didn't win. It's a very interesting thought. Thank you.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 07, 2016, 04:35:19 PM
I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.
Do both apps work together? So we can have Donald "It's in Corinthians Two" Drumpf?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on March 07, 2016, 04:39:15 PM
I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.
Do both apps work together? So we can have Donald "It's in Corinthians Two" Drumpf?

Yeah, I've been using both, and they work in blissful harmony.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 07, 2016, 04:41:41 PM
I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.
Do both apps work together? So we can have Donald "It's in Corinthians Two" Drumpf?

Yeah, I've been using both, and they work in blissful harmony.
O happy day.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 09, 2016, 07:13:15 AM
I have two questions:
1. Trump and Sanders both speak in terms of 'revolution', great change, "making America great again", getting the pussies out of politics, having effective genetalia (well, only one talks about the latter few) - what do they actually propose in terms of policy or process changes that will actually achieve great change and, if one is elected, how will he implement these policies? Please give specific proposals, not rhetoric.

2. 'Conservative' (in the historical meaning) women and Hispanic voters have, over the last several decades, been moving to the Democratic Party while 'liberal' (also in the historical meaning) white working class men have been moving to the Republican Party. The latter are now split between Trump and Sanders but are clearly consumers of populism, and the former are running away from Trump. Would a Clinton/Trump general election campaign further polarize the country by getting virtually all white men (with the exception of the majority of the highly educated middle-class) into the Republican Party and virtually everyone else into the Democratic Party?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: drbeachboy on March 09, 2016, 08:04:39 AM
I'll say this much about either party. At this point in the races, you cannot take anything that is said as anything more than rhetoric. Even if they have polices and processes posted, there is no way that they can effect change without having Congress on their side to pass said polices and/or laws. As for polarization, this is nothing new in American politics. For anyone who knows their history, this is a battle that has been fought since Adams & Jefferson. The main issue here is Congress, again. Until Senators and Reps are voted in who have learned the art of compromise, we will be stuck with ineffectiveness. This "my way or the highway" mentality has got to stop if we as a nation are going to move forward. A lot rides on this as our economy is affected by it. Our aging and failing infrastructure is affected by it. Not to mention our standing on the world stage. Once we get past the conventions, then I will take a hard look at what the candidates put forth and determine which policies and ideas will move the country forward. I say this too, because I haven't voted my declared party in the presidential election for 24 years. I always try to vote for whoever I think moves us the best way forward as a nation, not as a party.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on March 09, 2016, 08:13:18 AM
Emily,

To me, the only one of the remaining candidates that has said anything at all lately about policies is John Kasich.  I was actually pretty impressed with him at the last Republican Debate.   And, of course, he's trailing by a mile. 

He also said he'd get the surviving members of Pink Floyd together for his inauguration if he won the election. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 09, 2016, 12:08:17 PM
Emily,

To me, the only one of the remaining candidates that has said anything at all lately about policies is John Kasich.  I was actually pretty impressed with him at the last Republican Debate.   And, of course, he's trailing by a mile. 

He also said he'd get the surviving members of Pink Floyd together for his inauguration if he won the election. 
:) :) Now that's a campaign promise.
I agree that in that last debate he seemed reasonable, but I haven't seen him speak without being surrounded by the rest of 'em, so maybe if he just looked good in comparison.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 09, 2016, 12:08:56 PM
I'll say this much about either party. At this point in the races, you cannot take anything that is said as anything more than rhetoric. Even if they have polices and processes posted, there is no way that they can effect change without having Congress on their side to pass said polices and/or laws. As for polarization, this is nothing new in American politics. For anyone who knows their history, this is a battle that has been fought since Adams & Jefferson. The main issue here is Congress, again. Until Senators and Reps are voted in who have learned the art of compromise, we will be stuck with ineffectiveness. This "my way or the highway" mentality has got to stop if we as a nation are going to move forward. A lot rides on this as our economy is affected by it. Our aging and failing infrastructure is affected by it. Not to mention our standing on the world stage. Once we get past the conventions, then I will take a hard look at what the candidates put forth and determine which policies and ideas will move the country forward. I say this too, because I haven't voted my declared party in the presidential election for 24 years. I always try to vote for whoever I think moves us the best way forward as a nation, not as a party.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer, drbeachboy.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 09, 2016, 03:59:25 PM
I have two questions:
1. Trump and Sanders both speak in terms of 'revolution', great change, "making America great again", getting the pussies out of politics, having effective genetalia (well, only one talks about the latter few) - what do they actually propose in terms of policy or process changes that will actually achieve great change and, if one is elected, how will he implement these policies? Please give specific proposals, not rhetoric.

2. 'Conservative' (in the historical meaning) women and Hispanic voters have, over the last several decades, been moving to the Democratic Party while 'liberal' (also in the historical meaning) white working class men have been moving to the Republican Party. The latter are now split between Trump and Sanders but are clearly consumers of populism, and the former are running away from Trump. Would a Clinton/Trump general election campaign further polarize the country by getting virtually all white men (with the exception of the majority of the highly educated middle-class) into the Republican Party and virtually everyone else into the Democratic Party?

I saw this earlier and wanted to respond, but unfortunately my employer apparently believes I ought to spend company time doing what they pay me for. What a rip-off... But really:

1. I wholeheartedly agree with drbeachboy that it's almost irrelevant, in that the president can't enact policies without congressional support, and in a Trump or Sanders scenario, it's hard to imagine that happening. Earlier today I was thinking for the first time, how does a Republican congress treat Trump? I almost suspect it would be barely better than they treat Obama. I'm sure they'd find ways to get a few things done, but when he starts talking absurdity, or pure liberal ideas, obviously they're not going to do that. Speaker Ryan is already struggling to walk that line of talking about supporting the party, walking the party's platform line, and supporting the party's candidate. And Sanders would have a worse time, probably even if he had a Democratic congress. I said in an early post in this thread, maybe around the first debates, something about wanting to hear policy proposals, and I still do. But frankly it's almost irrelevant unless the candidates can drag along the legislature.

2. I don't think Trump will change the party. I think the party will do what it can to move on as quickly as possible. Sen. Graham was on Axelrod's podcast recently talking about how you can lose an election, and you need to use the opportunity to decide who you are (as a party). And he meant Trump will win the nomination, lose the election, and the party has to figure out what it is going to be. I think he's right. Trump's voters might vote Trump, but they aren't traditional Republicans. It's a one-off, loyalty to the charisma of the asshole, not to the ideology. Friedman's NYT op-ed today is right that it isn't about reasoning with him or his supporters because they aren't attracted to his reason. That's all political rigmarole to them; they just want a tough guy who yells a lot and sells caps and slogans. A lot of politicians are empty suits, he's just empty without a coherent tradition guiding his absurdity.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 09, 2016, 06:47:24 PM
So, El Capitan, you think the working class white men who are polled saying they usually vote for Democrats but they would vote Trump over Clinton would just be doing a one-off? And you believe the same about the moderate Republican women and Hispanics who say they would vote Clinton over Trump?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 10, 2016, 03:04:02 PM
So, El Capitan, you think the working class white men who are polled saying they usually vote for Democrats but they would vote Trump over Clinton would just be doing a one-off?

I think in some cases, yes. I think some of those men won't vote for a woman at all, much less one who (laughably incorrectly) has been painted as an ultra-liberal. But if it had been Trump v. Webb, Trump v. Biden? Yeah, I think they'd still be voting Democratic this time around. Others, I think are hugely attracted to him personally. I can't imagine why, but there is no doubt he has some kind of charisma that is winning people over. Those voters, I don't think it's about party loyalty at all, either. Next time, who knows for whom they vote? I guess whoever is the biggest, loudest asshole. But then I think there is another subset of those who are increasingly "conservative" as they age and the world changes around them. Maybe they're uncomfortable about the unwhitening of the country; of the increasing acceptance and visibility of gay, lesbian, bi, trans people; or the ongoing rise of non-Christians. Those people are unlikely to go back to the Democratic party.

And you believe the same about the moderate Republican women and Hispanics who say they would vote Clinton over Trump?

Again, multiple scenarios. Some people--and probably mostly women--are going to vote for the female candidate because it's an important thing to them to see a woman elected president. For a centrist Republican who wants to see a female president, hell yes, I think she's going to vote Clinton over Trump. And yet I wouldn't be willing to assume she's a Democrat henceforth. Maybe the GOP reintegrates some centrists (or at least more traditional Republican "conservatives" instead of lunatics) by '20. Wouldn't that voter be more likely to vote Condoleeza Rice over, say, Elizabeth Warren? I think probably. If the GOP continues its recent shift, I don't think Trump is even the issue: if they are moderate Republicans in the sense that they are OK with the dreaded AMNESTY (cue scary music), are worried about the erosion of abortion rights (to name two issues that are likely important to Hispanic and female voters, not that those issues aren't important to others or that those voters don't have other issues they care about), then yeah, I think they're more likely to stick with Democrats, even if they're holding their noses.

In my opinion, the Democratic party of 2016 is more or less the Republican party of, say, pre-9/11 or 2004 or so anyway. So those moderate Republicans ought to feel right at home.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 10, 2016, 06:04:57 PM
Excellent answer. Thank you.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 16, 2016, 01:27:20 PM
So at this point anything other than Trump v Clinton would be a surprise.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on March 16, 2016, 01:56:18 PM
unfortunately


Title:
Post by: zachrwolfe on March 16, 2016, 02:35:45 PM


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Moon Dawg on March 16, 2016, 03:41:41 PM
I'm proud that the great state of Ohio did not enable Donald Trump yesterday.

Clinton vs Trump is perhaps the grimmest Presidential election prospect of all time.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on March 16, 2016, 04:37:08 PM
Bernie absolutely still has a chance, but it doesn't look good. #TheBernIsHealing

Yeah, but his prospects are dimming. Devastated at yesterday's results, was a complete rout for him  :'(

This is certainly an interesting article: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/33-percent-of-bernie-sanders-not-vote-hillary_b_9475626.html


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 16, 2016, 04:56:07 PM
So at this point anything other than Trump v Clinton would be a surprise.

This is correct.

As fun as it is watching the pretty little robot drop out after losing Florida--will he even bother returning to the senate for this final 3/4 year or just go home?--it's kind of sad to note that all signs point very, very strongly toward the television asshole on the GOP side. And let's not kid ourselves, Clinton is winning the Democratic nomination. On one side, the moronic populist rage wins out to the benefit of...whom? And on the other, it falls short, although hopefully it pulled the party toward a long-neglected part of its base.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on March 16, 2016, 04:57:16 PM
Hate to sound cynical but I find it unsurprising that big business wins out yet again.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 16, 2016, 05:01:36 PM
For people interested in the Sanders campaign, the best thing you could do going forward is forget the Sanders campaign and actually move on. Encourage similar candidates at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Run yourself. Etc. That's what matters. Even if Sanders had miraculously won the nomination and presidency, let's be serious: it would be a footnote because he's an aberration. The whole movement (as is true of every political movement) depends on similarly minded people throughout government. A president is not a king.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on March 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM
For people interested in the Sanders campaign, the best thing you could do going forward is forget the Sanders campaign and actually move on. Encourage similar candidates at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Run yourself. Etc. That's what matters. Even if Sanders had miraculously won the nomination and presidency, let's be serious: it would be a footnote because he's an aberration. The whole movement (as is true of every political movement) depends on similarly minded people throughout government. A president is not a king.

I agree with that about 98% of the way and would only alter your point ever so slightly to suggest that what's needed is a unified movement outside of the political engine. I think in order for real change to occur, it cannot occur within the current political system. As you note, Sanders is good and all but he could only do so much (and really, in my view, he's a bit too much of a moderate anyway). What's required is a genuine, organized grassroots movement.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 16, 2016, 05:48:26 PM
I'm proud that the great state of Ohio did not enable Donald Trump yesterday.

Clinton vs Trump is perhaps the grimmest Presidential election prospect of all time.
Quite pleased with Ohio!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 16, 2016, 05:53:49 PM
For people interested in the Sanders campaign, the best thing you could do going forward is forget the Sanders campaign and actually move on. Encourage similar candidates at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Run yourself. Etc. That's what matters. Even if Sanders had miraculously won the nomination and presidency, let's be serious: it would be a footnote because he's an aberration. The whole movement (as is true of every political movement) depends on similarly minded people throughout government. A president is not a king.
The whole Tea Party nightmare began because Ralph Reed understood exactly this. He started focusing on school boards and local councils in the early 90s and has a lot of state legislature and fed House seats filled with them now. Ralph Reed really changed the landscape with his local-level focus. Perhaps the most important and least famous person in American politics of his generation.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on March 16, 2016, 06:14:52 PM
One on side, you have an egomaniacal man-child who talks about his penis during political debates and inspires violence from his supporters--a non insignificant number of which are white supremacists.

On the other side, you have a political chameleon: a woman who says anything to increase her polling numbers because she's desperate to be president. I don't trust her, and it seems impossible to know what she'll actually do once she gains the position of power she hungers for. Additionally, a great deal of feminists are supporting her because she's a viable female candidate, but that is foolish. Simply voting in a candidate because they're a women is still discriminatory. Yes, it would be an important step, but as a consequence of its importance, it's not something to pursue at the first available opportunity just because it's the first available opportunity.

If it comes down to these two, I'm willing to bet Hillary Clinton will win. I don't think there's any possible way this country's political inner workings will actually allow the man-child with the tiny hands to become president. That is, if he even gets the nomination. I can't think of anyone else that can currently beat Clinton, but is the GOP really willing to pay the cost of nominating Donald Trump, owner and proprietor of Trump Steaks? (He likes them "very well done"! We can't allow this man to become president. (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11234064/donald-trump-steak-well-done)) ? It's all so very complicated.

I'm expecting an unusually high amount of third-party or write-in votes in 2016. I will be one of them.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 16, 2016, 06:19:25 PM
One on side, you have an egomaniacal man-child who talks about his penis during political debates and inspires violence from his supporters--a non insignificant number of which are white supremacists.

On the other side, you have a political chameleon: a woman who says anything to increase her polling numbers because she's desperate to be president. I don't trust her, and it seems impossible to know what she'll actually do once she gains the position of power she hungers for. Additionally, a great deal of feminists are supporting her because she's a viable female candidate, but that is foolish. Simply voting in a candidate because they're a women is still discriminatory. Yes, it would be an important step, but as a consequence of its importance, it's not something to pursue at the first available opportunity just because it's the first available opportunity.

If it comes down to these two, I'm willing to bet Hillary Clinton will win. I don't think there's any possible way this country's political inner workings will actually allow the man-child with the tiny hands to become president. That is, if he even gets the nomination. I can't think of anyone else that can currently beat Clinton, but is the GOP really willing to pay the cost of nominating Donald Trump, owner and proprietor of Trump Steaks? (He likes them "very well done"! We can't allow this man to become president. (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11234064/donald-trump-steak-well-done)) ? It's all so very complicated.

I'm expecting an unusually high amount of third-party or write-in votes in 2016. I will be one of them.
I hardly think she'd do anything radical. She'd maintain the status quo for however many more years.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on March 17, 2016, 05:29:27 AM
One on side, you have an egomaniacal man-child who talks about his penis during political debates and inspires violence from his supporters--a non insignificant number of which are white supremacists.



That's news to me.  The violence last week was caused by those who oppose Trump. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2016, 10:25:59 AM
One on side, you have an egomaniacal man-child who talks about his penis during political debates and inspires violence from his supporters--a non insignificant number of which are white supremacists.



That's news to me.  The violence last week was caused by those who oppose Trump. 
What do you mean?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on March 17, 2016, 11:45:52 AM
One on side, you have an egomaniacal man-child who talks about his penis during political debates and inspires violence from his supporters--a non insignificant number of which are white supremacists.



That's news to me.  The violence last week was caused by those who oppose Trump.  
What do you mean?


I mean the riots in Illinois that were started late last week by people who oppose Trump to the point where they don't think he should be allowed to have a rally.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: drbeachboy on March 17, 2016, 12:05:04 PM
Amazing how Trump gets blamed for something protesters started. You know, I am sick that I have no one in either party that I would vote for. This will be the first election since I started voting in 1976 where I will not be a participant. It is really sad that we are down to the dregs of each political party.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2016, 12:41:07 PM
One on side, you have an egomaniacal man-child who talks about his penis during political debates and inspires violence from his supporters--a non insignificant number of which are white supremacists.



That's news to me.  The violence last week was caused by those who oppose Trump.  
What do you mean?


I mean the riots in Illinois that were started late last week by people who oppose Trump to the point where they don't think he should be allowed to have a rally.
So are you saying that you don't think the individuals who were violent are responsible for their own actions?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on March 17, 2016, 12:47:02 PM
One on side, you have an egomaniacal man-child who talks about his penis during political debates and inspires violence from his supporters--a non insignificant number of which are white supremacists.



That's news to me.  The violence last week was caused by those who oppose Trump.  
What do you mean?


I mean the riots in Illinois that were started late last week by people who oppose Trump to the point where they don't think he should be allowed to have a rally.
So are you saying that you don't think the individuals who were violent are responsible for their own actions?

Of course they were.  But Bubs, and several in the media, seem to be blaming Trump and his supporters for the riots. 

However, the riots were not started Trump supporters, but by people opposed to Trump. 

So, yes, they are responsible for their actions, but they are not Trump supporters. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2016, 01:06:49 PM
Well, I think Trump has been really irresponsible egging it on. I think a responsible leader tries to diffuse those sorts of tensions. I also understand from reports that the protesters were mostly nonviolent and just exercising their rights and that Trump supporters were the main initiators of violence, though I imagine there was some mutuality.
But if people respond to protests with violence, I hardly think the violence can be blamed on the protesters. I'm


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on March 17, 2016, 01:11:08 PM
Nope, not blaming Trump for the riots. Wasn't even talking about the riots.

I am blaming Trump in general, though.

However many weeks ago, Trump was giving a speech in Kentucky where he abruptly stopped and demanded that a protester be removed from the premises. His followers took it upon themselves to do so, and physically assaulted the peaceful woman all the way to the exit. If you're into watching a war vet manhandle a young, black woman, you can watch the video here (http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/03/trump_watch_young_black_woman_assaulted_at_kentucky_rally.html). See that guy in the red hat that hits her and shouts at her? Yeah, that's most likely Matthew Heimbach, "one of the best known youth leaders of modern white supremacy and Neo-Nazism in the country (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-not-long-killed-trump-rally-article-1.2549868?cid=bitly)." Sweet fans you got, Trumparino.

Or how about the one where one of his supporters punched another peacefully-leaving protester in the face? And then threatened to kill him because he's probably Isis. 5 police officers were demoted for standing by and simply watching it happen.


Okay, but how is this Trump's fault, you ask? Sure, let's get into it.

On February 1st, Trump said "if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-the-crap-out-of-protesters-offers-to-pay-legal-fees/)"

On March 4th, during one interruption, Drumpf said, "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court. Are Drumpf rallies the most fun?" he then asked the crowd. "We’re having a good time." He then recalled an incident at a New Hampshire rally where a protester started "swinging and punching." Drumpf said some people in the audience "took him out." "It was really amazing to watch," he said. (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/03/04/trump-rally-fight/)

On March 9th, he said "See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough. We’ve become very weak. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-fayetteville/473169/)"



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: drbeachboy on March 17, 2016, 01:20:49 PM
I am no Trump supporter by a long shot, but we do have free speech and if the protesters can do what they do, then Trump has the right to say what he has to say. Free speech works both ways. The issue is once the protesters get inside the rally are they over stepping their boundaries? Protesting outside the location is one thing, but doing it inside is another story. I agree that Trump being a candidate should watch what he says, but I am a firm believer that to know where one stands, is to let that person speak and don't allow him/her to be silenced. I'd rather know where he stands now then to find out later when it could possibly be too late. His mouth proved to me that I want no part in what he believes. I am glad he is saying it now and not later.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on March 17, 2016, 01:26:36 PM
Around the time of that March 4th rally, "three complaints were filed [with the police] on Wednesday and Thursday and were under review." The day before, black students were removed from a rally in Georgia. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-protesters-idUSMTZSAPEC33HI5U9Q)

Last year, on November 21st, a BLM supporter was shouting during Drumpf's speech, and then was beat up by a gang of Drumpf supporters. Drumpf said "maybe he should have been roughed up. (http://www.vox.com/2015/11/22/9778330/trump-protester-rally-violent)"

Here you can watch a video (https://twitter.com/TUSK81/status/657957146529673216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) of a Latino man being dragged out of a Drumpf rally while onlookers chant "USA!"

Here you can see pictures (https://twitter.com/fl_dreamer/status/641698859283038209) of an immigrant woman's hair being pulled by Drumpf's people.

Here's a video (http://time.com/4242967/donald-trump-rally-secret-service-time-photographer-video/) of a secret serviceman choking a TIME photographer.

When asked during a debate about the violence at his rallies, Drumpf feigned ignorance and equated it to their passion for this country and his campaign.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on March 17, 2016, 01:30:45 PM
Free speech works both ways.

It does not.

"The Supreme Court has held that 'advocacy of the use of force' is unprotected when it is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action' and is 'likely to incite or produce such action'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement)"

And it has produced such action--multiple times.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: drbeachboy on March 17, 2016, 01:34:02 PM
Around the time of that March 4th rally, "three complaints were filed [with the police] on Wednesday and Thursday and were under review." The day before, black students were removed from a rally in Georgia. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-protesters-idUSMTZSAPEC33HI5U9Q)

Last year, on November 21st, a BLM supporter was shouting during Drumpf's speech, and then was beat up by a gang of Drumpf supporters. Drumpf said "maybe he should have been roughed up. (http://www.vox.com/2015/11/22/9778330/trump-protester-rally-violent)"

Here you can watch a video (https://twitter.com/TUSK81/status/657957146529673216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) of a Latino man being dragged out of a Drumpf rally while onlookers chant "USA!"

Here you can see pictures (https://twitter.com/fl_dreamer/status/641698859283038209) of an immigrant woman's hair being pulled by Drumpf's people.

Here's a video (http://time.com/4242967/donald-trump-rally-secret-service-time-photographer-video/) of a secret serviceman choking a TIME photographer.

When asked during a debate about the violence at his rallies, Drumpf feigned ignorance and equated it to their passion for this country and his campaign.
It is the supporters vs the protesters and not Trump. No matter his comments, it still comes down to the folks in the stands actions. It's like that old saying; if I ask you to go jump off of a bridge, are you going to go and do it just because I said so? People have start taking responsibility for their own actions. These days we are always quick to blame someone else, because they told me to do it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2016, 02:29:48 PM
I agree that those that were violent are responsible for their own actions. I also think I really don't want a president who thinks that violence is an OK reaction to protest. I don't think we need more Kent States.
Though, I will add that the status quo has been state violence against protest since forever, but it would be nice to have a president who doesn't seem quite so into it.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2016, 02:43:44 PM
And thanks for the extensive documentation, Bubs. Geez he's awful.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 17, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
People who commit violence are responsible for committing violence. Sometimes that violence is justified (e.g., self-defense); usually it is not. The vast majority of actual violence--as I understand it, anyway--has been done by Trump's supporters against protesters. Those supporters are responsible for committing violence (as well as any protesters who initiated violence--not by protesting, but by being the first to be violent).

To blame protesters for "starting it" by protesting is not valid, in my opinion. They are a pain to the supporters and the campaign rally, absolutely. I've often mentioned my own distaste for most protests, myself: I don't think they're particularly effective other than to rile up their own believers. In my experience, anyone neutral or opposed simply gets more opposed. That said, we have the right to protest in this country, so I mostly just try to ignore them (whether I am sympathetic, opposed, or neutral), even as they stall my commute, block my skyway walk, or ruin my lunch. (One might say "first-world problems. And yeah. That's a fair criticism. Yet I counter that it ought not be someone else's choice what is more important than my routines, conveniences, or pleasure, or when to undo them. They may be correct, they may not, but it ought to be up to me whether their cause warrants my inconvenience, attention, support, etc.)

To blame Trump is--sorry, KDS--somewhat fair. The fact is, celebrities and leaders do have power over mobs, and that's exactly what political supporters are (or are wont to become). Trump is running not on a coherent and consistent platform that people join through reason, but based on an emotional connection made through charisma, like a fascist dictator or a cult leader. It's HIM, not party, not ideology, not ideas. And so when he stands there talking about violence, when he doesn't take violence seriously, when he villainizes people, yes, he is somewhat responsible. Not directly, but close enough.

As these events unfolded, I kept thinking of the Tea Partiers protesting in and totally making a mess of town halls and rallies and such in and around 2010. I wonder if violence against those loudmouth protesters would have been so widely accepted, or whether conservatives would have blamed those protesters.

My preference is for everyone to calm down and, as parents tend to tell their battling kids, "use your words."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on March 17, 2016, 04:00:46 PM
Good points above that I agree with. It is a basic tenet of ethical thinking that you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions. And free speech, an important principle, does not prevent one from being criticized over the speech that one uses. You can't repeatedly call for violent actions against protesters and then wipe your hands after it actually happens and pretend as if you had nothing to do with it. There are plenty of laws out there against saying things that lead to predictably negative outcomes and free speech is not an issue in those cases -- not that I think Donald Trump should be put in jail for this.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2016, 04:22:17 PM
Jesus, and excuse me whomever that offends, but Jesus. I just went through all the links from Bubs and did some more reading and I'm baffled and a bit scared. There's something so contradictory on the right. Are the same people who support our incredibly loose weapons laws because of the 'right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government' also Trump supporters? Because this looks like the lead-up to an openly violent tyrannical government to me. Isn't a president that encourages that sort of violence against the opposition exactly what they claim 'the people' need to be armed against? Do they support Trump because they'll finally have their justification for their weapons realized?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 27, 2016, 11:12:28 AM
I found this entertaining and pretty accurate:
https://twitter.com/christopherlay/status/713126487130378240/photo/1


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 30, 2016, 12:43:42 PM
A discussion of Trump versus Sanders supporters and their likelihood of combining for a future third party. The article concludes that the likelihood is low, but given some of their common ideas, I wouldn't be surprised if one party or the other has a big shift, perhaps with a third party  making a big showing next time around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/30/the-crazy-logic-behind-an-alliance-of-trump-sanders-supporters/

Lots of typos in this article. Where are the copyrighters?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on March 30, 2016, 12:55:19 PM
There's something so contradictory on the right. Are the same people who support our incredibly loose weapons laws because of the 'right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government' also Trump supporters? Because this looks like the lead-up to an openly violent tyrannical government to me. Isn't a president that encourages that sort of violence against the opposition exactly what they claim 'the people' need to be armed against? Do they support Trump because they'll finally have their justification for their weapons realized?

I don't support Trump one bit; I see him as the "right-wing" equivalent of Sanders in just about every way. Trump courts the same low-information voters that elected and re-elected Obama and his two predecessors. I'm also pretty much convinced that he's only there to ensure Hillary wins the presidency. Years of donating to Democrats can't fool everyone. Sadly, The Donald's fanboys aren't that perceptive. They're literally trying to elect another Obama because they're pissed off with Obama.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on March 30, 2016, 01:04:44 PM
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/30/watch-teen-girl-pepper-sprayed-face-trump-rally

Just to prove that I'm by no means some kind of radical right-winger who thinks Fox never gets things wrong (they, like every other major network, cherry pick their reporting). What's funny about this is that EVEN FOX NEWS is selectively reporting this incident. This girl was not sprayed for no reason; she threw a punch. If she connected matters not. She came unprepared and got blasted for it.

Still not a fan of the Donald, but sh*t like this from Sanders supporters is going to drive more people into the former's camp.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 30, 2016, 01:06:19 PM
I'm also pretty much convinced that he's only there to ensure Hillary wins the presidency. Years of donating to Democrats can't fool everyone.

I've heard this before, but am not so sure. First, I'm always pretty skeptical of conspiracy theories. Second, what does that say about Republicans that they can have Democrats (I assume that's whom you'd say are behind it?) push a clown into their primaries and beat their candidates by saying ludicrous things incessantly? (Their voters are that stupid about their party's professed positions?) Third, none of their other candidates polled particularly well against Clinton, either. So it seems like an unnecessary bit of clandestine maneuvering to me. Ted Cruz was not going to beat her in a Trumpless world... And fourth, he's been a purported Republican for, what, 15 years now? That's really playing the long game (for someone whose brain usually can't even stay one step ahead of his mouth). The donations aren't surprising to me: my company, and many others I know of, donate to people in both parties all the time. It's about hedging their bets more than anything else. So that he'd do the same isn't surprising, especially when the Democrats ARE the Republicans, more or less, more often than not.

That said, I suppose anything is possible.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on March 30, 2016, 01:08:38 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong, when it comes to having a game plan, the Democrats will ALWAYS have one up on the Republicans. There's something respectable about that.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 30, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong, when it comes to having a game plan, the Democrats will ALWAYS have one up on the Republicans. There's something respectable about that.

Funny, every Democrat (and every liberal, actually) I know thinks the exact opposite. They always talk about--or at least, did before the past cycle or two--how the Republicans are a well oiled machine with everyone on board on all the talking points, even as Democrats can't seem to get their stories straight.

As institutions, I think they both suck. Clearly I have more in common with some of the policies the Democrats have favored at times, but I think both major parties are garbage whose interests lie almost wholly in preserving themselves first, and each other second.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on March 30, 2016, 01:16:50 PM
That's precisely why I began following the Libertarians. I don't follow their party platform 100% as I've leaned more towards paleoconservatism than straight libertarianism lately (libertarian ideals regarding multiculturalism are dangerous), but they're pretty much on track. Gary Johnson is currently polling at 11%. That's huge.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 30, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
Both parties are a mess right now.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on March 30, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
That's precisely why I began following the Libertarians. I don't follow their party platform 100% as I've leaned more towards paleoconservatism than straight libertarianism lately (libertarian ideals regarding multiculturalism are dangerous), but they're pretty much on track. Gary Johnson is currently polling at 11%. That's huge.

Johnson is at 11% among whom--general public? That's surprisingly high.

Re the multiculturalism thing, I've read your thoughts before and at some point want to have a more complete discussion about it. But I don't even have questions properly framed, and this isn't the thread anyway. But you've been warned  ;D


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 30, 2016, 07:17:05 PM
There's something so contradictory on the right. Are the same people who support our incredibly loose weapons laws because of the 'right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government' also Trump supporters? Because this looks like the lead-up to an openly violent tyrannical government to me. Isn't a president that encourages that sort of violence against the opposition exactly what they claim 'the people' need to be armed against? Do they support Trump because they'll finally have their justification for their weapons realized?

I don't support Trump one bit; I see him as the "right-wing" equivalent of Sanders in just about every way. Trump courts the same low-information voters that elected and re-elected Obama and his two predecessors. I'm also pretty much convinced that he's only there to ensure Hillary wins the presidency. Years of donating to Democrats can't fool everyone. Sadly, The Donald's fanboys aren't that perceptive. They're literally trying to elect another Obama because they're pissed off with Obama.
I haven't mistaken you as a standard right-winger for quite a while.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on March 30, 2016, 08:07:19 PM
I don't know whether that's complimentary or not. :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on March 30, 2016, 09:19:48 PM
I don't know whether that's complimentary or not. :lol
While I strongly differ with some of your views, I credit you with independence of thought. It's a compliment. 


Title: Re:Campaign 2016
Post by: halblaineisgood on April 01, 2016, 09:02:23 PM
I don't belong here.



    


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 02, 2016, 05:16:07 AM
Well thanks for stopping in to let us know. If you change your mind, we'll be here.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 02, 2016, 03:24:03 PM
Donald Trump is bringing Americans together. I followed a link from Salon to National Review (see?) and read a column by Jonah Goldberg and agreed with it (except the Cuba nonsense)!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433571/donald-trump-michelle-fields-corey-lewandowski-lies-followers


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 02, 2016, 04:05:00 PM
Donald Trump is bringing Americans together. I followed a link from Salon to National Review (see?) and read a column by Jonah Goldberg and agreed with it (except the Cuba nonsense)!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433571/donald-trump-michelle-fields-corey-lewandowski-lies-followers

The Cuba stuff IS nonsense. Though I am sympathetic to this phrase: "our instinctual desire to have our lives run by an alpha-ape." Not to say I necessarily think that's what Marxism is all about, as Goldberg claims, but rather that I do think we've got that instinct, and in fact I think it explains why we're so quick to get on board with charismatic leaders, almost regardless of what they say or do (and certainly regardless of political system). In fact, that really explains Trump...I mean, he does have big hands or whatever. And did you hear he's rich!?

Anyway, on the main point of the article, the most startling thing to me wasn't that Goldberg is anti-Trump. That's not unusual. It's his assumptions as to the Fields situation. Unless he's being funny and I'm missing it, his assumption of her "7-step plan" is awfully light on, you know, any actual substance. I mean, my assumption of him writing that column is that Trump paid him to badmouth Trump, because everyone knows the more people talk bad about The Donald, the more his followers get all riled up and double down. So it's a show of support to Trump. And Goldberg is no doubt being paid under the table, or being promised a guest-host spot on the next reality show Trump hosts, or whatever. That's my opinion.




Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 02, 2016, 04:23:51 PM
Donald Trump is bringing Americans together. I followed a link from Salon to National Review (see?) and read a column by Jonah Goldberg and agreed with it (except the Cuba nonsense)!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433571/donald-trump-michelle-fields-corey-lewandowski-lies-followers

The Cuba stuff IS nonsense. Though I am sympathetic to this phrase: "our instinctual desire to have our lives run by an alpha-ape." Not to say I necessarily think that's what Marxism is all about, as Goldberg claims, but rather that I do think we've got that instinct, and in fact I think it explains why we're so quick to get on board with charismatic leaders, almost regardless of what they say or do (and certainly regardless of political system). In fact, that really explains Trump...I mean, he does have big hands or whatever. And did you hear he's rich!?

Anyway, on the main point of the article, the most startling thing to me wasn't that Goldberg is anti-Trump. That's not unusual. It's his assumptions as to the Fields situation. Unless he's being funny and I'm missing it, his assumption of her "7-step plan" is awfully light on, you know, any actual substance. I mean, my assumption of him writing that column is that Trump paid him to badmouth Trump, because everyone knows the more people talk bad about The Donald, the more his followers get all riled up and double down. So it's a show of support to Trump. And Goldberg is no doubt being paid under the table, or being promised a guest-host spot on the next reality show Trump hosts, or whatever. That's my opinion.

The sheep instinct - evidently a lot of people do have it. I unfortunately have the opposite instinct, which has caused me to openly argue at some point with almost every boss or teacher I've had  :(  I am instinctively suspicious of "leader" types.
I'm pretty confident the 7-step plan was sarcasm on Goldberg's part directed at people who are suggesting that Fields had some sort of underhanded motive for the complaint. Trump has right-wingers using sarcasm to defend a woman saying that a Republican campaign manager behaved violently toward her. It's bizarre.
Regarding Goldberg's motives, I just assumed that he's like all the other conservatives lining up against Trump - Trump isn't following the script and is leading their base off on some tangents. But I don't follow right-wing personalities like Glenn Beck or Goldberg closely enough to make any nuanced guesses as to their motivations.

My main point of posting was that I was really surprised to find myself reading a Goldberg piece in the National Review and not bubbling over with outrage or shaking my head with disgust.

ps - Trump is known for small hands. The excellent former publication, Spy Magazine, always called him "the short-fingered vulgarian."


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 02, 2016, 04:31:34 PM
I'm trying to read more conservative opinions, personally, because I don't like hearing conservatives define (and assess motives to) progressives. So I figure I owe them the same courtesy. Well, and because I don't like to think I'll ossify behind anyone, ever, if I can help it. I want to remain curious.

Point being, I try to take him at his word about why he doesn't like Trump. I remain skeptical because I think a healthy skepticism is--ready!?--healthy. Critical may be the better word. But I'm skeptical and critical of everyone across the 3-dimensional political spectrum.

Glad to hear you think the 7-step thing was a joke. I really did take it as "hey, the Trump response might be terrible, but yeah, this chick totally planned it." Another reading makes me think you're probably right. Hopefully right.

Re authority ... yeah. I've been in that boat, myself. I like to think institutions deserve our respect, and yet somehow every time I'm faced with their representatives, I just can't quite see it. I find myself often thinking back to a comment Chomsky made about charisma being the worst part of American politics, because people fall for it. (I know I've referenced that before, but, well, I said I find myself OFTEN thinking about it!) As soon as people begin trusting or believing in something someone said because of who it was who said it, well, I think that's a dangerous road.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 10, 2016, 03:00:43 PM
Interesting but creepy little piece on Trump.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-convention-strategy-the-fix-is-in?mbid=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true
I wonder if he's seen A Face in the Crowd:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050371/


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 10, 2016, 03:09:09 PM
Predictable, though. Similar kind of paranoia we see on other topics: they're coming for your guns; they will discriminate against you because of your Christianity; they sneak into the country to steal your jobs (and assorted benefits); the liberal media is actively opposing us; scientists are conspiring against us; the education system is intentionally and systematically destroying our values and lying to our kids; and so on, forever. (All of this without the REALLY batshit ideas.) When in doubt, no matter the actual situation, play the victim game. They're cheating, we know they're cheating, it's NOT FAIR.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 10, 2016, 03:17:12 PM
Predictable, though. Similar kind of paranoia we see on other topics: they're coming for your guns; they will discriminate against you because of your Christianity; they sneak into the country to steal your jobs (and assorted benefits); the liberal media is actively opposing us; scientists are conspiring against us; the education system is intentionally and systematically destroying our values and lying to our kids; and so on, forever. (All of this without the REALLY batshit ideas.) When in doubt, no matter the actual situation, play the victim game. They're cheating, we know they're cheating, it's NOT FAIR.
This paragraph is what stood out to me:
"It’s easy to mock Trump for his thin-skinned fixation on the size of his audiences, but that misses a deeper point: you can’t have a riot without a mob. Even before he was a candidate, Trump displayed a rare gift for cultivating the dark power of a crowd. In his role as the primary advocate of the “birther” fiction, he proved himself to be a maestro of the mob mentality, capable of conducting his fans through crescendos of rage and self-pity and suspicion. Speaking to the Times editorial board, in January, he said, “You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe, thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!,’ and they go nuts.”'


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on April 10, 2016, 03:17:51 PM
The convention talk is scary!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 10, 2016, 03:47:45 PM
The convention talk is scary!
I agree. I think Trump is being incredibly irresponsible.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 10, 2016, 03:55:34 PM
The convention talk is scary!
I agree. I think Trump is being incredibly irresponsible.

That's the least surprising clause I've read all day!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: bluesno1fann on April 10, 2016, 07:47:20 PM
So Bernie's won the last seven out of eight states, and is well on his way to catching up in New York.

Clearly his chances aren't completely dead yet


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 10, 2016, 09:41:53 PM
So Bernie's won the last seven out of eight states, and is well on his way to catching up in New York.

Clearly his chances aren't completely dead yet
It's true, but he'd need to win almost 68% of the remaining delegates to win without getting unpledged delegates who are currently slated for Hillary to move over. Over those last eight states, he's won a bit more than 61%. So he'd have to improve on this streak and keep it up for the rest of the primaries. New York is next week with 247 delegates. He's polling behind by double digits, but gaining. Let's say he gains to 55%, which is probably over-optimistic. Then for the rest of the primaries, he'd need to win close to 70% of the remaining delegates. The week after NY, we have Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware. Pennsylvania and Maryland together have 73% of the delegates from those states, and Clinton is currently leading both in double-digits. There don't seem to be reliable polling data for the other three, it looks like CT (55) leans toward Clinton; RI (24) leans Sanders; Delaware - no idea. But let's say, again, that Sanders keeps his momentum and overcomes Clinton's double-digit leads in the bigger states and wins an unlikely 58% that day. Then, he needs to win 73% of what remains.... and this is the best-case scenario.
It isn't impossible, but it's super unlikely. He'd need to have some massive wins and no significant losses; the only remaining big state would be California, where he's still behind, but gaining and it's fairly close; the only remaining medium state is New Jersey where he's behind by 25%.
And, unlike with the Republicans, the party bosses support the lead candidate, so they won't be pushing for a brokered convention or supporting a movement of superdelegates.

We'll know in a week. If he doesn't have a victory by a pretty big margin in NY, it's become quite close to impossible, barring an enormous upset that wipes out Clinton's support.


Title:
Post by: zachrwolfe on April 10, 2016, 11:50:07 PM


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 11, 2016, 01:26:53 AM
Normally agree with you Emily, but I just wanted to mention that as soon as Obama started to lead Clinton in pledged delegates in 2008, the super-delegates trickled over as well, and I would expect the same thing to happen should Bernie come out ahead this election (if only because of the massive uproar the dem. establishment would have to face if they stole the win from Bernie). Based on that assumption, Bernie actually only needs to grab approx. 57-58% of the remaining states in order to win the popular vote, which, as you've pointed out, is less than the average of his margins from the last eight won contests. It's still absolutely Hillary's race to lose, but all Bernie needs to do to take the nomination is keep doing exactly what he's been doing, not win over 68%. :)

But yes, losing or tieing NY would be a yuge blow to his campaign.
You're absolutely right. If he really seems to be gaining serious momentum and has a significant victory in NY, the superdelegates might start moving.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 11, 2016, 04:54:27 AM
Normally agree with you Emily, but I just wanted to mention that as soon as Obama started to lead Clinton in pledged delegates in 2008, the super-delegates trickled over as well, and I would expect the same thing to happen should Bernie come out ahead this election

The difference, to me, is that Obama had the support of corporate America in 2008 and therefore spoke more to the interests of the Democratic party than Bernie Sanders does now. Personally I would be surprised if Bernie had much super delegate support.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 11, 2016, 05:39:27 AM
Normally agree with you Emily, but I just wanted to mention that as soon as Obama started to lead Clinton in pledged delegates in 2008, the super-delegates trickled over as well, and I would expect the same thing to happen should Bernie come out ahead this election

The difference, to me, is that Obama had the support of corporate America in 2008 and therefore spoke more to the interests of the Democratic party than Bernie Sanders does now. Personally I would be surprised if Bernie had much super delegate support.

Agreed, and that's a huge difference.


Title:
Post by: zachrwolfe on April 11, 2016, 10:20:52 AM


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 11, 2016, 10:49:32 AM
Keep in mind the DNC revised its system of nominating candidates (using super delegates) to overrule the democratic process: they didn't want another incident like McGovern.

Considering Sanders isn't and has never been a member of the Democratic Party and (unlike Clinton) doesn't raise funds for it or for down-ticket candidates, I wouldn't expect the Party to do him any favors at any point down the line.

True democracy has been something US leaders since the founders have worked pretty hard to minimize. Some good reasons, some bad. But parties--powerful ones--are interested in self-preservation, not democratic principles.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 11, 2016, 11:05:58 AM
I don't really think the nominating process should be democratic, theoretically. Theoretically, anyone who wants should be able to gather people behind whomever they want to nominate and call it a 'party.' So, if I want to nominate 'the captain,' I should be able to found a party to organize and drum up support for the captain and I shouldn't have to let other random people come in and say, 'well, there are more of us in your party now and we nominate 'zachrwolfe.' Theoretically, the democratic (such as it is. Making it so challenging for people to vote and the electoral college already render it undemocratic) process starts with the general election, once the nominees are nominated through separate 'private' processes.

Practically, though, we've got a pretty unbreakable two-party system in which the two parties are quasi-official. So one can argue that the practical process doesn't match the theoretical process in ways that create a sound argument that the parties should have internally democratic processes and should be governed by public rules, as they are practically ensconced public bodies. I personally prefer the theory to the practice, but given the reality, understand why the parties should be internally democratic.

Either we should accept that we have a fixed two-party system and adjust the rules to reflect that, or we should adjust the rules to break the two-party system.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 11, 2016, 03:47:29 PM
I strongly prefer the latter of your options. And this might be better suited for the tremendously unpopular "Electoral Process" thread (I'm pretty good at starting unpopular threads...  ;D ), but I think the two-party system has the hugely unfortunate result of forcing a false dichotomy on people. The idea that the complexities of political scenarios, whether full platforms from top to bottom or the nuances within individual pieces of legislation, are honestly so simple as Choice A or Choice B--and that's it!?--is patently absurd. But as I said earlier, the primary objective of successful parties is maintaining or growing their power. The last thing they want to see happen is for their own status to be risked by opening up the process to (GASP) alternatives.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on April 11, 2016, 03:51:58 PM
Breaking the two-party system would require great swaths of Americans to stop being red vs. blue fanboys and start thinking on policies as opposed to parties. I believe we're asking too much of our fellow countrymen. I say this as someone who would desire nothing more than the complete collapse of the two-party system, replaced with nothing. Run on policy, not party.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 11, 2016, 04:01:11 PM
Breaking the two-party system would require great swaths of Americans to stop being red vs. blue fanboys and start thinking on policies as opposed to parties. I believe we're asking too much of our fellow countrymen. I say this as someone who would desire nothing more than the complete collapse of the two-party system, replaced with nothing. Run on policy, not party.

I agree completely.

I think one part of the problem is the fear that the parties push down onto those perverts, those heretics, who show signs of straying from orthodoxy: if you stray from us, your cute little vanity candidate still won't win, and the candidate you hate most probably will. That has been the narrative over and over. And people are actually afraid to "throw away their votes," apparently not understanding that we have probably at least as many people who claim not to be affiliated with one of the major parties as we do affiliated with either one. That's to say nothing of those who DO affiliate, but only because they see a lack of viable alternatives. (Let's get serious: is a Sanders follower really in the same boat as a Clinton follower? I mean really? Was a Ron Paul follower truly a part of the same party as a Mitt Romney follower?)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on April 11, 2016, 04:04:46 PM
It's funny when we mention this whole "if you vote for your vanity candidate THE OTHER GUY WE DON'T LIKE WILL WIN!" bullshit - the fact that that is even a talking point is proof that even the same partisan red vs. blue fuckwits KNOW their system is bullshit and have a similar lack of faith in the process.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on April 11, 2016, 04:11:39 PM
Damn straight captain and TRBB!


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 11, 2016, 04:22:41 PM
The question becomes how to break up those two parties, then. They dominate. Even the legislature is at least in practice if not by rule organized around them: the rare independents caucus with either Republicans or Democrats because you can't very well caucus by yourself... The idea of a 'big-tent" party is great, except when it eventually leads to what it has led to, which is to say parties that in the end are football teams dedicated to 1) gouging fans for money by 2) televising their organized violence against one another. Or maybe better, they're pro wrestlers, because it's all such pathetic theater.

I don't mean nobody in either party has actual beliefs, that's not for me to say. But the system itself is basically pro wrestling.

How do you get to a viable multiparty system, or no-party system? And are those results better than the sh*t we have now?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on April 11, 2016, 04:23:43 PM
Jesse Ventura for president? ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 11, 2016, 04:24:08 PM
Again, though, a third party candidate running in an American election is not going to be able to achieve much, and certainly not enough to risk turning the country over to extremist leadership. What's far more important than a third party candidate is a movement of people that can make serious systemic changes. That's not going to happen with a third party candidate under the current system.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 11, 2016, 04:26:00 PM
The question becomes how to break up those two parties, then. They dominate. Even the legislature is at least in practice if not by rule organized around them: the rare independents caucus with either Republicans or Democrats because you can't very well caucus by yourself... The idea of a 'big-tent" party is great, except when it eventually leads to what it has led to, which is to say parties that in the end are football teams dedicated to 1) gouging fans for money by 2) televising their organized violence against one another. Or maybe better, they're pro wrestlers, because it's all such pathetic theater.

I don't mean nobody in either party has actual beliefs, that's not for me to say. But the system itself is basically pro wrestling.

How do you get to a viable multiparty system, or no-party system? And are those results better than the sh*t we have now?

Sorry, I wrote the above before seeing this post but my above post does in some way get towards responding to this question. I think you get to this system first and foremost with a dedicated popular movement that actively pressures the system to change.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 11, 2016, 05:06:24 PM
Look up Duverger's Law. It's quite right that you'd be "throwing away your vote" if you don't vote for a major party candidate, as long as we have a winner-take-all by district system. If we apportioned representation according to voting percentage  - which is how you break the two-party system - that wouldn't be the case. It's not actually codified in the Constitution that the states have to be split up by district. A state could move to proportional voting for its federal representation on its own. But it's a prisoner's dilemma - if a state does it on its own, it loses by having outcaste representatives in congress. So no state wants to be among the first to make the change. Once enough have changed to break the two-party stronghold, it benefits the other states to follow suit.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 12, 2016, 05:19:50 AM
It's funny when we mention this whole "if you vote for your vanity candidate THE OTHER GUY WE DON'T LIKE WILL WIN!" bullshit - the fact that that is even a talking point is proof that even the same partisan red vs. blue fuckwits KNOW their system is bullshit and have a similar lack of faith in the process.

It is all propaganda and smoke and mirrors and threats.  Everyone laughed at the Tea Party as whack jobs.  Now, it ain't so funny that people are incensed, and national security is all that matters to most people.  Domestic stuff can be fixed in the courts. We can't fix an invasion. 

The travesty that people are finding out about, is that these primaries are not uniform among the 50 states and they make up their own rules as they go along.  And RNC is openly bragging that despite a 1237 vote, they will block and put their own "fresh face" person in.  Who do they think they are, substituting "their judgment" for that of the people? 

RNC had better get it's act together.  And the Dems are getting a big shocker with almost steamrolling wins with Bernie whom they also ridiculed.  DNC is a disgrace with their lack of impartiality.  The moderate, pro law-enforcement Democratic party of Bill Clinton is not the leftist party of his spouse. 

When you have the caucus system, there is horse-trading going on all the time and it is the same-old, same-old.  Only in this historic primary season people are smartening up to what is really happening, and it is the shock and horror of the terrorist attacks.  This is not "our new normal" as would be suggested.  We are not going to swallow this. I don't need some electoral college to "think for me" and some political-hack substitute his or her judgment for what I think. And, I would like to see a uniform primary voting system across the country so everyone is on even footing in this democracy. 

Both parties are getting big surprises. People laughed at Trump and Sanders.  They thought it was a joke. This country has had enough of the dynastic political class elite.  The slumbering giant has awoken.  The party and 2-party gravy train is over ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: alf wiedersehen on April 12, 2016, 09:02:40 AM
Looks like this nation's preeminent widow's peak and Republican-party pushover has run away from the presidency.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 12, 2016, 09:09:48 AM
Keep in mind the DNC revised its system of nominating candidates (using super delegates) to overrule the democratic process: they didn't want another incident like McGovern.

I misspoke here: the super delegate system was added after Carter's loss to Reagan. No doubt McGovern was still on the mind as well, but the direct cause was Carter.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 12, 2016, 10:27:45 AM
Looks like this nation's preeminent widow's peak and Republican-party pushover has run away from the presidency.
This is too cryptic for me. Who? Did what?
Figured it out.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on April 12, 2016, 08:31:40 PM
I do find it INCREDIBLY hilarious and ironic that Bernie's supporters are bitching and moaning about Hillary's "unearned" delegates. The double standard just BURNS. I guess even Sanders supporters can't get behind having stuff given to someone else who didn't earn it. :)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 13, 2016, 06:43:13 AM
I do find it INCREDIBLY hilarious and ironic that Bernie's supporters are bitching and moaning about Hillary's "unearned" delegates. The double standard just BURNS. I guess even Sanders supporters can't get behind having stuff given to someone else who didn't earn it. :)

The election has become a free-for-all. Both parties are a mess.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: KDS on April 13, 2016, 06:47:17 AM
Looking at the remaining candidates, I have to say that it's scary that this is the best the United States can do. 

I'm basically supporting Trump because he's the candidate I dislike the least. 

This is like being asked to pick my favorite song from Summer in Paradise. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 13, 2016, 06:58:11 AM
It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Douchepool on April 13, 2016, 08:31:20 AM
Politics is the most overvalued and overpaid part-time job in history. The can-dos don't go into politics because they can prosper much better in the private sector. The can't-dos either go into politics or worse...teach.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 13, 2016, 09:21:54 AM
Politics is the most overvalued and overpaid part-time job in history. The can-dos don't go into politics because they can prosper much better in the private sector. The can't-dos either go into politics or worse...teach.
I disagree. There are a lot of idiots who are successful in private industry and a lot of good, smart, capable people who go into politics and teaching.
There's one very famous idiot who's being successful at both right now.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 05:47:47 AM
OK, as we move toward the actual nominations and read inevitable stories about how someone other than the leading candidates could win, let's take the pulse of the board:

Does anyone here think the most likely scenario is anything other than (current frontrunners by significant margins) Trump v Clinton? If so, I'd like to hear your guess, and (most interestingly) how that will come about.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: SMiLE Brian on April 15, 2016, 05:50:21 AM
Captain, does this thread have comped drinks?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 06:02:01 AM
Well my drink at the moment is coffee, and I did buy the coffee. So if it does, I'm not aware of them. Point me to the bar. Technically I'm working (though from home today), but hell, I work better drunk anyway. And if a guy can't start drinking at 8 a.m., when can he start drinking?

By the way, to answer my question, as much as I find the convention intrigue intriguing, I'm playing the safe bet: it'll be Clinton v Trump (and thus a Clinton win by double-digit points). The only way it's not Clinton is an indictment, which I don't think will happen, while with Trump I could still see some kind of convention manipulations resulting in Cruz, who would lose to a centrist like Clinton by more than Trump.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 06:17:10 AM
Responding here because it's more appropriate to this thread.


Captain - that is just wishful thinking on the old-guard Republican Party.  I think both parties are looking for bearers of their respective legacy positions.  We have upstarts cropping up all over the place who don't seem to want to continue the same-old, same-old and want a real shake-up on both sides.  It is just too easy to call them demagogues. 


Except that I'm not talking about general discontent within parties. I'm talking specifically about the Trump phenomenon within the Republican party right now. And Trump is best described as a demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. (Definition from whatever Google's default dictionary is...)

This point of mine isn't about whether people are sick of the status quo, whether they're right to be sick of it, what's going on within other parties. It was specifically about the electoral problem the Republicans have this cycle with Donald Trump, who is capitalizing on anger and spouting literal nonsense that appeals to people emotionally, not rationally. He is best described as a demagogue. (Unless we're "telling it like it is," a la Mr. Trump himself, at which point we'd say he's a racist, sexist asshole who is assembling legions of gullible people on the false premise that he "gets" them and will look out for them despite a lack of any evidence to support that.)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 06:45:23 AM
Responding here because it's more appropriate to the thread

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?
Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities. 

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her. 

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.   

First - another lol for Trump 'articulating' anything.
To the points above: honestly, this sort of point is the sort that supports the 'vast right wing conspiracy' argument and weakens all the Hillary is some sort of behind-the-scenes mastermind arguments because it's so completely absurd and wrong.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 06:48:25 AM
Responding here because it's more appropriate to this thread.


Captain - that is just wishful thinking on the old-guard Republican Party.  I think both parties are looking for bearers of their respective legacy positions.  We have upstarts cropping up all over the place who don't seem to want to continue the same-old, same-old and want a real shake-up on both sides.  It is just too easy to call them demagogues. 


Except that I'm not talking about general discontent within parties. I'm talking specifically about the Trump phenomenon within the Republican party right now. And Trump is best described as a demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. (Definition from whatever Google's default dictionary is...)

This point of mine isn't about whether people are sick of the status quo, whether they're right to be sick of it, what's going on within other parties. It was specifically about the electoral problem the Republicans have this cycle with Donald Trump, who is capitalizing on anger and spouting literal nonsense that appeals to people emotionally, not rationally. He is best described as a demagogue. (Unless we're "telling it like it is," a la Mr. Trump himself, at which point we'd say he's a racist, sexist asshole who is assembling legions of gullible people on the false premise that he "gets" them and will look out for them despite a lack of any evidence to support that.)
Captain - this is the election year of discontent. Every Democrat I talk to is disgusted with the party and will be their first generation of voting for Trump.  Their ancestors would roll over in their graves. But, I am not convinced that Trump was serious when he started out and just may have wanted to send his own message which could have spilled over of his business promotion.  

Sadly, a lot of lawyers and business people do the very same thing, and run for office as a pretext to get business.  But, on the other hand it does help to have a law degree to read the ordinances and other proposed legislation rather than have some lawyer give their spin that the candidate would sheepishly follow because they don't know any better.    

But, I think Trump is sincerely surprised at how much his message of bringing back business, stronger national security and border control for drugs, and criminals has resonated with people who have had it with sanctuary cities, for example (but which does not make you an automatic bigot.) Trump does present as superficial in terms of body image but he is hardly a Charles Atlas symbol.  He has made some huge gaffes because he is a political neophyte.  

Where it matters, for me, is how well he has educated his daughters. That runs contrary to many global standards which would relegate a woman to the home and subservient and unable to read and write. Trump's message is noisy.  Last night his speech was more measured in NY.  

We have mechanisms in place to remove a president should he become a demagogue or a tyrant, in the event he is elected.  

The NY elections will be interesting especially if Sanders wins.  ;)          


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 06:57:22 AM
Responding here because it's more appropriate to the thread

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?
Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities.  

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her.  

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.    

First - another lol for Trump 'articulating' anything.
To the points above: honestly, this sort of point is the sort that supports the 'vast right wing conspiracy' argument and weakens all the Hillary is some sort of behind-the-scenes mastermind arguments because it's so completely absurd and wrong.
Emily - Whether you like or hate him, Trump is a force to be reckoned with. And, Sanders, as well, calling her out on her speech fees.  She got nearly a quarter of a mil from Verizon. That came out as the East Coast Verizon workers are on strike.  

And this "vast right wing conspiracy" is the rhetoric that Hillary has been hiding behind.  Benghazi is not a conspiracy generated by Republicans or Independents.  Hillary's disregard of security protocol is not a "right wing conspiracy." It is dishonesty. Those are personal actions are indefensible.  

A "right wing conspiracy" is at the tip of her lips ready to spew when she has nothing else.  It is the "dog ate my homework" defense.  

Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 07:01:54 AM

Captain - this is the election year of discontent. Every Democrat I talk to is disgusted with the party and will be their first generation of voting for Trump.  Their ancestors would roll over in their graves. But, I am not convinced that Trump was serious when he started out and just may have wanted to send his own message which could have spilled over of his business promotion.  


First, you're mostly going back into things that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But as for what you're saying, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 07:02:14 AM
Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    ;)

I disagree. I think the DNC is favouring Clinton because she is corporate-friendly just like most in the Democratic party. This is why I also disagree with the premise of what you say is Trump's message: bring back business and stronger national security. After all, you can't find a viable leader in recent history who wasn't pro-corporate and hawkish.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 07:03:06 AM
The sorts the of 'gaffes' trump has made aren't because he's a neophyte. They are because heMs bigoted or milking other people's bigotries. I didn't make those sorts of 'gaffes' ever because I'm not bigoted toward women, Mexicans or Muslims. If you aren't bigoted, you don't need an advisor telling you not to say bigoted things.
You keep citing the Democrats you know as if they are representative of a movement related to this year's campaign. They sound to me like they are representative of a multi-generational very slow movement of New England conservatives from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Very slow because their equally conservative ancestors were Democratic stalwarts when the Party was quite conservative on social issues and saved their leftish economic policies for white working-class men. Also slow because they are uncomfortable with the evangelism that has a strong influence in the Republican Party and because they have an inking that Republican Party is not very friendly for the working class either, but they are doing a better job of selling themselves to the white working class than the dems are.

The things you say that 'Democrats you know' are thinking this year do not match what Democrats in general are thinking this year.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
Responding here because it's more appropriate to the thread

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?
Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities.  

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her.  

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.    

First - another lol for Trump 'articulating' anything.
To the points above: honestly, this sort of point is the sort that supports the 'vast right wing conspiracy' argument and weakens all the Hillary is some sort of behind-the-scenes mastermind arguments because it's so completely absurd and wrong.
Emily - Whether you like or hate him, Trump is a force to be reckoned with. And, Sanders, as well, calling her out on her speech fees.  She got nearly a quarter of a mil from Verizon. That came out as the East Coast Verizon workers are on strike.  

And this "vast right wing conspiracy" is the rhetoric that Hillary has been hiding behind.  Benghazi is not a conspiracy generated by Republicans or Independents.  Hillary's disregard of security protocol is not a "right wing conspiracy." It is dishonesty. Those are personal actions are indefensible.  

A "right wing conspiracy" is at the tip of her lips ready to spew when she has nothing else.  It is the "dog ate my homework" defense.  

Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    ;)
Nonsense.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 07:05:00 AM

Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    ;)

That is ridiculous. The DNC favors Clinton because she's a long-time faithful Democrat, while Sanders isn't a registered Democrat even now, but an independent who is running for their nomination. She is and has long been fundraising for the party; he is fundraising for his own campaign.

Of course it helps tick a box in terms of her gender, just like Republicans had been thrilled at the idea of running Rubio as a young, energetic, attractive minority (who just happened to be a terrible candidate), or Palin (who happened to be one of the dumbest public figures I've ever seen), etc. Both parties want to be seen as diverse and inclusive. But the reason the Democratic party backs Clinton so strongly isn't gender bias. It's allegiance and it's money.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 07:39:02 AM

Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    ;)

That is ridiculous. The DNC favors Clinton because she's a long-time faithful Democrat, while Sanders isn't a registered Democrat even now, but an independent who is running for their nomination. She is and has long been fundraising for the party; he is fundraising for his own campaign.

Of course it helps tick a box in terms of her gender, just like Republicans had been thrilled at the idea of running Rubio as a young, energetic, attractive minority (who just happened to be a terrible candidate), or Palin (who happened to be one of the dumbest public figures I've ever seen), etc. Both parties want to be seen as diverse and inclusive. But the reason the Democratic party backs Clinton so strongly isn't gender bias. It's allegiance and it's money.

Captain - Hillary is no more a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  But they are running on the Democratic ticket for electability.  You are not "vetted" to join a party, you only have to "sign-up and declare your affiliation" at the polls or at city hall.  Neither is as diverse as they would project.  DNC is behind her because that is the deal that was made in 2008 when she was passed-over for Obama.  Both parties engage in horse-trading.  

Rubio made some fatal mistakes at the end by "engaging Trump" returning the same rhetoric, and tone, and he may have been "used" by the party.  And, it backfired.

It was self-sabotage and served to clear the way for someone more closely connected with the Republican old-school narrative such as Kasich, who was lower in the polls for a long time, and now looks at a plan B for the Republican party.  Rubio is keeping his delegates and who knows what will happen with those commitments? It surely is an interesting election season.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 07:47:57 AM

Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 08:04:34 AM

Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.
Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. That was around 1977.  So it is a mixed message mission she was sending.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 08:07:24 AM
Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 08:08:40 AM

Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.
Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. That was around 1977.  So it is a mixed message mission she was sending.  ;)

Not unless you believe parties' rhetoric, which I do not. Clinton has never been a lefty, despite what Republicans like to say. She has been somewhat progressive on some issues, but basically pro-business all along. She, and Bill, were transformative forces in the Democratic party in terms of fundraising from the elites as well as in triangulating positions. So I'll repeat: she is the obvious choice for the Democratic party because she has been prominent in the party for decades and raised unbelievable amounts of money for them. Her opponent is not a member of that party and has not raised money for it. It's really pretty simple.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 08:16:05 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 08:21:44 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.

Aside from some cultural things like gay marriage, I'd say the Republicans of the '80s and early '90s are Democrats of today...

Your point is absolutely right, though. First of all, people's political positions evolve all the time, maybe from their own situations their experiences, the world around them. There's nothing nefarious or untrustworthy about it. And second, parties change to maintain their popularity and control, so even if a person remains constant, the party may leave or come to him. To my point earlier in this thread, how many Republicans have said the party left them? Virtually the entirety of my state's (Minnesota) retired Republican lawmakers have at best expressed serious dissatisfaction with that party since the Tea Party's nonsense began, and quite a few have simply left it. Whether Tom Horner, who ran as an independent for governor against Gov. Dayton, or former congressman Vin Weber, or former Sen. Norm Coleman, or former Gov. Arne Carlson, the message is displeasure-to-abandonment about how that party has run into its crazy corner.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 08:28:01 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
Indeed. I worked for Harkin in '92. Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party right away from any remaining shreds of liberalism. Now it can be a bit progressive, but not in the least liberal.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 08:36:47 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   ;) 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 08:39:03 AM

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I'll post it again, just to be sure this statement you keep repeating is challenged: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 08:41:17 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   ;) 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 08:44:02 AM

Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.
Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. That was around 1977.  So it is a mixed message mission she was sending.  ;)

Not unless you believe parties' rhetoric, which I do not. Clinton has never been a lefty, despite what Republicans like to say. She has been somewhat progressive on some issues, but basically pro-business all along. She, and Bill, were transformative forces in the Democratic party in terms of fundraising from the elites as well as in triangulating positions. So I'll repeat: she is the obvious choice for the Democratic party because she has been prominent in the party for decades and raised unbelievable amounts of money for them. Her opponent is not a member of that party and has not raised money for it. It's really pretty simple.
Next week in NY will be telling.  Bernie is a native New Yorker.  If she raised money for that party, that should not determine whether she gets "the nod."  There were many hard feelings from 2008 where many women who supported her back then (myself included) find that eight years later, that now that is impossible.  

Many people raise big dough for both sides.  Some big donor bankrolled John Edward's during that bad scandal he was involved in while a candidate.  And she is pro-business but getting big union money so there needs to be a balance when it comes down to policy.  The union people are part of her ground game.  She cannot be seen to have thrown them under the bus for the sake of a business that is not worker-friendly.  

Conventional election politics as usual are out the window.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 08:45:33 AM
But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   ;) 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.

Think that other parts of the country don't have families voting as a block?  :lol

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 08:46:58 AM

Conventional election politics as usual are out the window.   ;)

Not really. There are cycles of "insurgencies" in which people get really pissed at the incessant realities of governments failing them. Some minor changes are made, mostly in tenor and messaging, and things go on with the two major parties more or less having their way, especially once we're in the off-years. The details may be unconventional and somewhat unpredictable at the time, but with a little distance it will all be obvious. As always.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 08:50:30 AM
But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.

Amen. (Not just to the part about me doing a good job.  ;D) The only issues on which I think anyone could argue the Dems have actually been more progressive in recent decades are LGBT rights and maybe drug legalization, the latter of which has plenty of support from libertarian types as well anyway.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 08:51:13 AM

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  

And smart people question both as they learn to think.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 08:51:46 AM
But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 08:52:50 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   ;)  

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.

Think that other parts of the country don't have families voting as a block?  :lol

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  
Perhaps but the extreme party loyalty, the irritation at the Democrats for adopting liberal social policies and abandoning the white working class, and the sense of Party ownership and anger at the loss of control is particular to a New England Catholic subculture. I've never known any people so married to a Party and so reluctantly divorcing it for its betrayal. I think it's pretty evident that Clinton is not of that subculture. Not only because she's not a New England Catholic but also because there's no evidence of her having any of that extreme cultural connection to the Republican Party. I think youMre projecting your experiences much further than they really extend.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 08:53:49 AM

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  

And smart people question both as they learn to think.
And college, time in an occupation and personal growth can change that ideology.  But families can be very clannish and vote as a block.  It can make it easier for a candidate who doesn't just get one vote but can get six or more in a family.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 09:00:23 AM
Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   ;) 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.

Think that other parts of the country don't have families voting as a block?  :lol

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  
Perhaps but the extreme party loyalty, the irritation at the Democrats for adopting liberal social policies and abandoning the white working class and sense of ownership is particular to a New England Catholic subculture. I've never known any people so married to a Party and so reluctantly divorcing it for its betrayal. I think it's pretty evident that Clinton is not of that subculture. Not only because she's not a New England Catholic but also because there's no evidence of her having any of that extreme cultural connection to the Republican Party. I think youMre projecting your experiences much further than they really extend.

"New England Catholic?" what does that mean? Sounds pejorative to me. That is an outrageous statement. Wow.

Not all of New England is Catholic. It is a false perception and not a reality. 

Not all New England Democrats are Catholic. But many of the unions are pushing Hillary.   


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 09:03:07 AM
Referring to the existence of New England Catholics is hardly pejorative. And I'm pretty sure I didn't say "all" anywhere in there.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 09:12:32 AM
Referring to the existence of New England Catholics is hardly pejorative.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say "all" anywhere in there.

That is an old stereotype from 1st and 2nd generation immigrant populations, that no longer works as "block voting" any more than old-time ethnic voting does.  That does not mean those individual families voting, that often will support certain candidates as a family block but not a cultural/religious socio-economic unit.

New England is a very much heterogeneous interfaith population.

But many traditional Catholics/Christians have beliefs that are more aligned with certain Republican candidates.     


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 09:20:49 AM
Referring to the existence of New England Catholics is hardly pejorative.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say "all" anywhere in there.

That is an old stereotype from 1st and 2nd generation immigrant populations, that no longer works as "block voting" any more than old-time ethnic voting does.  That does not mean those individual families voting, that often will support certain candidates as a family block but not a cultural/religious socio-economic unit.

New England is a very much heterogeneous interfaith population.

But many traditional Catholics/Christians have beliefs that are more aligned with certain Republican candidates.     
I'm sorry. What was the non-working stereotype? That there are Catholics in New England or that there's a subculture of disaffected conservative Catholic New England Democrats?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 09:22:34 AM
But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 09:25:09 AM
Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.
Emily - how does Hillary square the inconsistencies with private incarceration where she is vested, and anti-law enforcement, contrary to Bill's position while in office.

Hillary can't have it both ways.  She can't be getting funding from corporate private prison business and claim that she is opposed to over-incarceration.

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 09:27:02 AM
Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.
Emily - how does Hillary square the inconsistencies with private incarceration where she is vested, and anti-law enforcement, contrary to Bill's position while in office.

Hillary can't have it both ways.  She can't be getting funding from corporate private prison business and claim that she is opposed to over-incarceration.

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.
I somewhat agree on your specific points. What I'm asking you not to do is imply that the general point is specific to one candidate when it's general to all.



Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 09:28:50 AM
Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.
Emily - how does Hillary square the inconsistencies with private incarceration where she is vested, and anti-law enforcement, contrary to Bill's position while in office.

Hillary can't have it both ways.  She can't be getting funding from corporate private prison business and claim that she is opposed to over-incarceration.

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.

This, though it isn't my place to speak for her, is exactly what Emily is pointing out that you keep doing: taking something common in America and acting as if it were unusual to Democrats or Clinton.

Trump isn't inconsistent? He has spouted inconsistencies (such as on abortion) within the space of one day. He goes from a position of disengagement in the Middle East to all-out war in the Middle East. And so on.

Cruz talks about religious liberty constantly, yet is blatant in his selective application of it.

You'll be hard-pressed to find a major candidate in any major party who isn't riddled with inconsistency. It's normal. Not admirable. Pathetic, usually. But normal.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 09:29:09 AM
The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.

A Republican will tell you that their party is actually more worker-friendly. The fact is neither party particularly is. Trump, for example, notoriously outsources jobs while claiming to be opposed to that. So both parties are indulging in the same hypocritical rhetoric on this issue at the moment.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 09:30:47 AM
But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.
OK - so lets suppose a mere state senator wants to run for higher office.  That person has to kiss-up to the party and do what they want.  If they don't support the person the party wants and sends their particular "ground game" (poll workers, sign hangers, telephone bank workers) to the candidate of the choice of the party, then the next time they run for higher office they will not get the party support.  People only have so many workers to stand out at a polling location all day long, or make 4-5 hours of calls in a phone bank.  These are critical "laborers in the vineyard" in the political process.  

People often will get calls to help this or that candidate for an election in exchange for later party support. Sounds a little like a pyramid scheme but it is a pyramid.  The White House is at the pinnacle.  :lol


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 09:31:53 AM
How is that different than Republicans?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 09:32:10 AM
But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.
OK - so lets suppose a mere state senator wants to run for higher office.  That person has to kiss-up to the party and do what they want.  If they don't support the person the party wants and sends their particular "ground game" (poll workers, sign hangers, telephone bank workers) to the candidate of the choice of the party, then the next time they run for higher office they will not get the party support.  People only have so many workers to stand out at a polling location all day long, or make 4-5 hours of calls in a phone bank.  These are critical "laborers in the vineyard" in the political process.  

People often will get calls to help this or that candidate for an election in exchange for later party support. Sounds a little like a pyramid scheme but it is a pyramid.  The White House is at the pinnacle.  :lol
I think the key word in CSM's question is 'liberal'.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 09:35:10 AM
The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.

A Republican will tell you that their party is actually more worker-friendly. The fact is neither party particularly is. Trump, for example, notoriously outsources jobs while claiming to be opposed to that. So both parties are indulging in the same hypocritical rhetoric on this issue at the moment.

The Republican might say they are more job-friendly, but that does not mean the union-rate job kind of friendly.  

Some don't care about organized labor. Organized labor is more a Democratic domain. Trump does have some organized labor supporting him, particularly in law enforcement.  Some of the local branches are split off from the AFL-CIO at the national level, as among smaller unions.   You are correct on outsourcing.  I find it un-American and hope more will be brought back.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 09:36:25 AM
But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  ;)

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.
OK - so lets suppose a mere state senator wants to run for higher office.  That person has to kiss-up to the party and do what they want.  If they don't support the person the party wants and sends their particular "ground game" (poll workers, sign hangers, telephone bank workers) to the candidate of the choice of the party, then the next time they run for higher office they will not get the party support.  People only have so many workers to stand out at a polling location all day long, or make 4-5 hours of calls in a phone bank.  These are critical "laborers in the vineyard" in the political process.  

People often will get calls to help this or that candidate for an election in exchange for later party support. Sounds a little like a pyramid scheme but it is a pyramid.  The White House is at the pinnacle.  :lol

I'm sorry but I still don't see how this relates to what you have been saying about Dems complaining that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them. I see how this might relate to an argument that leaders are forcing some kind of agenda but none of this shows how they are forcing a more liberal one. Like I've said, the Democratic Party is a right-wing business party largely catering to elite institutions and their interests, though with some exceptions (as The Captain correctly points out). The leaders of the Democrats have continued to move the party further to the right. So if people are being forced to adopt a particular agenda, I am ultimately confused why anyone would say it was a "more liberal" agenda. Like I said, I would be curious as to who these Dems believe is forcing such an agenda.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 09:38:21 AM
The Republican might say they are more job-friendly, but that does not mean the union-rate job kind of friendly.  

The Republicans, for the most part, wouldn't say they were union friendly, that's correct. But I'd be surprised if any of them openly admitted to being anti-worker.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 09:40:28 AM
I'd say this: parties push their agendas upon their members. The more powerful the party, the more their ability to push their agendas. This is common, not unique to one or the other of our major parties. (For f***'s sake, we've seen huge numbers of Republicans pushed out of office and in effect their own party in the past decade or so! RINO, anyone? They are running candidates against their own elected officials in the name of ideological purity. THAT is an oppressive party.)

The idea that the agenda or adherence to the party line on the Democratic side is liberal or progressive, at least in terms of economic issues, is ridiculous. And the reality is, they've let their elected officials have a lot of leeway on social issues, and thus we've seen pro-gun or anti-abortion Dems, especially in swing states.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 09:42:17 AM
But again, Parties are being confused with public bodies. They aren't. If I start a party, I'm allowed to push my agenda.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: the captain on April 15, 2016, 09:45:57 AM
Oh, of course! I'm not saying a party shouldn't be allowed to decide on the criteria of membership, for example, including pushing its own agenda. I'm just saying it is a common thing for both parties to do, not some villainous Democratic pursuit. It's safe to say FdP's "lower level politicians" aren't happy with the leaders pressing this or that agenda. That's common sense. Go to any company with a corporate owner and you'll find the same thing. Go to any institution of any size and you'll find the same thing. It's just the way it is. And the stronger the entity, or the bigger the entity, the more it can and will happen (and the more they will be resented).

My point is just that. It's normal. Common practice. Not exclusive to Democrats, and if anything, less common in terms of public expression outside the party orthodoxy. (And CERTAINLY not a liberal push, for the most part.)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 09:48:57 AM
For sure.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 10:24:28 AM

Captain - this is the election year of discontent. Every Democrat I talk to is disgusted with the party and will be their first generation of voting for Trump.  Their ancestors would roll over in their graves. But, I am not convinced that Trump was serious when he started out and just may have wanted to send his own message which could have spilled over of his business promotion.  


First, you're mostly going back into things that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But as for what you're saying, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html
Captain - I read that, thanks.  Funny I am one of those AFL-CIO members.  When the union-sponsored phone banks call, and ask if we will vote for the candidate they support, many just say "of course"  and vote the way we want.

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   ;)


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Yeah, that was 'funny'.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 11:15:30 AM
Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   ;)

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 03:37:22 PM
Yeah, that was 'funny'.

Emily - "Funny" meaning curious timing.   


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 03:39:57 PM
Yeah, that was 'funny'.

Emily - "Funny" meaning curious timing.   
Yeah, I agree, the timing was curious.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   ;)

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 15, 2016, 03:41:50 PM
Yeah, that was 'funny'.

Emily - "Funny" meaning curious timing.   
Yeah, I agree, the timing was curious.
Contemporaneous to the Inauguration. 


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 05:57:32 PM
Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   ;)

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   ;)

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.
I agree with you except I do think his insane arms race that contributed to ongoing financial crises also accelerated the bankruptcy of the USSR. The idea that he worked 'with' them is absurd.
He was the most terrifying, least ethical president of my lifetime and we are still reeling from the garbage he shilled. I would expect Trump to be similar in his complete disregard of human lives or rights and his complete ignorance and magical thinking regarding economics
CSM have you read 'The Massacre at El Mozote'?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on April 15, 2016, 08:08:09 PM
Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   ;)

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.
I agree with you except I do think his insane arms race that contributed to ongoing financial crises also accelerated the bankruptcy of the USSR. The idea that he worked 'with' them is absurd.
He was the most terrifying, least ethical president of my lifetime and we are still reeling from the garbage he shilled. I would expect Trump to be similar in his complete disregard of human lives or rights and his complete ignorance and magical thinking regarding economics
CSM have you read 'The Massacre at El Mozote'?

Point well taken re: arms race and USSR bankruptcy.

I have not read The Massacre at El Mozote. Do you recommend it?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: Emily on April 15, 2016, 08:16:19 PM
Yes, at a time when you aren't feeling very sensitive.
Here's a contemporary report indicating that Carter informed Reagan the morning of the inauguration of the release:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/21/us/reagan-takes-oath-40-th-president-promises-era-national-renewal-minutes-later-52.html?pagewanted=all
One can also read histories of that crisis. All indicate that the release was negotiated by Carter's team. How were people supposing Reagan is somehow responsible for something that happened the day of his inauguration?


Title: Re: Campaign 2016
Post by: filledeplage on April 16, 2016, 05:33:01 AM
Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   ;)

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.
I agree with you except I do think his insane arms race that contributed to ongoing financial crises also accelerated the bankruptcy of the USSR. The idea that he worked 'with' them is absurd.
He was the most terrifying, least ethical president of my lifetime and we are still reeling from the garbage he shilled. I would expect Trump to be similar in his complete disregard of human lives or rights and his complete ignorance and magical thinking regarding economics
CSM have you read 'The Massacre at El Mozote'?
Emily - in the Soviet bloc, including Poland, there was positive change for the people. The trade union Solidarnosc, raised the issue globally. There was less religious oppression. For some, that was the first and most important issue in a religiously oppressive regime. We are seeing religious "cleansing" in the human massacre that is the Middle East. That is not unimportant.   

Reagan, Gorbachev and multilingual Pope John Paul II (who met one-on-one with Gorbachev) were able to get some basic resolution to oppression issues in the early 1980's.  Reading this history in a text, is quite different from seeing the Berlin Wall fall in real-time, and the statues of the leaders of the old Soviet era pulled down by the citizens of those countries.  Reagan, Gorbachev and the John Paul II, largely shut the Cold War down in Eastern Europe.  Imperfect as it might be, life was better for those citizens. 

The economics policy piece is secondary to the actual religious liberty the Soviet bloc finally could practice without condemnation, after nearly 50+ years of Communism.  And, not everyone here is versed in basic international economics.  But they do understand the visual of a sit-down among global leaders, or marching in unity after France's January massacre.  Somehow the US did not