CSM - I have fr2/ TV5 Monde on a lot to have a different news source and for the film and music.  I guess my answer is the strong alliance between the US and France.

How news is vetted, in terms of what is reported, is indeed baffling.  

You seem to be a specialist in this area.  Maybe you could start a thread?

Strong alliance or not, it is sheer hypocrisy and shameless opportunism to pretend to be standing against deplorable terrorism while simultaneously supporting it and carrying out. In my view, one should fully oppose it but that has never been the position taken by powerful states. And by the way, it is not my position that the United States didn't do this at the time. Indeed, in my view, they committed fully to this hypocritical position.

I don't believe I'll start a thread any time soon, but I will say that I don't think it is baffling at all how news is vetted. The news we receive entirely reflects the interests of concentrated wealth and power who control the information.

Agreed. The US has been the primary perpetrator of terrorism for the last century and continues to be so. Unfortunately, the US also controls the majority of the global media. Of course these two things are not coincidental.

CSM - much of the media is now multinational and have many different industries in a crossover fashion.  I am concerned about these attacks.  We all want to be safe with our families whereever we live.   

fdp, how do you feel about the fact that Mr. Drumpf is now saying that there is "something going on" with President Obama and that maybe he's in cahoots with ISIS?

I find it disgusting.

sdj - I am not privy to whatever is going on there and am not responsible for his commentary.

Well do you think what he's saying about President Obama is accurate? Do you think our duly elected President is indeed in cahoots with ISIS? How about his birthplace? Do you agree with your candidate of choice that President Barack Hussein Obama is actually not American born but instead a Kenyan? How about his religion? Do you believe he is a Christian?

I'd love to hear your answers.

Well, sdj - I have no answers but it was an issue for Hillary in 2008.  You could start there and let us know what you find. 

Are you ashamed, FdP, when you think about the rest of the world's disgust at Trump?

Emily - are you into shaming people?

The rest of the world does not go to the ballot box. Americans do.  

You brought up shame. So why were you 'ashamed' when Obama didn't show up for the one event?

No one showed up.  

So why were you ashamed?

The absence of the US was conspicuous and was noted as such as the leaders from Israel stood next to leaders from Arab nations.

yes, it's semantic manipulation and an under-handed debate tactic to take someone's statement using 'a lot' and twist it to 'all'.
Why would anyone with self-respect go on O'Reilly's ridiculous show and why is that relevant to any of the above topics? You are a master of finagling.

Emily -  Fox is the highest rated news outlet. I find it intolerant to exclude a news outlet to understand how others think and where their point of view comes from.

They have every political party on to give opposing viewpoints to be aired. They are treated respectfully.  

But, really unfortunate that there is a resort to insult. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Ratings are not important for understanding the issues and O'Reilly is not news. I can respectfully disagree with those who are honest, not bigoted, or are not motivated primarily be greed.

It has nothing to do with ratings.  It is being informed from both conservative and liberal and foreign news sources. 

O'Reilly is news - you may not prefer his program, or some of the others such as Greta Van Sustern, who was on CNN for years, but they have bona fide journalistic credentials. 

It is disrespect to dismiss the source out of hand.  Often, I notice the other networks don't carry stories reported on fox, for several days.  I like my news sources, first. And not leftovers, three days later.

If it has nothing to do with ratings, why did you bring up ratings?
O'Reilly is not news. It's commentary.
There are qualitative differences among news sources. You seem to choose those of low quality for the most part. Low quality sources haven't earned my respect.
Considering that your primary interest is in gossipmongering, I can see why speed would be of tantamount importance. You want to spread the lies before the truth can catch up.

It may be a conservative point of view that you consider intolerable.  On the night of the Bataclan, Geraldo was on-line, live with his daughter and she shared what was going on.  He is in Orlando, interviewing many of the Hispanic LGBT and families.  I happen to consider that invaluable and from his perspective as a Latino lawyer/journalist.  In excluding one source - a whole dimension can be missed.  

You might want to keep your insults in check, Emily.  I am not the first person whom you have insulted on this forum.  And don't accuse me of speading lies.  I am free to post on this BB/BW forum where I have been a lurker/poster for 10 years so long as I conform my conduct to the rules of the forum.  I believe you may be in violation with your continuous insults.  

I can have respect for conservatives who are not coming from a place of bigotry, greed or lies.
You are free to post. And I am free to point out lies and dishonest manipulations when someone posts them, which is all I have done.

Emily - It is your perception and when others do not agree with you, they are bigots.  That is unacceptable.

Are you ashamed, FdP, when you think about the rest of the world's disgust at Trump?

Emily - are you into shaming people?

The rest of the world does not go to the ballot box. Americans do.  

You brought up shame. So why were you 'ashamed' when Obama didn't show up for the one event?

No one showed up. 

From what I have read on Charlie Hebdo, many of the cartoonists are still in hiding, moving every few days from hotel to hotel.  I must admit, CSM that I am less up-to-speed on what is going on in Honduras.  Maybe you can share what you know?  

That you are not "up-to-speed on what is going on in Honduras" makes my point. Honduras is currently in shambles, it has become the country with the "highest murder rate in the world." According to Human Rights Watch, "journalists and peasant activists are particularly vulnerable to violence" and 30 journalists have been killed in the country since the coup that occurred there in 2009. Why haven't you heard about it in comparison to, say, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, which was indeed horrific? You haven't heard about it because the United States has supported the atrocities and has continued to illegally fund the military junta there. These crimes are our crimes, thus they don't merit discussion let alone condemnation. It's an interesting comparison: when crimes are committed by enemies, we are supposed to all stand together in mass ceremony; when crimes are committed by us, we aren't even supposed to talk about it.

CSM - I have fr2/ TV5 Monde on a lot to have a different news source and for the film and music.  I guess my answer is the strong alliance between the US and France.

How news is vetted, in terms of what is reported, is indeed baffling.  

You seem to be a specialist in this area.  Maybe you could start a thread?

Are you ashamed, FdP, when you think about the rest of the world's disgust at Trump?

Emily - are you into shaming people?

The rest of the world does not go to the ballot box. Americans do. 

yes, it's semantic manipulation and an under-handed debate tactic to take someone's statement using 'a lot' and twist it to 'all'.
Why would anyone with self-respect go on O'Reilly's ridiculous show and why is that relevant to any of the above topics? You are a master of finagling.

Emily -  Fox is the highest rated news outlet. I find it intolerant to exclude a news outlet to understand how others think and where their point of view comes from.

They have every political party on to give opposing viewpoints to be aired. They are treated respectfully.  

But, really unfortunate that there is a resort to insult. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Ratings are not important for understanding the issues and O'Reilly is not news. I can respectfully disagree with those who are honest, not bigoted, or are not motivated primarily be greed.

It has nothing to do with ratings.  It is being informed from both conservative and liberal and foreign news sources. 

O'Reilly is news - you may not prefer his program, or some of the others such as Greta Van Sustern, who was on CNN for years, but they have bona fide journalistic credentials. 

It is disrespect to dismiss the source out of hand.  Often, I notice the other networks don't carry stories reported on fox, for several days.  I like my news sources, first. And not leftovers, three days later.

If it has nothing to do with ratings, why did you bring up ratings?
O'Reilly is not news. It's commentary.
There are qualitative differences among news sources. You seem to choose those of low quality for the most part. Low quality sources haven't earned my respect.
Considering that your primary interest is in gossipmongering, I can see why speed would be of tantamount importance. You want to spread the lies before the truth can catch up.

It may be a conservative point of view that you consider intolerable.  On the night of the Bataclan, Geraldo was on-line, live with his daughter and she shared what was going on.  He is in Orlando, interviewing many of the Hispanic LGBT and families.  I happen to consider that invaluable and from his perspective as a Latino lawyer/journalist.  In excluding one source - a whole dimension can be missed.  

You might want to keep your insults in check, Emily.  I am not the first person whom you have insulted on this forum.  And don't accuse me of speading lies.  I am free to post on this BB/BW forum where I have been a lurker/poster for 10 years so long as I conform my conduct to the rules of the forum.  I believe you may be in violation with your continuous insults.  

After Hyper Cacher, the world came together, except the US.  I was ashamed, watching it (the unity march) live, on fr2, seeing no one from the US who stood with the French after the massacre.   

Just as I'm sure you're equally ashamed when no one says anything when our drones attack innocent civilians.

I'm curious, how do you think the reception of the Charlie Hebdo massacres compares to that of the reception to what's been happening in Honduras?

From what I have read on Charlie Hebdo, many of the cartoonists are still in hiding, moving every few days from hotel to hotel.  I must admit, CSM that I am less up-to-speed on what is going on in Honduras.  Maybe you can share what you know?  

Francois Holland declared war on the jihadis after the Bataclan.  Obama did not show up after Hyper Cacher.  That is not leadership.  Hillary did not show up either nor her husband. 

Obama just gave a social studies lesson.

Guess Trump will have some issue with that. 

The crimes of Islamic jihadis are heinous and deplorable. Yet until any of these leaders that you mention discuss the West's far greater contribution to global terror and instability, then they are not in any position to comment on anyone else's, except from the position of extreme hypocrisy. I certainly do not see Trump as being willing to do that - in fact, quite the opposite.

After Hyper Cacher, the world came together, except the US.  I was ashamed, watching it (the unity march) live, on fr2, seeing no one from the US who stood with the French after the massacre.   

yes, it's semantic manipulation and an under-handed debate tactic to take someone's statement using 'a lot' and twist it to 'all'.
Why would anyone with self-respect go on O'Reilly's ridiculous show and why is that relevant to any of the above topics? You are a master of finagling.

Emily -  Fox is the highest rated news outlet. I find it intolerant to exclude a news outlet to understand how others think and where their point of view comes from.

They have every political party on to give opposing viewpoints to be aired. They are treated respectfully.  

But, really unfortunate that there is a resort to insult. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Ratings are not important for understanding the issues and O'Reilly is not news. I can respectfully disagree with those who are honest, not bigoted, or are not motivated primarily be greed.

It has nothing to do with ratings.  It is being informed from both conservative and liberal and foreign news sources. 

O'Reilly is news - you may not prefer his program, or some of the others such as Greta Van Sustern, who was on CNN for years, but they have bona fide journalistic credentials. 

It is disrespect to dismiss the source out of hand.  Often, I notice the other networks don't carry stories reported on fox, for several days.  I like my news sources, first. And not leftovers, three days later.

fdp, how do you feel about the fact that Mr. Drumpf is now saying that there is "something going on" with President Obama and that maybe he's in cahoots with ISIS?

I find it disgusting.

sdj - I am not privy to whatever is going on there and am not responsible for his commentary.

yes, it's semantic manipulation and an under-handed debate tactic to take someone's statement using 'a lot' and twist it to 'all'.
Why would anyone with self-respect go on O'Reilly's ridiculous show and why is that relevant to any of the above topics? You are a master of finagling.

Emily -  Fox is the highest rated news outlet. I find it intolerant to exclude a news outlet to understand how others think and where their point of view comes from.

They have every political party on to give opposing viewpoints to be aired. They are treated respectfully. 

But, really unfortunate that there is a resort to insult. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”
 
“If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
 
“Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”

“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10."

“Heidi Klum. Sadly, she’s no longer a 10.”

"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

Filledeplage, knowing that you are a woman, I'm wondering how it makes you feel when the presumed republican nominee for the President of the United States says these kinds of things.  I mean, this is only a small sample of the disgusting things that he has said about women.  Obviously, I don't know who you are going to vote for in this upcoming election, but you've made it quite clear that it's not going to be Mrs. Clinton.  So then, who?  Gary Johnson?  Chris Keniston?  Darrell Castle?  Certainly an independent thinker such as yourself would not consider voting for someone as boorish and sexist as Mr Trump.  I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around why any woman would vote for such a pig.

Lost Art - Those are certainly inflammatory remarks. He owns them. Many are superficial, stereotypical, objectifying remarks.  I don't own them.  

Were they part of Trump's strategy to stand out and get a lead in terms of the election?  I don't know.  I never watched his "You're Fired" show, whatever the name of the show, I have no idea.  Once he became a candidate, I watched what has gone down among all the candidates, especially those who were pegged as "sure thing" candidates against a reality show host/businessman.

What I do know is that in this very unsafe climate, I notice that many people seem to overlook much of this talk to get to the heart of his message.  They are looking at cold-blooded attacks such as the Orlando massacre, San Bernadino, or the Boston Marathon bombing.  Those insults mostly sent in the direction of some of the media outlets seem very little when people voice concern that the American people are under attack.  This massacre is a hate crime.  Last night 2 cops from Paris were murdered.  

Now the focus is on staying safe.  The issue of safety seems to be superseding any ideological issues. I want to be safe and for my family to be safe.  This has not been addressed by those in power or those who want to be in power. Today there are a line-up of politicians who will make scripted statements and who will do nothing because their hands are tied.  

There were padlocked doors in the Pulse club.  I have heard nothing about those code violations and punishment for the owner or operator of the club.  There was no means of escape.  

Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time, if they have the skill and talent to do the job and leave the smooth talker to kill some other patient.

And, Lost Art, thanks for the kind words.  

Again, you are talking about what 'people' are doing. 'Many people' are also strongly repulsed by a lot of his speech and his amazing ignorance and irresponsibility.
"Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time"
This is a funny quote. What does it even mean?

Emily - there are enough "people" who voted for Trump, whether they are crossover Dems, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, or Independents.  

How do you explain that?  Is everyone who voted for Trump a bigot?  

Or, are they just scared to death of terrorism for themselves or their kids, and who are sick to death of the status quo?  

How do you explain that Bush had $10 million in media money, is 3rd generation entrenched in the party, and got his butt kicked by a newbie?  

Are they all bad and stupid or ignorant?  

  

I think most have been terrorized and twisted by your media over the years so much so that they can't think straight. A lot are just registering a protest. And I think a lot are bigoted.
How do you explain the greater numbers who voted for Clinton?

Emily -

https://www.osu.edu/features/2013/ohio-state-develops-clean-coal-technoloy.htm


We need keep an open mind on energy sources.  

And, I registered a protest by voting for Bernie.  

Everyone who is sick of the status quo is a bigot?  Seriously?  

Are you confusing 'a lot' with 'all' FdP?

Emily - Trump has the delegates to be the nominee.  I guess it is a lot anyway one looks at it.

Ok...
I said 'a lot' are bigots. You said "Everyone who is...is a bigot?" wherein you confused 'a lot' with 'all'.

Emily - it is semantics. 

There is the difference as far as leaders go...

Francois Holland declared war on the jihadis after the Bataclan.  Obama did not show up after Hyper Cacher.  That is not leadership.  Hillary did not show up either nor her husband. 

Obama just gave a social studies lesson.

Guess Trump will have some issue with that. 

And, FYI last night O'Reilly invited Trump and Mrs. Clinton to be on his show.  She did not show up.  He invites everyone.   

Emily - there are enough "people" who voted for Trump, whether they are crossover Dems, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, or Independents.  

How do you explain that?  Is everyone who voted for Trump a bigot?  

Or, are they just scared to death of terrorism for themselves or their kids, and who are sick to death of the status quo?  

How do you explain that Bush had $10 million in media money, is 3rd generation entrenched in the party, and got his butt kicked by a newbie?  

Are they all bad and stupid or ignorant?  

I would say that if "people" are scared to death of terrorism, and they vote for Mr. Trump because of their fears, then they are ignorant.

P.S.  I just giggled because now I can't get the theme song for Mr. Ed out of my head. :singing: A horse is a horse, of course, of course, And no one can talk to a horse of course. That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Trump.

Lost Art - no doubt there will be a lot of parody. But it is their vote to use or waste as they choose. 

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”
 
“If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
 
“Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”

“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10."

“Heidi Klum. Sadly, she’s no longer a 10.”

"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

Filledeplage, knowing that you are a woman, I'm wondering how it makes you feel when the presumed republican nominee for the President of the United States says these kinds of things.  I mean, this is only a small sample of the disgusting things that he has said about women.  Obviously, I don't know who you are going to vote for in this upcoming election, but you've made it quite clear that it's not going to be Mrs. Clinton.  So then, who?  Gary Johnson?  Chris Keniston?  Darrell Castle?  Certainly an independent thinker such as yourself would not consider voting for someone as boorish and sexist as Mr Trump.  I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around why any woman would vote for such a pig.

Lost Art - Those are certainly inflammatory remarks. He owns them. Many are superficial, stereotypical, objectifying remarks.  I don't own them.  

Were they part of Trump's strategy to stand out and get a lead in terms of the election?  I don't know.  I never watched his "You're Fired" show, whatever the name of the show, I have no idea.  Once he became a candidate, I watched what has gone down among all the candidates, especially those who were pegged as "sure thing" candidates against a reality show host/businessman.

What I do know is that in this very unsafe climate, I notice that many people seem to overlook much of this talk to get to the heart of his message.  They are looking at cold-blooded attacks such as the Orlando massacre, San Bernadino, or the Boston Marathon bombing.  Those insults mostly sent in the direction of some of the media outlets seem very little when people voice concern that the American people are under attack.  This massacre is a hate crime.  Last night 2 cops from Paris were murdered.  

Now the focus is on staying safe.  The issue of safety seems to be superseding any ideological issues. I want to be safe and for my family to be safe.  This has not been addressed by those in power or those who want to be in power. Today there are a line-up of politicians who will make scripted statements and who will do nothing because their hands are tied.  

There were padlocked doors in the Pulse club.  I have heard nothing about those code violations and punishment for the owner or operator of the club.  There was no means of escape.  

Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time, if they have the skill and talent to do the job and leave the smooth talker to kill some other patient.

And, Lost Art, thanks for the kind words.  

Again, you are talking about what 'people' are doing. 'Many people' are also strongly repulsed by a lot of his speech and his amazing ignorance and irresponsibility.
"Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time"
This is a funny quote. What does it even mean?

Emily - there are enough "people" who voted for Trump, whether they are crossover Dems, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, or Independents.  

How do you explain that?  Is everyone who voted for Trump a bigot?  

Or, are they just scared to death of terrorism for themselves or their kids, and who are sick to death of the status quo?  

How do you explain that Bush had $10 million in media money, is 3rd generation entrenched in the party, and got his butt kicked by a newbie?  

Are they all bad and stupid or ignorant?  

  

I think most have been terrorized and twisted by your media over the years so much so that they can't think straight. A lot are just registering a protest. And I think a lot are bigoted.
How do you explain the greater numbers who voted for Clinton?

Emily -

https://www.osu.edu/features/2013/ohio-state-develops-clean-coal-technoloy.htm


We need keep an open mind on energy sources.  

And, I registered a protest by voting for Bernie.  

Everyone who is sick of the status quo is a bigot?  Seriously?  

Are you confusing 'a lot' with 'all' FdP?

Emily - Trump has the delegates to be the nominee.  I guess it is a lot anyway one looks at it.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”
 
“If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
 
“Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”

“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10."

“Heidi Klum. Sadly, she’s no longer a 10.”

"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

Filledeplage, knowing that you are a woman, I'm wondering how it makes you feel when the presumed republican nominee for the President of the United States says these kinds of things.  I mean, this is only a small sample of the disgusting things that he has said about women.  Obviously, I don't know who you are going to vote for in this upcoming election, but you've made it quite clear that it's not going to be Mrs. Clinton.  So then, who?  Gary Johnson?  Chris Keniston?  Darrell Castle?  Certainly an independent thinker such as yourself would not consider voting for someone as boorish and sexist as Mr Trump.  I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around why any woman would vote for such a pig.

Lost Art - Those are certainly inflammatory remarks. He owns them. Many are superficial, stereotypical, objectifying remarks.  I don't own them.  

Were they part of Trump's strategy to stand out and get a lead in terms of the election?  I don't know.  I never watched his "You're Fired" show, whatever the name of the show, I have no idea.  Once he became a candidate, I watched what has gone down among all the candidates, especially those who were pegged as "sure thing" candidates against a reality show host/businessman.

What I do know is that in this very unsafe climate, I notice that many people seem to overlook much of this talk to get to the heart of his message.  They are looking at cold-blooded attacks such as the Orlando massacre, San Bernadino, or the Boston Marathon bombing.  Those insults mostly sent in the direction of some of the media outlets seem very little when people voice concern that the American people are under attack.  This massacre is a hate crime.  Last night 2 cops from Paris were murdered.  

Now the focus is on staying safe.  The issue of safety seems to be superseding any ideological issues. I want to be safe and for my family to be safe.  This has not been addressed by those in power or those who want to be in power. Today there are a line-up of politicians who will make scripted statements and who will do nothing because their hands are tied.  

There were padlocked doors in the Pulse club.  I have heard nothing about those code violations and punishment for the owner or operator of the club.  There was no means of escape.  

Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time, if they have the skill and talent to do the job and leave the smooth talker to kill some other patient.

And, Lost Art, thanks for the kind words.  

Again, you are talking about what 'people' are doing. 'Many people' are also strongly repulsed by a lot of his speech and his amazing ignorance and irresponsibility.
"Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time"
This is a funny quote. What does it even mean?

Emily - there are enough "people" who voted for Trump, whether they are crossover Dems, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, or Independents.  

How do you explain that?  Is everyone who voted for Trump a bigot?  

Or, are they just scared to death of terrorism for themselves or their kids, and who are sick to death of the status quo?  

How do you explain that Bush had $10 million in media money, is 3rd generation entrenched in the party, and got his butt kicked by a newbie?  

Are they all bad and stupid or ignorant?  

  

I think most have been terrorized and twisted by your media over the years so much so that they can't think straight. A lot are just registering a protest. And I think a lot are bigoted.
How do you explain the greater numbers who voted for Clinton?

Emily -

https://www.osu.edu/features/2013/ohio-state-develops-clean-coal-technoloy.htm


We need keep an open mind on energy sources.  

And, I registered a protest by voting for Bernie.  

Everyone who is sick of the status quo is a bigot?  Seriously?  

FdP, you said she hadn't proposed assistance. I proved you were incorrect. There's no opinion on the matter. Just wrong or right, factually.
I'm aware that many people don't agree with me. And I have respect for many people who've disagreed with me, if their disagreement is not based on bigotry, greed or lies.

Emily - Hillary did not "bring" assistance. Your suggestion that I am "incorrect" is a semantic. Hillary brought an "illusory" position paper, after she told another audience that was recorded for the world to hear, that she was going to put them out of business.  

For all intents and purposes, Hillary cannot take back what she said. Hillary can apologize (which she did) can attempt to give it better or softer context but she said it, and unfortunately she is not "necessarily" speaking her own mind but parroting the WH in order to continue getting it's support in my opinion.  

How are people (miners) supposed to feel who are being "laid off" en masse from their jobs? Are they supposed to go out and vote for her? Or worry if "she really supported them?"  At the end of the day, we each get one vote, and cast them according to our consciences and other factors.  

If a person differs from you, it does not render them a bigot, a greedy person or a liar. That is offensive talk.  
  

This is what you said: "she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work..."
It is factually incorrect.
Considering that she did not lay them off, but she is proposing policies to help (which you deny), I think it would make sense to support her over someone who pretends they won't be laid off.
Differing from me does not render someone a bigot, greedy or a liar, but some people who disagree with me are bigots, greedy or liars. And yes, they are offensive.

Emily - I guess the difference for me, is that she is running to be the President.  She is only "proposing policies" - and - working to wipe out an industry prospectively is "laying them off."  And that is even if she is a step away and far-removed from the collapse of the industry and the calamity to the community which is already struggling.  The impact on those families is tremendous.  There is no balance in the plan and if there is, it is only on paper.  That is all semantics.  

Fact is, coal mining is going down. Fact is also that coal mining is a lousy job. If people work to bring better jobs to the region, it makes more sense for miners to support that. But if you, Brietbart, and the coal industry prey on the miner's fears, they'll vote against their interests and you are the one harming them. Do you have ties to the coal industry or something?

"Some people who disagree with me are bigots"...is what you are saying? We are mere members here, and not arbiters of one another.  We are capable of respectfully disagreeing.  "Correct" or "incorrect" and bigotry, which does extend to classism in my opinion.  The miners' as well as those in the agrarian context, have always been treated less well than the white collar community.  That is another form of bigotry and that is my opinion. They are voting Americans, too

If you have objections to me disagreeing with bigots then that says quite a bit about you.
All labor has always been treated worse than capitalists. Including coal miners. Maintaining the status quo in 'coal mining country' doesn't help that.
Facts are real. Nothing elitist about saying so. Nor about being against bigotry.

Emily - Coal mining is a crappy job.  I would not want it for myself, or my children.  

But there are issues raised in that article such as an escalated drug problem where there is a huge school impact and most kids have lost one parent from an overdose.  That community needs more support before someone/or policy, substitutes their judgment to upend their lives any further.  It is not your kid or my kid but it is "someone's kid."

It is elitist to come in and destroy industry without a phasing in of new industry and training for this population. That is my position.  

So you should support Clinton as she proposes doing what you suggest. Trump does not.

Trump is planning to keep the mines open.  

There is newer technology emerging that will enable a cleaner burn with coal.  Is that a problem?  

If the process of mining can be made safer for the workers, and cleaner to use is it still a problem or is it politically-driven energy sources where those companies have lobbied the congress to use their energy sources?  That is pay to play.   

Hillary has "proposals" - and the head of the Miners association articulated in the article that you linked that they did not want "welfare."

Proposals do not put food on the table.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”
 
“If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
 
“Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”

“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10."

“Heidi Klum. Sadly, she’s no longer a 10.”

"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

Filledeplage, knowing that you are a woman, I'm wondering how it makes you feel when the presumed republican nominee for the President of the United States says these kinds of things.  I mean, this is only a small sample of the disgusting things that he has said about women.  Obviously, I don't know who you are going to vote for in this upcoming election, but you've made it quite clear that it's not going to be Mrs. Clinton.  So then, who?  Gary Johnson?  Chris Keniston?  Darrell Castle?  Certainly an independent thinker such as yourself would not consider voting for someone as boorish and sexist as Mr Trump.  I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around why any woman would vote for such a pig.

Lost Art - Those are certainly inflammatory remarks. He owns them. Many are superficial, stereotypical, objectifying remarks.  I don't own them.  

Were they part of Trump's strategy to stand out and get a lead in terms of the election?  I don't know.  I never watched his "You're Fired" show, whatever the name of the show, I have no idea.  Once he became a candidate, I watched what has gone down among all the candidates, especially those who were pegged as "sure thing" candidates against a reality show host/businessman.

What I do know is that in this very unsafe climate, I notice that many people seem to overlook much of this talk to get to the heart of his message.  They are looking at cold-blooded attacks such as the Orlando massacre, San Bernadino, or the Boston Marathon bombing.  Those insults mostly sent in the direction of some of the media outlets seem very little when people voice concern that the American people are under attack.  This massacre is a hate crime.  Last night 2 cops from Paris were murdered.  

Now the focus is on staying safe.  The issue of safety seems to be superseding any ideological issues. I want to be safe and for my family to be safe.  This has not been addressed by those in power or those who want to be in power. Today there are a line-up of politicians who will make scripted statements and who will do nothing because their hands are tied.  

There were padlocked doors in the Pulse club.  I have heard nothing about those code violations and punishment for the owner or operator of the club.  There was no means of escape.  

Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time, if they have the skill and talent to do the job and leave the smooth talker to kill some other patient.

And, Lost Art, thanks for the kind words.  

Again, you are talking about what 'people' are doing. 'Many people' are also strongly repulsed by a lot of his speech and his amazing ignorance and irresponsibility.
"Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time"
This is a funny quote. What does it even mean?

Emily - there are enough "people" who voted for Trump, whether they are crossover Dems, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, or Independents.  

How do you explain that?  Is everyone who voted for Trump a bigot?  

Or, are they just scared to death of terrorism for themselves or their kids, and who are sick to death of the status quo?  

How do you explain that Bush had $10 million in media money, is 3rd generation entrenched in the party, and got his butt kicked by a newbie?  

Are they all bad and stupid or ignorant?  

  

FdP, you said she hadn't proposed assistance. I proved you were incorrect. There's no opinion on the matter. Just wrong or right, factually.
I'm aware that many people don't agree with me. And I have respect for many people who've disagreed with me, if their disagreement is not based on bigotry, greed or lies.

Emily - Hillary did not "bring" assistance. Your suggestion that I am "incorrect" is a semantic. Hillary brought an "illusory" position paper, after she told another audience that was recorded for the world to hear, that she was going to put them out of business.  

For all intents and purposes, Hillary cannot take back what she said. Hillary can apologize (which she did) can attempt to give it better or softer context but she said it, and unfortunately she is not "necessarily" speaking her own mind but parroting the WH in order to continue getting it's support in my opinion.  

How are people (miners) supposed to feel who are being "laid off" en masse from their jobs? Are they supposed to go out and vote for her? Or worry if "she really supported them?"  At the end of the day, we each get one vote, and cast them according to our consciences and other factors.  

If a person differs from you, it does not render them a bigot, a greedy person or a liar. That is offensive talk.  
  

This is what you said: "she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work..."
It is factually incorrect.
Considering that she did not lay them off, but she is proposing policies to help (which you deny), I think it would make sense to support her over someone who pretends they won't be laid off.
Differing from me does not render someone a bigot, greedy or a liar, but some people who disagree with me are bigots, greedy or liars. And yes, they are offensive.

Emily - I guess the difference for me, is that she is running to be the President.  She is only "proposing policies" - and - working to wipe out an industry prospectively is "laying them off."  And that is even if she is a step away and far-removed from the collapse of the industry and the calamity to the community which is already struggling.  The impact on those families is tremendous.  There is no balance in the plan and if there is, it is only on paper.  That is all semantics.  

Fact is, coal mining is going down. Fact is also that coal mining is a lousy job. If people work to bring better jobs to the region, it makes more sense for miners to support that. But if you, Brietbart, and the coal industry prey on the miner's fears, they'll vote against their interests and you are the one harming them. Do you have ties to the coal industry or something?

"Some people who disagree with me are bigots"...is what you are saying? We are mere members here, and not arbiters of one another.  We are capable of respectfully disagreeing.  "Correct" or "incorrect" and bigotry, which does extend to classism in my opinion.  The miners' as well as those in the agrarian context, have always been treated less well than the white collar community.  That is another form of bigotry and that is my opinion. They are voting Americans, too

If you have objections to me disagreeing with bigots then that says quite a bit about you.
All labor has always been treated worse than capitalists. Including coal miners. Maintaining the status quo in 'coal mining country' doesn't help that.
Facts are real. Nothing elitist about saying so. Nor about being against bigotry.

Emily - Coal mining is a crappy job.  I would not want it for myself, or my children.  

But there are issues raised in that article such as an escalated drug problem where there is a huge school impact and most kids have lost one parent from an overdose.  That community needs more support before someone/or policy, substitutes their judgment to upend their lives any further.  It is not your kid or my kid but it is "someone's kid."

It is elitist to come in and destroy industry without a phasing in of new industry and training for this population. That is my position.  

Again, I will take their pleas for peace seriously if every single post in their "why are you here" thread wasn't a passive agressive shot at Smiley and certain Smiley posters and mods.

Yup. What do I always say? If you want a friend, *be* a friend

Billy - that is 100% true.  

sdj - I am not Trump's, or anyone's apologist (I only can account for my own stuff.)  That said, when I heard those words come out of his mouth it was an OMG.  POWs are a much-revered species, as are other hostages held against their will. I hope he has made his peace with McCain, either in person or through party channels. At some time or another we all say a stupid thing or two.   

But, there is this element with him where he is really unschooled in politics and shooting-from-the-hip, and that is a huge factor here. That comment could have sunk him and it didn't. It was a ridiculous thing to say. But, I also think he was able to walk-it-back even if it is/was not forgotten.   

Generally, I ignore the whole primary season, letting them all slug-it-out, to get to the general. This election season is different because of all the non-traditional stuff going on and this demand for transparency.

See, and this is why Emily has taken you to task so much. And I asked the Trump question just to get you to this point.

So let's go through this. Being "unschooled in politics and shooting-from-the-hip" means that you have to be unbelievably prickish and say you only like the ones who weren't captured? I've known quite a few major assholes and I'm pretty sure I have never, ever, ever met somebody who disrespected POWs the way your buddy Donny did.

I personally don't know why being unschooled in politics means you can say incredibly horrible things like that. Sounds like maybe you're making an excuse for him. And since he's never apologized for this statement, I guess we can take that to mean that he did indeed say what he thinks. You say he "walked-it-back" but I don't recall that. As far as the eye can see, he never made any gesture towards making it up to John McCain who graciously said that he doesn't want an apology but that "there's a body of American heroes who would like to see him retract that statement."

You also say that you generally ignore the whole primary season, and maybe generally you do, but judging from your posts during this primary season you've been right on top of things offering your opinion every step of the way.

Also interesting that Hillary can say something not all that bad about coal mining and you will hang her out to dry, but when your orange-hued friend says something so freakin' disgusting about our POWs you can just rationalize it away.

Sure is odd.

sdj - you asked me a question. It had nothing to do with Emily.  It was a bait question.  I am not making an excuse for Trump but looking at it having had management experience in the field, and on the Democratic side.  So, I know what a first run in a political race is all about, and where people make mistakes in a campaign. I am looking at both sides.  Not necessarily "taking a side."

Emily is not the arbiter on this forum.  Emily is responsible for Emily. I am responsible for myself.  We come from all generations and viewpoints and have the right to express so long as it is respectful.  We don't check off a box when we sign up for this forum for Democrat, Republican, Independent, Socialist or uninvolved.

That was just a general comment on the primary elections whether local or national.  It was just off-the-cuff.

And, Hillary is in the position of being unfavorable to the miners. That is on her. She lost those votes.   

You get a vote, Emily gets a vote and I get a vote to expend as we choose. 

Who deserves whose voter more?

Trump with the POWs he disrespected so disgustingly? Or Hillary with the miners?

sdj - have you ever considered that he might have had some "beef" with McCain that is completely unrelated to that debate or forum? 

And, I agreed with the inappropriateness of the comment.  Hillary is already/or has been in a government position of authority.  Trump is a candidate who, to the best of my knowledge has never held elected office.  Hillary is a career-connected politician, working on policy while she was First Lady.     

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”
 
“If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
 
“Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”

“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10."

“Heidi Klum. Sadly, she’s no longer a 10.”

"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

Filledeplage, knowing that you are a woman, I'm wondering how it makes you feel when the presumed republican nominee for the President of the United States says these kinds of things.  I mean, this is only a small sample of the disgusting things that he has said about women.  Obviously, I don't know who you are going to vote for in this upcoming election, but you've made it quite clear that it's not going to be Mrs. Clinton.  So then, who?  Gary Johnson?  Chris Keniston?  Darrell Castle?  Certainly an independent thinker such as yourself would not consider voting for someone as boorish and sexist as Mr Trump.  I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around why any woman would vote for such a pig.

Lost Art - Those are certainly inflammatory remarks. He owns them. Many are superficial, stereotypical, objectifying remarks.  I don't own them.  

Were they part of Trump's strategy to stand out and get a lead in terms of the election?  I don't know.  I never watched his "You're Fired" show, whatever the name of the show, I have no idea.  Once he became a candidate, I watched what has gone down among all the candidates, especially those who were pegged as "sure thing" candidates against a reality show host/businessman.

What I do know is that in this very unsafe climate, I notice that many people seem to overlook much of this talk to get to the heart of his message.  They are looking at cold-blooded attacks such as the Orlando massacre, San Bernadino, or the Boston Marathon bombing.  Those insults mostly sent in the direction of some of the media outlets seem very little when people voice concern that the American people are under attack.  This massacre is a hate crime.  Last night 2 cops from Paris were murdered.  

Now the focus is on staying safe.  The issue of safety seems to be superseding any ideological issues. I want to be safe and for my family to be safe.  This has not been addressed by those in power or those who want to be in power. Today there are a line-up of politicians who will make scripted statements and who will do nothing because their hands are tied.  

There were padlocked doors in the Pulse club.  I have heard nothing about those code violations and punishment for the owner or operator of the club.  There was no means of escape.  

Given a choice for a good heart or brain surgeon, I will pick the sexist boor every time, if they have the skill and talent to do the job and leave the smooth talker to kill some other patient.

And, Lost Art, thanks for the kind words.  

sdj - I am not Trump's, or anyone's apologist (I only can account for my own stuff.)  That said, when I heard those words come out of his mouth it was an OMG.  POWs are a much-revered species, as are other hostages held against their will. I hope he has made his peace with McCain, either in person or through party channels. At some time or another we all say a stupid thing or two.  

But, there is this element with him where he is really unschooled in politics and shooting-from-the-hip, and that is a huge factor here. That comment could have sunk him and it didn't. It was a ridiculous thing to say. But, I also think he was able to walk-it-back even if it is/was not forgotten.  

Generally, I ignore the whole primary season, letting them all slug-it-out, to get to the general. This election season is different because of all the non-traditional stuff going on and this demand for transparency.

See, and this is why Emily has taken you to task so much. And I asked the Trump question just to get you to this point.

So let's go through this. Being "unschooled in politics and shooting-from-the-hip" means that you have to be unbelievably prickish and say you only like the ones who weren't captured? I've known quite a few major assholes and I'm pretty sure I have never, ever, ever met somebody who disrespected POWs the way your buddy Donny did.

I personally don't know why being unschooled in politics means you can say incredibly horrible things like that. Sounds like maybe you're making an excuse for him. And since he's never apologized for this statement, I guess we can take that to mean that he did indeed say what he thinks. You say he "walked-it-back" but I don't recall that. As far as the eye can see, he never made any gesture towards making it up to John McCain who graciously said that he doesn't want an apology but that "there's a body of American heroes who would like to see him retract that statement."

You also say that you generally ignore the whole primary season, and maybe generally you do, but judging from your posts during this primary season you've been right on top of things offering your opinion every step of the way.

Also interesting that Hillary can say something not all that bad about coal mining and you will hang her out to dry, but when your orange-hued friend says something so freakin' disgusting about our POWs you can just rationalize it away.

Sure is odd.

sdj - you asked me a question. It had nothing to do with Emily.  It was a bait question.  I am not making an excuse for Trump but looking at it having had management experience in the field, and on the Democratic side.  So, I know what a first run in a political race is all about, and where people make mistakes in a campaign. I am looking at both sides.  Not necessarily "taking a side."

Emily is not the arbiter on this forum.  Emily is responsible for Emily. I am responsible for myself.  We come from all generations and viewpoints and have the right to express so long as it is respectful.  We don't check off a box when we sign up for this forum for Democrat, Republican, Independent, Socialist or uninvolved.

That was just a general comment on the primary elections whether local or national.  It was just off-the-cuff.

And, Hillary is in the position of being unfavorable to the miners. That is on her. She lost those votes.    

You get a vote, Emily gets a vote and I get a vote to expend as we choose.  

[I like people who weren’t captured]

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

I agree with this fdp. So can you explain why this quote is acceptable, and how you can support a man who has admitted he doesn't like our POWs (his words)...

“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

sdj - I am not Trump's, or anyone's apologist (I only can account for my own stuff.)  That said, when I heard those words come out of his mouth it was an OMG.  POWs are a much-revered species, as are other hostages held against their will. I hope he has made his peace with McCain, either in person or through party channels. At some time or another we all say a stupid thing or two.  

But, there is this element with him where he is really unschooled in politics and shooting-from-the-hip, and that is a huge factor here. That comment could have sunk him and it didn't. It was a ridiculous thing to say. But, I also think he was able to walk-it-back even if it is/was not forgotten.  

Generally, I ignore the whole primary season, letting them all slug-it-out, to get to the general. This election season is different because of all the non-traditional stuff going on and this demand for transparency.