-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 20, 2021, 09:31:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 330884 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1375 on: July 29, 2016, 06:53:16 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink



That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9274



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1376 on: July 29, 2016, 07:20:36 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the more ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 07:43:17 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1377 on: July 29, 2016, 07:24:59 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9274



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1378 on: July 29, 2016, 07:41:43 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1379 on: July 29, 2016, 08:05:21 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1380 on: July 29, 2016, 08:32:22 AM »


The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement

That reputation is based on what? Primarily republican propaganda and media, not anything Democrats actually say or do as a party. Both parties suck the dicks of law enforcement (and military) because that's how you win votes. Nobody wins on "let's think about complex, nuanced situations. Maybe we've been wrong in our approach to X." They win on "I'll be tough on crime." Both parties ALWAYS do this. But republicans have pushed an alternative narrative on Democrats for decades. We're the tough guys, we're the law-and-order party. Since Nixon, that has been their story.

But if we're going to trust reputations, then Republicans are racist, sexist, elitist, anti-science, gun-crazy, xenophobic Bible thumpers. That's their reputation. Gotta be true.

(Obviously not true, obviously not so simple. Nothing is. Simple stories are lies.)
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.
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1381 on: July 29, 2016, 08:50:39 AM »


The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement

That reputation is based on what? Primarily republican propaganda and media, not anything Democrats actually say or do as a party. Both parties suck the dicks of law enforcement (and military) because that's how you win votes. Nobody wins on "let's think about complex, nuanced situations. Maybe we've been wrong in our approach to X." They win on "I'll be tough on crime." Both parties ALWAYS do this. But republicans have pushed an alternative narrative on Democrats for decades. We're the tough guys, we're the law-and-order party. Since Nixon, that has been their story.

But if we're going to trust reputations, then Republicans are racist, sexist, elitist, anti-science, gun-crazy, xenophobic Bible thumpers. That's their reputation. Gotta be true.

(Obviously not true, obviously not so simple. Nothing is. Simple stories are lies.)

Suck dicks of law enforcement and military?  At least you kept your response classy.   

The Democrats have earned their reputation for being anti law enforcement.  Under Obama, almost 800 officers have died in the line of duty.  Not one White House representative was sent to a funeral / memorial service.  Yet, Michael Brown, a thug who attacked an officer, had three staffers at his funeral. 



Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1382 on: July 29, 2016, 09:16:56 AM »

I figured since we're all big kids and I not only wasn't insulting a poster but either party, some colorful slang that clearly gets across my point was ok. If it offended you, I'm sorry and will try to be more PC. But I fully stand behind my point.

Presidential attendance at funerals is a red herring. First, Obama has sent people including VP Biden and FBI Dir Comey to funerals. Second, most obviously, he attended the Dallas funerals himself with the First Lady (and Pres and First Lady Bush).lastly, there were almost 1400 police killed on duty under Bush. Can you tell me how many funerals he or his delegates attended? I honestly have no idea, but I'd guess Obama followed precedents of previous presidents.

And it's irrelevant anyway, because it's ceremonial show. My point was, both parties work hard for the endorsements of law enforcement and military, and spend huge sums on them to get them.
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 #1383 on: July 29, 2016, 09:23:19 AM »

I almost have to think you're just punking with that last post, FdP, you can't be that dishonest or that clueless. It's not possible.

Edit: it just occurred to me, because of your use of the term "underground" that maybe you think that random people posting junk on the Internet is equivalent to paper underground newspapers and that's why you give it credibility.

No, FdP. I can go on the internet right now and build a whole site around my evidence that you brainwashed Mark David Chapman to kill John Lennon. That's what you're dealing with. When you see things like the myriad junk you've posted in this thread, the first thing you do is try to learn the provenance of the information, then you check the background of the source and what their sources were. It's also a good idea to check who else is reporting it. Or check the fact-checking sites or opposing sources to see what they say about it, and weigh that. If you're only finding it on sites that obviously have no leaning towards accuracy, or if it's just on Twitter and Facebook, you don't run with it as if it's valid information.

Emily - there is some willful blindness here.  There was a first ballot early in the day and Bernie won according to some of Bernie's delegates and other sources.  A "do-over" was held when other delegates arrived later.  Your grasp of grassroots politics is weak.  If you had any political field organization skill you would know that on controversial topics there is NO mainstream media coverage. You have to start from a low, somewhat non-conventional place and build up.  You take low-level local resources or create the media yourself such as Twitter or Facebook or other social media. It can take months or years when up against powerful lobbies and other interests who write you off as a nut job as they have with Bernie.  

Facebook and Twitter, are used to disseminate information when large media is blocked (such as we saw in the Middle East when several governments were overthrown) relied on cell phones, or innovative communication techniques.  

Bernie has alleged from the outset, that the system was rigged and people blew him off as a nut job.  Now wiki-leaks (who were also called out as nut jobs) has broken out the email chain (some of them) and DWS is gonzo at the beginning of the convention.  They will not be sources such as comcast/nbc or Disney/abc.  You cannot expect that the mainstream media would pick this up.  But Facebook and Twitter and certain individuals have reported this out.  Wiki leaks is not mainstream media. But they took DWS out.

Take a look at the charter from the DNC - Art. 5 s. 4. "... the charter and bylaws of the Democratic Party requires the DNC chair to remain impartial during the primary process..." DWS did not do that.  "In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns."

http://www.inquisitr.com/3340983/the-dnc-will-die-unless-it-apologizes-immediately/  

Further down "Reich said the emails clearly show the DNC tried to sandbag Bernie's campaign." (inquisitr.com) Robert Reich, for reference, served as Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton. Professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and at Brandeis.  

You are giving DWS a pass?  *** Are you excusing Hillary because of her gender?  

http://usapoliticsnow/?p=3985

Interesting campaign button slogan - "Ignoring your party's corruption is condoning it."  

Reliance on mainstream media is gullible in my opinion.  And just so we are clear, I will say it again. I have been a lifelong Dem. I don't agree with Bernie's ideology to the greater extent.  However, I voted for him because I believed his impressions of the process which is sullied.  So, substantively I am not with Sanders.  Procedurally, I agree 100% with him.  Others such as Susan Sarandon, Rosario Dawson and Danny Glover are big supporters.  Are they liars, too?

http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2016/07/29/montgomery_life/news/doc579a0396e76b833705627.txtviewmode=default

Sarandon's Facebook page below.

https://www.facebook.com/SusanSarandon/posts/490013164486902  

Yes, Hillary had "her night." All-star, all Hollywood theater.  Political theatre.  (I did like watching Sheila E at soundcheck!) She rocked!  Wink

The RNC was more transparent letting Ted Cruz speak. DNC, the purported party of the people, is now the party of censorship.

Danny Glover's realnews.com interview on his Facebook page.  

https;//www.facebook.com/DannyLGlover  (theme is International Decade for People of African Descent)

You can go on their Facebook pages and call them out as liars.

  
There is willful blindness here, on your part. So, you are now saying that some select number of delegates had their own little private "first ballot"? Yeah. Actually that was the second ballot because I actually held the first ballot on my own and Meryl Streep won.
It's not a convention nominating ballot if it doesn't consist of a full convention vote.  Roll Eyes

The problem here is not mainstream vs. not mainstream media. The problem is news media vs. random sh*t people put on the Internet. You can't seem to tell the difference. You say it yourself: "create the media yourself such as Twitter or Facebook". These are just random people, FdP. They can tweet whatever they want. It's on you to verify it before you believe it. That's the step you're missing.

And, of course, the mainstream news media has been reporting on these topics, almost incessantly. I know you're committed to all the over-the-top conspiracy theories, but go to any main media outlet, and you can find reporting on the DNC, the walk-out, the emails... Get your head out of your bomb shelter and you'll find that what you've been imagining is happening above-ground is not.

In one post you manage to invoke the authority of celebrity to support your position, rather than present evidence, AND dismiss celebrity as 'political theater'. Do you even hear yourself?  LOL

If you want to talk about the email thing, I'll talk about the email thing, but not on the basis of you quoting a bunch of other people's opinion's and linking to ridiculous websites that only print opinion and have no relationship with fact. Lay out your case and I'll let you know where it's wrong.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 09:48:33 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1384 on: July 29, 2016, 09:24:02 AM »

I thought I heard Susan Surandon say she'll vote for Trump before Hillary. 

Although, I think Col. Sanders was still in the picture back then. 
She did say that.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1385 on: July 29, 2016, 09:25:54 AM »

I figured since we're all big kids and I not only wasn't insulting a poster but either party, some colorful slang that clearly gets across my point was ok. If it offended you, I'm sorry and will try to be more PC. But I fully stand behind my point.

Presidential attendance at funerals is a red herring. First, Obama has sent people including VP Biden and FBI Dir Comey to funerals. Second, most obviously, he attended the Dallas funerals himself with the First Lady (and Pres and First Lady Bush).lastly, there were almost 1400 police killed on duty under Bush. Can you tell me how many funerals he or his delegates attended? I honestly have no idea, but I'd guess Obama followed precedents of previous presidents.

And it's irrelevant anyway, because it's ceremonial show. My point was, both parties work hard for the endorsements of law enforcement and military, and spend huge sums on them to get them.

I wasn't really offended, just a little taken a back.  Especially since your colorful metaphor didn't take into account that there are female officers in law enforcement and military.  

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1386 on: July 29, 2016, 09:26:44 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink


"When the delegates returned..." Lol. They came back after their walkout and were sad their seats were taken??!! Hahahahahah.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1387 on: July 29, 2016, 09:30:37 AM »

This was moot save this space.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 09:32:33 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1388 on: July 29, 2016, 09:31:02 AM »

I figured since we're all big kids and I not only wasn't insulting a poster but either party, some colorful slang that clearly gets across my point was ok. If it offended you, I'm sorry and will try to be more PC. But I fully stand behind my point.

Presidential attendance at funerals is a red herring. First, Obama has sent people including VP Biden and FBI Dir Comey to funerals. Second, most obviously, he attended the Dallas funerals himself with the First Lady (and Pres and First Lady Bush).lastly, there were almost 1400 police killed on duty under Bush. Can you tell me how many funerals he or his delegates attended? I honestly have no idea, but I'd guess Obama followed precedents of previous presidents.

And it's irrelevant anyway, because it's ceremonial show. My point was, both parties work hard for the endorsements of law enforcement and military, and spend huge sums on them to get them.

I wasn't really offended, just a little taken a back.  Especially since your colorful metaphor didn't take into account that there are female officers in law enforcement and military.  



That's the beauty of metaphor: it just has to paint a picture that gets across the idea; it doesn't have to be point-for-point analogous. I could update to include cunnilingus if you'd prefer.
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 #1389 on: July 29, 2016, 09:33:58 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink


"When the delegates returned..." Lol. They came back after their walkout and were sad their seats were taken??!! Hahahahahah.
Emily - forgive me, I explained that poorly, and clearly you have not viewed the Bernie "elected delegates" video clips.

Upon return, the designated sections had been re-assigned to "others" "acting" in a work-for-hire capacity.     LOL

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1390 on: July 29, 2016, 09:34:49 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1391 on: July 29, 2016, 09:39:27 AM »


The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement

That reputation is based on what? Primarily republican propaganda and media, not anything Democrats actually say or do as a party. Both parties suck the dicks of law enforcement (and military) because that's how you win votes. Nobody wins on "let's think about complex, nuanced situations. Maybe we've been wrong in our approach to X." They win on "I'll be tough on crime." Both parties ALWAYS do this. But republicans have pushed an alternative narrative on Democrats for decades. We're the tough guys, we're the law-and-order party. Since Nixon, that has been their story.

But if we're going to trust reputations, then Republicans are racist, sexist, elitist, anti-science, gun-crazy, xenophobic Bible thumpers. That's their reputation. Gotta be true.

(Obviously not true, obviously not so simple. Nothing is. Simple stories are lies.)

Suck dicks of law enforcement and military?  At least you kept your response classy.   

The Democrats have earned their reputation for being anti law enforcement.  Under Obama, almost 800 officers have died in the line of duty.  Not one White House representative was sent to a funeral / memorial service.  Yet, Michael Brown, a thug who attacked an officer, had three staffers at his funeral. 




Actually, law enforcement deaths have dropped yet lower under every four year term since Clinton's. Including both of Obama's. I'm not saying that that's directly related to any president's actions, but it's simply untrue that they've gone up under Obama.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1392 on: July 29, 2016, 09:42:32 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink


"When the delegates returned..." Lol. They came back after their walkout and were sad their seats were taken??!! Hahahahahah.
Emily - forgive me, I explained that poorly, and clearly you have not viewed the Bernie "elected delegates" video clips.

Upon return, the designated sections had been re-assigned to "others" "acting" in a work-for-hire capacity.     LOL


yeah I'm laughing at them coming back after their walk out.

Also, as we both know, no one was there in a "work-for-hire capacity."  Stop lying. It's not winning anyone over and it teaches people not to believe what you say even when you do tell the truth.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1393 on: July 29, 2016, 09:51:45 AM »

" There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs."
FdP, I would love to see your source for your "equal number" claim.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 10:56:39 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1394 on: July 29, 2016, 10:23:12 AM »

I almost have to think you're just punking with that last post, FdP, you can't be that dishonest or that clueless. It's not possible.

Edit: it just occurred to me, because of your use of the term "underground" that maybe you think that random people posting junk on the Internet is equivalent to paper underground newspapers and that's why you give it credibility.

No, FdP. I can go on the internet right now and build a whole site around my evidence that you brainwashed Mark David Chapman to kill John Lennon. That's what you're dealing with. When you see things like the myriad junk you've posted in this thread, the first thing you do is try to learn the provenance of the information, then you check the background of the source and what their sources were. It's also a good idea to check who else is reporting it. Or check the fact-checking sites or opposing sources to see what they say about it, and weigh that. If you're only finding it on sites that obviously have no leaning towards accuracy, or if it's just on Twitter and Facebook, you don't run with it as if it's valid information.

Emily - there is some willful blindness here.  There was a first ballot early in the day and Bernie won according to some of Bernie's delegates and other sources.  A "do-over" was held when other delegates arrived later.  Your grasp of grassroots politics is weak.  If you had any political field organization skill you would know that on controversial topics there is NO mainstream media coverage. You have to start from a low, somewhat non-conventional place and build up.  You take low-level local resources or create the media yourself such as Twitter or Facebook or other social media. It can take months or years when up against powerful lobbies and other interests who write you off as a nut job as they have with Bernie.  

Facebook and Twitter, are used to disseminate information when large media is blocked (such as we saw in the Middle East when several governments were overthrown) relied on cell phones, or innovative communication techniques.  

Bernie has alleged from the outset, that the system was rigged and people blew him off as a nut job.  Now wiki-leaks (who were also called out as nut jobs) has broken out the email chain (some of them) and DWS is gonzo at the beginning of the convention.  They will not be sources such as comcast/nbc or Disney/abc.  You cannot expect that the mainstream media would pick this up.  But Facebook and Twitter and certain individuals have reported this out.  Wiki leaks is not mainstream media. But they took DWS out.

Take a look at the charter from the DNC - Art. 5 s. 4. "... the charter and bylaws of the Democratic Party requires the DNC chair to remain impartial during the primary process..." DWS did not do that.  "In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns."

http://www.inquisitr.com/3340983/the-dnc-will-die-unless-it-apologizes-immediately/  

Further down "Reich said the emails clearly show the DNC tried to sandbag Bernie's campaign." (inquisitr.com) Robert Reich, for reference, served as Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton. Professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and at Brandeis.  

You are giving DWS a pass?  *** Are you excusing Hillary because of her gender?  

http://usapoliticsnow/?p=3985

Interesting campaign button slogan - "Ignoring your party's corruption is condoning it."  

Reliance on mainstream media is gullible in my opinion.  And just so we are clear, I will say it again. I have been a lifelong Dem. I don't agree with Bernie's ideology to the greater extent.  However, I voted for him because I believed his impressions of the process which is sullied.  So, substantively I am not with Sanders.  Procedurally, I agree 100% with him.  Others such as Susan Sarandon, Rosario Dawson and Danny Glover are big supporters.  Are they liars, too?

http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2016/07/29/montgomery_life/news/doc579a0396e76b833705627.txtviewmode=default

Sarandon's Facebook page below.

https://www.facebook.com/SusanSarandon/posts/490013164486902  

Yes, Hillary had "her night." All-star, all Hollywood theater.  Political theatre.  (I did like watching Sheila E at soundcheck!) She rocked!  Wink

The RNC was more transparent letting Ted Cruz speak. DNC, the purported party of the people, is now the party of censorship.

Danny Glover's realnews.com interview on his Facebook page.  

https;//www.facebook.com/DannyLGlover  (theme is International Decade for People of African Descent)

You can go on their Facebook pages and call them out as liars.

  
There is willful blindness here, on your part. So, you are now saying that some select number of delegates had their own little private "first ballot"? Yeah. Actually that was the second ballot because I actually held the first ballot on my own and Meryl Streep won.
It's not a convention nominating ballot if it doesn't consist of a full convention vote.  Roll Eyes

The problem here is not mainstream vs. not mainstream media. The problem is news media vs. random sh*t people put on the Internet. You can't seem to tell the difference. You say it yourself: "create the media yourself such as Twitter or Facebook". These are just random people, FdP. They can tweet whatever they want. It's on you to verify it before you believe it. That's the step you're missing.

And, of course, the mainstream news media has been reporting on these topics, almost incessantly. I know you're committed to all the over-the-top conspiracy theories, but go to any main media outlet, and you can find reporting on the DNC, the walk-out, the emails... Get your head out of your bomb shelter and you'll find that what you've been imagining is happening above-found is not.

In one post you manage to invoke the authority of celebrity to support your position, rather than present evidence, AND dismiss celebrity as 'political theater'. Do you even hear yourself?  LOL

If you want to talk about the email thing, I'll talk about the email thing, but not on the basis of you quoting a bunch of other people's opinion's and linking to ridiculous websites that only print opinion and have no relationship with fact. Lay out your case and I'll let you know where it's wrong.

Emily - Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover are celebrities, also citizens and it was not hard to find them. And they lend cred to the millions of nameless Sanders supporters. They are right out there. Clearly you have not viewed what they have posted, nor that of Robert Reich, former head of the Labor Dept under Bill Clinton.  

They must all be wrong about the DNC rigging and cheating.  

There is a problem as between corporate media whose messages are managed and vetted to insure the least damage to their investors or political allies, and eyewitness citizen videos that are not professionally done and uploaded to Twitter and Facebook to raise awareness.  

So, they are to be universally discredited and disparaged as independent sources of information?      

Conspiracy theories?  Ask Snowden and Assange.  Ask Bernie. Did DWS conspire with others to shut out Bernie?  Conspiracy only means "agreement" to do something.  Did DWS agree with others to keep Bernie from becoming the nominee?  It is not a theory.  It is supported by the emails.

Oh, political theatre was more impressive at the DNC.  Ted Cruz did his thing at the RNC, but was not stopped.  

Sarandon and Glover want answers as to why Sen. Nina Turner was not permitted to speak at the convention.  

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/07/27/bernie-supporters-rally-former-oh-senator-turner/8739332/

And, last night, Bill needed a nap...

http://youtu.be/yPbUhcvDgCo  - last night

Both of them...at 1:35  (low energy!)

http://youtu.be/DQVgHx_cdEA

During an MLK Speech...

http:youtu.be/Duyzj6lsWs4

And a nice parody in his honor...

http://youtu.be/baUB_mrk0VU

Emails?...I understand the best (or the worst) is yet to come... LOL




  
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1395 on: July 29, 2016, 10:26:42 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink


"When the delegates returned..." Lol. They came back after their walkout and were sad their seats were taken??!! Hahahahahah.
Emily - forgive me, I explained that poorly, and clearly you have not viewed the Bernie "elected delegates" video clips.

Upon return, the designated sections had been re-assigned to "others" "acting" in a work-for-hire capacity.     LOL


yeah I'm laughing at them coming back after their walk out.

Also, as we both know, no one was there in a "work-for-hire capacity."  Stop lying. It's not winning anyone over and it teaches people not to believe what you say even when you do tell the truth.
Emily - the craigslist hires to fill the seats, are common knowledge by now.  They could have cleaned out a couple of senior citizens facilities, fed them, and bussed them in to fill the seats.  That's the old school way.  Wink 
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1396 on: July 29, 2016, 10:28:22 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1397 on: July 29, 2016, 10:29:45 AM »


The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement

That reputation is based on what? Primarily republican propaganda and media, not anything Democrats actually say or do as a party. Both parties suck the dicks of law enforcement (and military) because that's how you win votes. Nobody wins on "let's think about complex, nuanced situations. Maybe we've been wrong in our approach to X." They win on "I'll be tough on crime." Both parties ALWAYS do this. But republicans have pushed an alternative narrative on Democrats for decades. We're the tough guys, we're the law-and-order party. Since Nixon, that has been their story.

But if we're going to trust reputations, then Republicans are racist, sexist, elitist, anti-science, gun-crazy, xenophobic Bible thumpers. That's their reputation. Gotta be true.

(Obviously not true, obviously not so simple. Nothing is. Simple stories are lies.)

Suck dicks of law enforcement and military?  At least you kept your response classy.   

The Democrats have earned their reputation for being anti law enforcement.  Under Obama, almost 800 officers have died in the line of duty.  Not one White House representative was sent to a funeral / memorial service.  Yet, Michael Brown, a thug who attacked an officer, had three staffers at his funeral. 




Actually, law enforcement deaths have dropped yet lower under every four year term since Clinton's. Including both of Obama's. I'm not saying that that's directly related to any president's actions, but it's simply untrue that they've gone up under Obama.

That's because I never said they went up. 
Logged
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #1398 on: July 29, 2016, 10:37:21 AM »

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.

 LOL  Just what, exactly, does a "white noise machine" look like?  I don't agree with you politically, it seems, but your posts sure are funny.  Keep 'em coming!
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1399 on: July 29, 2016, 10:37:55 AM »


 
Emily - Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover are celebrities, also citizens and it was not hard to find them. And they lend cred to the millions of nameless Sanders supporters. They are Clearly you have not viewed what they have posted, nor that of Robert Reich, former head of the Labor Dept under Bill Clinton.  

They must all be wrong about the DNC rigging and cheating.  

There is a problem as between corporate media whose messages are managed and vetted to insure the least damage to their investors or political allies, and eyewitness citizen videos that are not professionally done and uploaded to Twitter and Facebook to raise awareness.  

So, they are to be universally discredited and disparaged as independent sources of information?      

Conspiracy theories?  Ask Snowden and Assange.  Ask Bernie. Did DWS conspire with others to shut out Bernie?  Conspiracy only means "agreement" to do something.  Did DWS agree with others to keep Bernie from becoming the nominee?  It is not a theory.  It is supported by the emails.

Oh, political theatre was more impressive at the DNC.  Ted Cruz did his thing at the RNC, but was not stopped.  

Sarandon and Glover want answers as to why Sen. Nina Turner was not permitted to speak at the convention.  

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/07/27/bernie-supporters-rally-former-oh-senator-turner/8739332/

And, last night, Bill needed a nap...

http://youtu.be/yPbUhcvDgCo  - last night

Both of them...at 1:35  (low energy!)

http://youtu.be/DQVgHx_cdEA

During an MLK Speech...

http:youtu.be/Duyzj6lsWs4

And a nice parody in his honor...

http://youtu.be/baUB_mrk0VU

Emails?...I understand the best (or the worst) is yet to come... LOL

  
So you're saying you can't lay out an evidence-based argument for what you are asserting? You've got the authority of celebrity (which you dismissed when the celebrities support Clinton); and you've got the authority of populum, of which you've sourced about 5; and you've got the authority of random internet postings.
No logic? No actual evidence?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.329 seconds with 21 queries.