-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2019, 04:42:41 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Anyone in the US worried about a Trump presidency?
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Anyone in the US worried about a Trump presidency?  (Read 6330 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ZenobiaUnchained
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 8



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2016, 08:55:24 AM »

For the record, I never said if I liked or hated Trump, and I certainly never said I wanted Hillary. Cards on the table, Id have preferred Bernie. Im on the fence about Trump. I think hed be a great negotiator for other countries and agree we have an illegal immigration problem. Im sick of being called a racist and seeing him called one too for bringing that up. He never said anything against Hispanics, just illegal immigrants, and Ive literally seen people take this so out of context to say "OMG Hes declaring WAR on ALL Hispanics!!!1!!1!" I do think the idea of building a wall is kind of stupid tho. But he also seems to be far more liberal than his enemies give him credit for. Hes not against abortion and supports universal healthcare for one. Hed be better than any of the other GOP candidates, not that thats saying much, and Id personally rather take a chance on him than 4 more years of the same with Hillary.

Like I said, Id have preferred Bernie, but if he wont win then Id be down to take a chance on another outsider with some liberal leanings who DOESNT buy into this safe space, everything's racist/sexist PC bullshit
Logged

Zenobia>Cleopatra
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2016, 08:59:51 AM »

Sorry, but anybody who is not as equally if not more scared of a Hillary Clinton presidency than they are a Trump presidency is a complete focking moron. Literally one of the most ignorant stupid doo doo dumb people who has ever lived.

Zero respect for anybody who is planning on voting for that wretched excuse for a politician who is Bill Clinton's wife.

Completely ignoring Benghazi and her email scandal, which by the way she 100% absolutely deserves to be indicted for, she has done literally NOTHING. NOTHING Yes, NOTHING, to make this country and this world a better place.


They would impeach Donald Trump in a second if he did something out of line. Hillary Clinton has hundreds of FBI/CIA/whatever else government agents investigating her actions right now, and there are  idiot mother fockers with their heads all the way up to their nipples inside of their anuses that think that c-u-nt of a woman would make a better president than Donald Trump.


You would think most idiot Democrats MUST have noticed that the country under Barrack Obama is under than same path that it was under when George W. Bush was president. Hillary Clinton is just more of the same. Spiraling national debt, unrest in the Middle East, being forced to pay for-profit insurance companies our hard-earned money in the name of "healthcare".


This country is on a collision course with a pile of crap, and the speed at which it is headed there is increasing every day.


Donald Trump went from millions of dollars to billions. And Hillary went from, what? Staying with her husband who cheated on her dozens of times? Never sent an email with "classified" information, but doesn't have the intelligence to discern when something is "classified + 10"?


Anybody know countries that will accept political refugees with the dumb mo'fos elect the horrible, worthless human being known as Hillary Clinton as supreme leader of the free world? I would rather see this country burn from the outside than have to be a part of it.


ANYBODY BUT HILLARY IN 2016.

Don't be an idiot. This doesn't need to be the first "woman" president, just like the last few elections didn't need to be the first "black" president. You people are ruining the country way faster than the ignorants that are going to vote for Donald Trump....

At least one word you used is certainly against board rules and very offensive to me.

None of the words offended me--I'm tough to offend--but I guess that pretty well summed up how a Trump voter thinks and writes.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2016, 09:02:10 AM »

Trump said he wants to cut funding to mosques.
Does that remind anyone of a particular amendment?

Huh?

Funding?

They can neither advance nor inhibit the free exercise of religion. 

And what do you consider the government closing down mosques to be? Neutrality?
Bubbly Waves - I was not under the impression that mosques were being funded.  I am struggling with that concept if that is true.

Religious institutions are generally built by their congregations and not a source of public funding.  However, if mosques are used as a hub, or meeting place, for terrorism, and are meeting places to plan or execute terrorism rather than houses of worship, it could make the mosque a part of the process, if there was planning openly being conducted in furtherance of murder, maiming, etc.  

So I would take it further, so that it could be argued to lose it's protected religious significance, and take on a unprotected status.  It is ad hoc.  Case-by-case.

Generally churches are open to the public.  And everyone can hear what comes from the pulpit or dais. So, if the same holds for mosques, and if open to the public, and this kind of planning is discovered, then are we looking at the free practice of religion or a subset of those individuals in a murder conspiracy, that crosses the line.      

Religious protection is subject to the strict scrutiny of the Constitution.  That means the decision must be "narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest" and it must be neutrally applied. It is the highest standard of review.
Logged
Rocky Raccoon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2292



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2016, 09:13:48 AM »

I'm not sure he'll get the nomination.  On one hand, the GOP hates his guts.  On the other hand, he has a better shot of beating Clinton than either Cruz or Rubio.
Logged

filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2016, 09:22:35 AM »

I'm not sure he'll get the nomination.  On one hand, the GOP hates his guts.  On the other hand, he has a better shot of beating Clinton than either Cruz or Rubio.
Rocky - I think you are correct.  The Republicans hate Trump as much as the Dems hate Sanders.

And disgusted Democrats are becoming some of Trumps largest growing supporters.  Electoral college is subject to manipulation.  I think it should be ballot only. 


Logged
ZenobiaUnchained
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 8



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2016, 09:31:37 AM »

Thats whats so interesting, both parties have been hijacked by outsiders to great success--the difference is Trump has done so more thoroughly and has a chance to win. People are so sick of the same old, same old in Washington, things not getting better under either party and lying two faced politicians selling out like Clinton and the Bush family. If Trump won enough primaries to win and was denied the nomination I think we would see a full scale rejection of the GOP. I really think that would split or even kill the party, it would basically be the establishment outright saying "your votes dont matter" and revealing what many suspect: that democracy, at least on the federal level, is a hoax. Plus Trump has the resources to run independently, and I think hed do it just to stick it to them and hand the election over to the Dems as a big f*** you.

Its an interesting election if nothing else, thats for sure. We're definitely witnessing history--I think win or lose Trump has changed the way campaigns are run, and his methods will be studied and emulated for many years after this
Logged

Zenobia>Cleopatra
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2016, 09:35:07 AM »

I think win or lose Trump has changed the way campaigns are run, and his methods will be studied and emulated for many years after this

Be rich.

Be famous.

Be asshole.

Say nothing substantive.

Winning formula. god bless america or whatever. We deserve what we get.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2016, 09:41:06 AM »



At least one word you used is certainly against board rules and very offensive to me.

None of the words offended me--I'm tough to offend--but I guess that pretty well summed up how a Trump voter thinks and writes.
You're a guy right? Not saying that all women would be offended, nor that no men would, but I think the use of a term that literally refers to women's genitalia and that historically has been used to imply revulsion at women's sexuality, to insult a woman is not only insulting to the target and that women are more likely to feel so. But I don't support banning over it.
It is off-topic though. I don't want to derail this so on-the-rails thread.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:06:12 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2016, 09:48:50 AM »

Yeah, I'm a guy. I get why people are offended by some words and I don't go into some rant about being PC or anything if they are. I just have a different position on their use than a lot of people. But I'll agree not to derail the thread.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
China Pig
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 8


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2016, 09:54:09 AM »

I think it would be great if Trump made president.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2016, 10:04:58 AM »

Because some people have expressed irritation at multiple posts, I'll put all my reactions in one:

I’ll believe the people up-in-arms about illegal immigration aren’t racist when they start talking about the huge number of Europeans illegally living in this country. They never do, because…

To imply that Donald Trump is less corrupt or ‘consumed with ambition’ than any of the others is absurd. As to being competent, he’s shown that he can make money with money, but that has no bearing on his competence at being President. The job descriptions have almost no overlap.

Totally off-topic, but it was brought up – if the quality of an education is mainly dependent on the textbooks, we should stop funding schools at the age of literacy and just give kids books. Textbooks are simply tools for the teachers/professors to aid them in teaching. Textbooks are not the teachers.

Regarding mosques, it’s already illegal to conspire to commit a crime in a mosque or elsewhere. Trump only brought it up to appeal to racists. “I’ll close the mosques!” “YEAH! He speaks the truth!”
 
Regarding the ‘PC’ thing – when has there not been social pressure not to say certain things? It used to be illegal in many states to say ‘obscenities’ in public. What a lot of people consider to be obscene has changed, but I don’t see many people freaking out over being expected not to say “f*ck” at work or in school or on a message board. Why is it worse to be expected not to say things that feed bigotry? And, if you are letting that effect your vote for President then you are misunderstanding the role of the President.

FdP, you often assert that ‘disgusted’ Democrats are supporting Republican candidates, yet I’ve never seen any sign of this. Do you have some evidence or is this assertion based on some of your acquaintances?

Regarding Trump changing things – why do people think he’d be able to? Nothing will change unless congress is overhauled. People overestimate the power of the Presidency on domestic policy and law. There’s little the President can do to change ‘business as usual’. Trump knows this, but he loves that the suckers who support him don’t.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:08:50 AM by Emily » Logged
zachrwolfe
Guest
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2016, 10:24:37 AM »

« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 07:25:57 PM by zatch » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2016, 10:27:39 AM »

I'm not sure he'll get the nomination.  On one hand, the GOP hates his guts.  On the other hand, he has a better shot of beating Clinton than either Cruz or Rubio.
Rocky - I think you are correct.  The Republicans hate Trump as much as the Dems hate Sanders.
If that were really true, wouldn't national polling data reflect that?
You'd think that neither hates their top few candidates.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2016, 10:28:04 AM »

At least one word you used is certainly against board rules and very offensive to me.
None of the words offended me--I'm tough to offend--but I guess that pretty well summed up how a Trump voter thinks and writes.
You're a guy right? Not saying that all women would be offended, nor that no men would, but I think the use of a term that literally refers to women's genitalia and that historically has been used to imply revulsion at women's sexuality, to insult a woman is not only insulting to the target and that women are more likely to feel so. But I don't support banning over it.
It is off-topic though. I don't want to derail this so on-the-rails thread.
Emily - Trump was gross that night with Megyn Kelly.  And this was one of his first experiences being "schooled" in a political debate context.  He cannot dial-back what he said.  But, every candidate should be taken in a "totality of the circumstances" scheme. And, by that I mean the full history, positions with allies, foes, and whether they belonged to another party and jumped to run for office or in it's contemplation.  

Trump is now in the shark tank and needs to learn the decorum that is consistent with that place.  He would have been smarter to at least apologize, even privately to Megan if there was an unintended double-entendre.  He would want that for his daughters, wives and grand-daughters.  Even, erring on the side of caution, instead of digging his heels in.  He has a lot of bluster but I think his bark may be worse than his bite and that underneath the crusty exterior, he is likely a very compassionate individual.  

So, in being un-schooled in the art of belonging to a political class or dynasty where one is groomed of the job, is a big disadvantage, and that debate conduct will absolutely follow him.

By the same token, I think something needs to be said for the press not catering to certain candidates.   By that I mean ABC's Stephanopolous (who worked for Bill Clinton in the White House on press matters) acting as a news prosecutor, with one of Hillary's foes a while back.  So, it cuts both ways.  Fox should not go and chase Trump if he does not show up for a debate, if it is a matter of TV ratings.  O'Reilly handled the Trump situation masterfully, the night before the debate where Trump was absent, laying out both sides, knowing he would not convince him to participate.  Both were civil and that helped some compromise evolve.    
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2016, 10:33:57 AM »

At least one word you used is certainly against board rules and very offensive to me.
None of the words offended me--I'm tough to offend--but I guess that pretty well summed up how a Trump voter thinks and writes.
You're a guy right? Not saying that all women would be offended, nor that no men would, but I think the use of a term that literally refers to women's genitalia and that historically has been used to imply revulsion at women's sexuality, to insult a woman is not only insulting to the target and that women are more likely to feel so. But I don't support banning over it.
It is off-topic though. I don't want to derail this so on-the-rails thread.
Emily - Trump was gross that night with Megyn Kelly.  And this was one of his first experiences being "schooled" in a political debate context.  He cannot dial-back what he said.  But, every candidate should be taken in a "totality of the circumstances" scheme. And, by that I mean the full history, positions with allies, foes, and whether they belonged to another party and jumped to run for office or in it's contemplation.  

Trump is now in the shark tank and needs to learn the decorum that is consistent with that place.  He would have been smarter to at least apologize, even privately to Megan if there was an unintended double-entendre.  He would want that for his daughters, wives and grand-daughters.  Even, erring on the side of caution, instead of digging his heels in.  He has a lot of bluster but I think his bark may be worse than his bite and that underneath the crusty exterior, he is likely a very compassionate individual.  

So, in being un-schooled in the art of belonging to a political class or dynasty where one is groomed of the job, is a big disadvantage, and that debate conduct will absolutely follow him.

By the same token, I think something needs to be said for the press not catering to certain candidates.   By that I mean ABC's Stephanopolous (who worked for Bill Clinton in the White House on press matters) acting as a news prosecutor, with one of Hillary's foes a while back.  So, it cuts both ways.  Fox should not go and chase Trump if he does not show up for a debate, if it is a matter of TV ratings.  O'Reilly handled the Trump situation masterfully, the night before the debate where Trump was absent, laying out both sides, knowing he would not convince him to participate.  Both were civil and that helped some compromise evolve.    

I wasn't referring at all to the Trump-Kelly thing, but since you bring it up - Trump has been being 'schooled' in exactly that sort of thing since the 80s when he started showing up in the NY media and dancing around the idea of running for Mayor (no one bought his BS, fortunately; unfortunately he's now found a more naïve national audience). The schooling doesn't take. He seems to enjoy the fact that idiots will support him despite the fact that he's idiotic. He's a little inscrutable - like why does he keep his hair that way despite the decades of mocking? - often I think he's just amusing himself.
Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:35:01 AM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2016, 10:34:17 AM »

Trump says he's against immigration and bringing in refugees, so "he's a racist" or "he's a hate monger."  I'm not saying that giant corporations aren't part of the problem, but let's be honest, this country can't even take care of its own right now. 

There are record levels of wealth in the United States right now. Last summer, reports showed that "U.S. households saw their total net worth rise to a record level of $84.9 trillion" from $80.3 trillion the year before. At the same time, as was reported, "most people in the U.S. have actually seen both their income and net worth decline." The US economic structure essentially operates as a nanny state for the elite high upper class. Its function is to take care primarily of them. It's not that the country can't take care of its own right now, it's that it simply doesn't care about doing so. There is in fact more than enough wealth generated in the US to easily take care of US citizens and help refugees. That Trump (along with just about everybody in political power) refuses to acknowledge this point is not surprising but it is telling. He in fact is a great supporter of the kind of system that actively does not care about taking care of its own.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2016, 10:37:52 AM »

Trump says he's against immigration and bringing in refugees, so "he's a racist" or "he's a hate monger."  I'm not saying that giant corporations aren't part of the problem, but let's be honest, this country can't even take care of its own right now. 

There are record levels of wealth in the United States right now. Last summer, reports showed that "U.S. households saw their total net worth rise to a record level of $84.9 trillion" from $80.3 trillion the year before. At the same time, as was reported, "most people in the U.S. have actually seen both their income and net worth decline." The US economic structure essentially operates as a nanny state for the elite high upper class. Its function is to take care primarily of them. It's not that the country can't take care of its own right now, it's that it simply doesn't care about doing so. There is in fact more than enough wealth generated in the US to easily take care of US citizens and help refugees. That Trump (along with just about everybody in political power) refuses to acknowledge this point is not surprising but it is telling. He in fact is a great supporter of the kind of system that actively does not care about taking care of its own.
Hooray! CSM is here! Yes, the US certainly can 'take care of its own;' it just chooses not to. Apparently someone convinced the population that it's the government that's paying them less while they work more, rather than their employers.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2016, 10:38:26 AM »

Anyone who considers him- or herself a conservative and is leaning toward Trump, I'd recommend reading the essays printed by the National Review leading conservative thinkers (and yes, this being America, "personalities") from various strands of conservatism. One after the other, each outlines why Trump is not a good candidate for the presidency for conservatives.

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/430412/conservatives-against-trump

The issue was already dismissed by the candidate because it has very low readership these days, which is a little like dismissing Aretha Franklin because Taylor Swift sells more records. (It also speaks to how he's more a populist--if an erratic one--than a conservative.)

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2016, 10:41:24 AM »

Trump says he's against immigration and bringing in refugees, so "he's a racist" or "he's a hate monger."  I'm not saying that giant corporations aren't part of the problem, but let's be honest, this country can't even take care of its own right now. 

There are record levels of wealth in the United States right now. Last summer, reports showed that "U.S. households saw their total net worth rise to a record level of $84.9 trillion" from $80.3 trillion the year before. At the same time, as was reported, "most people in the U.S. have actually seen both their income and net worth decline." The US economic structure essentially operates as a nanny state for the elite high upper class. Its function is to take care primarily of them. It's not that the country can't take care of its own right now, it's that it simply doesn't care about doing so. There is in fact more than enough wealth generated in the US to easily take care of US citizens and help refugees. That Trump (along with just about everybody in political power) refuses to acknowledge this point is not surprising but it is telling. He in fact is a great supporter of the kind of system that actively does not care about taking care of its own.
Hooray! CSM is here! Yes, the US certainly can 'take care of its own;' it just chooses not to. Apparently someone convinced the population that it's the government that's paying them less while they work more, rather than their employers.

Yes, but today's small-businessperson can barely scrape by under all these regulations and whatnot ... The standard answer, right? It also conveniently ignores how many of us work for large companies, most of which are owned by larger corporations, which are owned by larger ones, which are owned by investment groups, each of which is skimming more than its share off the top.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2016, 10:43:38 AM »

At least one word you used is certainly against board rules and very offensive to me.
None of the words offended me--I'm tough to offend--but I guess that pretty well summed up how a Trump voter thinks and writes.
You're a guy right? Not saying that all women would be offended, nor that no men would, but I think the use of a term that literally refers to women's genitalia and that historically has been used to imply revulsion at women's sexuality, to insult a woman is not only insulting to the target and that women are more likely to feel so. But I don't support banning over it.
It is off-topic though. I don't want to derail this so on-the-rails thread.
Emily - Trump was gross that night with Megyn Kelly.  And this was one of his first experiences being "schooled" in a political debate context.  He cannot dial-back what he said.  But, every candidate should be taken in a "totality of the circumstances" scheme. And, by that I mean the full history, positions with allies, foes, and whether they belonged to another party and jumped to run for office or in it's contemplation.  

Trump is now in the shark tank and needs to learn the decorum that is consistent with that place.  He would have been smarter to at least apologize, even privately to Megan if there was an unintended double-entendre.  He would want that for his daughters, wives and grand-daughters.  Even, erring on the side of caution, instead of digging his heels in.  He has a lot of bluster but I think his bark may be worse than his bite and that underneath the crusty exterior, he is likely a very compassionate individual.  

So, in being un-schooled in the art of belonging to a political class or dynasty where one is groomed of the job, is a big disadvantage, and that debate conduct will absolutely follow him.

By the same token, I think something needs to be said for the press not catering to certain candidates.   By that I mean ABC's Stephanopolous (who worked for Bill Clinton in the White House on press matters) acting as a news prosecutor, with one of Hillary's foes a while back.  So, it cuts both ways.  Fox should not go and chase Trump if he does not show up for a debate, if it is a matter of TV ratings.  O'Reilly handled the Trump situation masterfully, the night before the debate where Trump was absent, laying out both sides, knowing he would not convince him to participate.  Both were civil and that helped some compromise evolve.    

I wasn't referring at all to the Trump-Kelly thing, but since you bring it up - Trump has been being 'schooled' in exactly that sort of thing since the 80s when he started showing up in the NY media and dancing around the idea of running for Mayor (no one bought his BS, fortunately; unfortunately he's now found a more naïve national audience). The schooling doesn't take. He seems to enjoy the fact that idiots will support him despite the fact that he's idiotic. He's a little inscrutable - like why does he keep his hair that way despite the decades of mocking? - often I think he's just amusing himself.
Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.
Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.  LOL  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:48:43 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2016, 10:54:45 AM »


Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.
Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.  LOL  
His charitable contributions were in the public record. How many journalists specify, during interviews, their charitable contributions that may have relevance to the interviewee? Pretty much none. It was a total of $75k made over a few years specifically for AIDS prevention and slowing/reversing deforestation. Hardly controversial or a personal favor to the Clintons. But as usual, some of the media will try to make a firestorm out of an unlit match.  Roll Eyes
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2016, 11:01:44 AM »


Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.
Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.  LOL  
His charitable contributions were in the public record. How many journalists specify, during interviews, their charitable contributions that may have relevance to the interviewee? Pretty much none. It was a total of $75k made over a few years specifically for AIDS prevention and slowing/reversing deforestation. Hardly controversial or a personal favor to the Clintons. But as usual, some of the media will try to make a firestorm out of an unlit match.  Roll Eyes
Emily - when you are a newscaster and report - you do so neutrally.  The Clinton Foundation was in the center of a firestorm concerning "quid pro quo" access in return for large contributions.  

It matters not what their mission is.  So, George as a former Clinton administration employee should not have been involved in any programming where a bias could be called into question. I saw that interview (I forget with whom) and thought that George was acting like a prosecutor and not an interviewer.  It came out later that he had made a large donation to the foundation.  I happen to believe that all of 501's  should be subject to more scrutiny.  They are not.  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 11:04:16 AM by filledeplage » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2016, 11:02:55 AM »

Trump says he's against immigration and bringing in refugees, so "he's a racist" or "he's a hate monger."  I'm not saying that giant corporations aren't part of the problem, but let's be honest, this country can't even take care of its own right now. 

There are record levels of wealth in the United States right now. Last summer, reports showed that "U.S. households saw their total net worth rise to a record level of $84.9 trillion" from $80.3 trillion the year before. At the same time, as was reported, "most people in the U.S. have actually seen both their income and net worth decline." The US economic structure essentially operates as a nanny state for the elite high upper class. Its function is to take care primarily of them. It's not that the country can't take care of its own right now, it's that it simply doesn't care about doing so. There is in fact more than enough wealth generated in the US to easily take care of US citizens and help refugees. That Trump (along with just about everybody in political power) refuses to acknowledge this point is not surprising but it is telling. He in fact is a great supporter of the kind of system that actively does not care about taking care of its own.
Hooray! CSM is here! Yes, the US certainly can 'take care of its own;' it just chooses not to. Apparently someone convinced the population that it's the government that's paying them less while they work more, rather than their employers.

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2016, 11:06:41 AM »


Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.
Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.  LOL  
His charitable contributions were in the public record. How many journalists specify, during interviews, their charitable contributions that may have relevance to the interviewee? Pretty much none. It was a total of $75k made over a few years specifically for AIDS prevention and slowing/reversing deforestation. Hardly controversial or a personal favor to the Clintons. But as usual, some of the media will try to make a firestorm out of an unlit match.  Roll Eyes
Emily - when you are a newscaster and report - you do so neutrally.  The Clinton Foundation was in the center of a firestorm concerning "quid pro quo" access in return for large contributions. 

It matters not what their mission is.  So, George as a former Clinton administration employee should not have been involved in any programming where a bias could be called into question. I saw that interview (I forget with whom) and thought that George was acting like a prosecutor and not an interviewer.  It came out later that he had made a large donation to the foundation.  I happen to believe that there are all of 501's that should be subject to more scrutiny.  They are not. 
That firestorm, like most, was a lot of sound and fury told by idiots that signified nothing other than we have a bunch of alarmists paying for alarmist media.
If your standard is that no journalist with a bias should report, we will have no journalists.
Sometimes I think we're shifting from two parties with policy differences to an alarmist party and an anti-alarmist party, neither of which has any intention of changing any policies.
It's depressing.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2016, 11:07:16 AM »

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

Quote
As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 11:08:52 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.156 seconds with 21 queries.