# Official DNC Convention Speaker Victimfest Thread



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

The Democrats are in Philadelphia, enduring record heat, for the coronation of Hiliary. The DNC head just had to step down because there was another e-mail scandal where the shocking, shocking, fact that they rigged it for Clinton was revealed.

Anyway, four years ago when I watched their convention, they seemed to think that mythical women that were "doing equal work" but getting paid less was the nation's most pressing issue and I particularly remember one woman that came up and admitted that she'd been quite happy at her job for many years and then found out that some guys were making more than her and then she had a sad. It was a big "first world problems" joke.

All I can add at the moment it that I think I heard that the mother of Michael Brown* will be speaking there. But as some have accused the RNC convention of exploiting grieving families, we shall try to keep track here of the ones the DNC uses.

*Long story short, he was a man that was walking down the middle of the street after a strong-arm convenience store robbery of cigars [surely meant to be used with illegal drugs] when a police officer drove up and told him to maybe use a sidewalk, at which point this "gentle giant" began beating the officer through the window and attempted to steal his firearm, forcing to officer to use lethal force and shoot the violent criminal) will be speaking there.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Ellen DeGeneres was bleating on BBC news this morning that Hillary is held to impossibly high standards because she has a vagina. I am given to understand that DeGeneres makes a living as a comedian (comedienne?) of some variety so perhaps the statement was designed to precipitate a belly laugh....?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Yes, I think HRC said that in an interview last night. First, a politician seeking the highest office in the land should welcome and exceed high standards, but the claim is provably false. Martha Stewart made false statements to a federal prosecutor over matters not involving national security and she served time.

But good point that the candidate herself, a corrupt multimillionaire of numerous scandals, is pretending to be a victim of oppression. She was totally let off by an investigation that rightly should be layering federal charges on her, but she pulls the Charlie Brown "why's everybody always picking on me?" and attributes it to "because I'm a girl and you boys are mean."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed, Hillary's response..."why's everybody always picking on me"...is not very presidential, to say the least. But then, we Republicans can but claim "The Donald" as our champion...and that my friend, causes my face to bloom in full blush! :redface:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

She's held to an impossibly high standard for someone who wishes to be held to her own standard. 

The DNC email hack is embarrassing an feeds into Trump's core narrative; the system is rigged for the elites. 

I didn't realize VA. had such lax gift giving laws. How much of a money grubber does one need to be to take cash and gifts as a public official? 

Apparently Mr. Assange has more email dumps in store. Some apparently from HRC's own lost archive. Things will become quite interesting in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

When I think about everything that has occurred over the past quarter century in American politics, it makes me very proud to have supported U.S. Representative Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent, his son, Senator Rand Paul.

As the lyrics wrote, "an honest man's pillow is his peace of mind."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

From last night, apparently to Eva Longoria, the border crossed her.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I totally zoned out on Longoria, or else they cut away from her. I can't even recall if she was a victim of theater make-up like many speakers were.
The entire DNC, no _the nation_, is supposedly a victim of a "Russian" hack that exposed the totally real Democratic fraud and corruption in order to allegedly sway the election. Supposedly.
Sarah Silverman announced herself as recovering from the Bern in what I think was an admission of flaring STD, as she had "put some cream on it."
At least two growing anchor babies were victims of their parents' illegal occupancy and our failure to deport them and some athlete was a victim of being a celebrity "first openly homosexual" some sort of basketball player.
There was some girl in a wheelchair that seemed a bit obligatory.
There was also gobs of references to those poor, poor single mothers. I think that is something different than a widow so I'm unsure whom to blame for their condition. It wasn't me.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I suppose if the dems want to pack their convention with vulgar comediennes and actresses they are certainly welcome to do so.

From what I understand Sarah Silverman pretty much called Bernie Sanders loyalists stupid, though apparently not that long ago she was a fan girl. That shouldn't be too surprising as the godfather of the movement himself gave his wholehearted support, even after being insulted and humiliated publically less than 48 hours ago between the email leaks and choice of VP.

I would have had more respect for him had he pulled an Al Pacino from "And Justice For All".


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Just a happy reminder that the rules of the forum apply even in this thread.

No one has crossed the line yet, but please don't do so. We just had to close another thread.

(This means lefties and righties.)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Just a happy reminder that the rules of the forum apply even in this thread.
> 
> No one has crossed the line yet, but please don't do so. We just had to close another thread.
> 
> (This means lefties and righties.)


I have never been able to discern which I am, according to some I am a bona fide head-in-the-clouds Socialist and yet if various others are to be believed I am a poisonous card-carrying uber-fascist. Either way it is not a particularly demanding task to recognise Hillary for what she is.

.
.
.

.
.


..............................................


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

As an outsider watching this stuff, I find the whole concept of parading the relatives of those who have been, ostensibly through the policies or actions of the other Party, or rival politicians, killed or have died as a result of these policies, most distasteful. Do supporters of the two Parties really find these ostentatious displays of grief acceptable? I know from another thread that several Trump supporters find nothing wrong with _*his*_ exploitation of grief, certainly. Do Democrat supporters also find this acceptable?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

I find the parading of "victims" by any party distasteful but no doubt they all continue to do it as it is effective with some section of the electorate.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I was unable to catch the show last night so I can only add a Garry Shandling/Larry Sanders gag.

But to build on my previous comment, I find that the Democrats are at least as demagogic and full of outdated bleating as anyone else. They were toasting the gay athlete in "so brave" style as if it were several decades back and this was somehow risking...anything at all instead of inviting inevitable celebrity and praise. Did they not notice that the RNC had at least two openly gay speakers the week before? That has all been mainstreamed, but they want to persist the myth of persecution and oppression.
I also found Sen. Booker's insistence that toleration was not enough but that we all had to love (them) (while they hate us) to be a vile attempt at thought policing in a one way fashion.

Actually it dawns on me that this whole personal emotional story appeal, like used of reality shows or to make sports watchable by women, is supposed to be there to support a rational policy, but is probably more there instead of a rational policy.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> As an outsider watching this stuff, I find the whole concept of parading the relatives of those who have been, ostensibly through the policies or actions of the other Party, or rival politicians, killed or have died as a result of these policies, most distasteful. Do supporters of the two Parties really find these ostentatious displays of grief acceptable? I know from another thread that several Trump supporters find nothing wrong with _*his*_ exploitation of grief, certainly. Do Democrat supporters also find this acceptable?


I believe the basis of your observation is incorrect. It is correct, however, that the poverty and crime that plagues the black community in this country is largely a result of Great Society programs that ended up concentrating poverty into state operated ghettos in the inner cities.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

One party nominates an unindicted felon and the other party nominates the village idiot. Truly, I am embarrassed for our Country and incredibly troubled by the impossible decision we will be forced to make in November! Sad days are ahead, my friends.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

How is Donald Trump the village idiot? Sorry but I'm just not buying that. 

He had a peculiar way about him and I can understand that a lot of what he says rubs some people the wrong way, but he's far from an idiot. 

The man has built a multi billion dollar real estate business. I don't know too many idiots capable of that.

I think a better reflection of him as a person is had by looking at his kids. He raised his kids well and by all accounts, has been a good father. 

Admittedly he wasn't my first choice but I think he'll aquit himself quite well.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> As an outsider watching this stuff, I find the whole concept of parading the relatives of those who have been, *ostensibly through the policies or actions of the other Party, or rival politicians, killed or have died as a result of these policies*], most distasteful. Do supporters of the two Parties really find these ostentatious displays of grief acceptable? I know from another thread that several Trump supporters find nothing wrong with _*his*_ exploitation of grief, certainly. Do Democrat supporters also find this acceptable?


What specific policies or actions are you referring to?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> What specific policies or actions are you referring to?


Perhaps to begin with, the policy that police officers defend themselves when attacked.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> How is Donald Trump the village idiot? Sorry but I'm just not buying that.
> 
> He had a peculiar way about him and I can understand that a lot of what he says rubs some people the wrong way, but he's far from an idiot.
> 
> ...


The man thinks with and is driven by his ego...and not with or by his brain. When our military services process candidates for assignments having anything to do with our nuclear weapons programs, the candidates must successfully make it through an intense screening process to assure a good match. It seems to me that any individuals that might find themselves responsible for authorizing the release of those weapons, should be subjected to and successfully pass at least the same level of screening. In the past, Trump has managed to run several of his companies into bankruptcy and people lost their jobs. If he loses his cool as our President, it could spell the end of the world, as we know it! The stakes will have been raised considerably. Are we ready to take that chance? I am still struggling mightily with that decision.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I believe being ego driven is a trait common among all politicians. Trump just makes no bones about it and doesn't try to hide it. 

As for having ups and downs in business, this is nothing new, particularly in real estate. In the real world, projects just don't work out. Unlike in government where failed policies and projects are just propped up with tax dollars.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Believe what you will, my friend, but in my lifetime, I cannot think of any less thoughtful past occupant of the Oval Office than Trump has proven himself to be as a candidate for that office. As has been proven time and again, past practice is the best/most accurate predictor of future performance. If Trump is the best we can do, then perhaps we deserve what we get and may God help us all!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> What specific policies or actions are you referring to?


Me? None. Trump, or Trump's campaign managers paraded a selection of distraught and grieving relatives of people killed in various "foreign adventures", blaming Hilary Clinton for their deaths. _*This*_ thread seems to be suggesting that the Democrats are parading a different selection of grieving relatives, whose relative was killed in the US. The suggestion being, I suppose that the views, policies, ideas of the Republicans are somehow to blame. In both cases their reasoning seems to be somewhat tenuous.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There's a big difference between the victims of a failed foreign policy and abandonment by their government, and then an attempted cover up at the highest level and a street thug getting shot by a police officer while attempting to charge the officer.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Believe what you will, my friend, but in my lifetime, I cannot think of any less thoughtful past occupant of the Oval Office than Trump has proven himself to be as a candidate for that office. As has been proven time and again, past practice is the best/most accurate predictor of future performance. If Trump is the best we can do, then perhaps we deserve what we get and may God help us all!


I realize he doesn't talk pretty and I know you're not a big fan of the current POTUS, but how is he really any worse?

You indicate past practice, could you cite examples of past practice.

I believe the nominee on the other side can't even be trusted with email. She can't even be trusted with telling the truth or standing by policy decisions.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

> There's a big difference between the victims of a failed foreign policy and abandonment by their government, and then an attempted cover up at the highest level and a street thug getting shot by a police officer while attempting to charge the officer.


I suspect for you it is that one is from one party and one from the other. You seem to say in one post that Trump is entitled to make mistakes of huge consequence but in the next that the other party is not.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

culverwood said:


> I suspect for you it is that one is from one party and one from the other. You seem to say in one post that Trump is entitled to make mistakes of huge consequence but in the next that the other party is not.


Quite. Republican exploitation good, Democrat exploitation bad. Rather than, the exploitation of vulnerable people bad, no matter who does it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Trump has had no record in government up to now.

As for trotting out victims, I'm merely suggesting that sometimes it's hard to sympathize with certain "victims".


The parties are free to highlight whatever they want.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> I realize he doesn't talk pretty and I know you're not a big fan of the current POTUS, but how is he really any worse?
> 
> You indicate past practice, could you cite examples of past practice.
> 
> I believe the nominee on the other side can't even be trusted with email. She can't even be trusted with telling the truth or standing by policy decisions.


Allow me to share a very private and personal experience with you. Unbeknownst to many of us, the worlds nuclear powers are prone to play games of nuclear chicken with one another on a surprisingly regular basis. Even though we have international agreements that require such powers to keep one another advised of test launches, space launches, etc, before they happen. When prior notifications have not been made, several components of our government, many in DOD, go all a**holes and elbows in responding to the situation. As a Minuteman launch crew commander, pulling alert tours 60 to 90 feet under the cow pies in Missouri's farmland, I was on duty when one of those rounds of nuclear chicken played out.

I have also seen the news clip of Trump's reaction to the disabled reporter that had incurred his ire, in which Trump is erratically waving his arms around and talking gobbly ****, imitating the actions of the disabled reporter.

Perhaps my subconscious mind is in over-drive, but last week I quite literally had a nightmare in which the two scenarios described above were combined and I woke up in a cold sweat. Call me crazy if you wish, but the idea of this guy (Trump) with his finger on the nuclear trigger scares the hell out of me!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Allow me to share a very private and personal experience with you. Unbeknownst to many of us, the worlds nuclear powers are prone to play games of nuclear chicken with one another on a surprisingly regular basis. Even though we have international agreements that require such powers to keep one another advised of test launches, space launches, etc, before they happen. When prior notifications have not been made, several components of our government, many in DOD, go all a**holes and elbows in responding to the situation. As a Minuteman launch crew commander, pulling alert tours 60 to 90 feet under the cow pies in Missouri's farmland, I was on duty when one of those rounds of nuclear chicken played out.
> 
> I have also seen the news clip of Trump's reaction to the disabled reporter that had incurred his ire, in which Trump is erratically waving his arms around and talking gobbly ****, imitating the actions of the disabled reporter.
> 
> Perhaps my subconscious mind is in over-drive, but last week I quite literally had a nightmare in which the two scenarios described above were combined and I woke up in a cold sweat. Call me crazy if you wish, but the idea of this guy (Trump) with his finger on the nuclear trigger scares the hell out of me!


Agreed, Eagle. I have emphatically shared my intention to never vote for Trump for that reason and others. But then I watched the Democratic convention. Wifey and I host a huge patriotic election party every four years. This year we might host a wake.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> Allow me to share a very private and personal experience with you. Unbeknownst to many of us, the worlds nuclear powers are prone to play games of nuclear chicken with one another on a surprisingly regular basis. Even though we have international agreements that require such powers to keep one another advised of test launches, space launches, etc, before they happen. When prior notifications have not been made, several components of our government, many in DOD, go all a**holes and elbows in responding to the situation. As a Minuteman launch crew commander, pulling alert tours 60 to 90 feet under the cow pies in Missouri's farmland, I was on duty when one of those rounds of nuclear chicken played out.
> 
> I have also seen the news clip of Trump's reaction to the disabled reporter that had incurred his ire, in which Trump is erratically waving his arms around and talking gobbly ****, imitating the actions of the disabled reporter.
> 
> Perhaps my subconscious mind is in over-drive, but last week I quite literally had a nightmare in which the two scenarios described above were combined and I woke up in a cold sweat. Call me crazy if you wish, but the idea of this guy (Trump) with his finger on the nuclear trigger scares the hell out of me!


Sorry. I fail to make the connection. The current POTUS has certainly made fun of plenty of his opponents just in a more genteel manner.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...FE3ADFC56A8F7E4F0FA8FE3ADFC56A8F7&FORM=VRDGAR

Seems like an example of making fun of someone's age. BHO didn't start a nuclear war though. Just allowed a crazy theocracy to develop their own.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Sorry. I fail to make the connection. The current POTUS has certainly made fun of plenty of his opponents just in a more genteel manner.
> 
> https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...FE3ADFC56A8F7E4F0FA8FE3ADFC56A8F7&FORM=VRDGAR
> 
> Seems like an example of making fun of someone's age. BHO didn't start a nuclear war though. Just allowed a crazy theocracy to develop their own.


SG,

I did not see the clip referenced by Eagle, but taking his description at face value, do you not see the difference between garden variety political mockery versus making fun of a reporter's disability? Seriously?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

He said he didn't:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-making-fun-reporters-disability/story?id=35463888


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Call me crazy if you wish, but the idea of this guy (Trump) with his finger on the nuclear trigger scares the hell out of me!


I quite agree with you. Unfortunately, I have the same reservations about Hillary as well. They are both dangerous extremists.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> He said he didn't:
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-making-fun-reporters-disability/story?id=35463888


Thanks, SG. While Trump's denial is hardly dispositive, it is certainly reassuring.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am certain that your description is correct my friend. I would imagine that we have been on that precipice more often than most care to think about. However, I would also imagine that in such a situation the presidential authority should be usurped?



eagle2250 said:


> Allow me to share a very private and personal experience with you. Unbeknownst to many of us, the worlds nuclear powers are prone to play games of nuclear chicken with one another on a surprisingly regular basis. Even though we have international agreements that require such powers to keep one another advised of test launches, space launches, etc, before they happen. When prior notifications have not been made, several components of our government, many in DOD, go all a**holes and elbows in responding to the situation. As a Minuteman launch crew commander, pulling alert tours 60 to 90 feet under the cow pies in Missouri's farmland, I was on duty when one of those rounds of nuclear chicken played out.
> 
> I have also seen the news clip of Trump's reaction to the disabled reporter that had incurred his ire, in which Trump is erratically waving his arms around and talking gobbly ****, imitating the actions of the disabled reporter.
> 
> Perhaps my subconscious mind is in over-drive, but last week I quite literally had a nightmare in which the two scenarios described above were combined and I woke up in a cold sweat. Call me crazy if you wish, but the idea of this guy (Trump) with his finger on the nuclear trigger scares the hell out of me!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I am certain that your description is correct my friend. I would imagine that we have been on that precipice more often than most care to think about. However, I would also imagine that in such a situation the presidential authority should be usurped?


Usurped by whom?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

By 'should' I meant that it would not that it ought to be- please forgive my phrasing. But, in answer to the question, by the military. WW III kicks off, I doubt decisions might remain in civilian hands, honorific titles, such as commander-in-chief, will likely be discarded.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> By 'should' I meant that it would not that it ought to be- please forgive my phrasing. But, in answer to the question, by the military. WW III kicks off, I doubt decisions might remain in civilian hands, honorific titles, such as commander-in-chief, will likely be discarded.


Perhaps and that's scary thing. It's interesting that during the Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchev actually thought he could provoke a military coup against Kennedy.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps and that's scary thing. It's interesting that during the Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchev actually thought he could provoke a military coup against Kennedy.


Oddly enough, a coup that removed Kennedy from power could have ultimately saved his life. Go figure...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> By 'should' I meant that it would not that it ought to be- please forgive my phrasing. But, in answer to the question, by the military. WW III kicks off, I doubt decisions might remain in civilian hands, honorific titles, such as commander-in-chief, will likely be discarded.


In the United States the title "Commander in chief" is not honorific. It is constitutional. Accordingly, the consequential civilian control of the US military is very deeply ingrained, both culturally and practically, in the US military. If a US President should behave in such a manner that reveals him to be unable to carry on the duties of office, there are constitutional and related legal mechanisms available as redress. Conceptionally, should these mechanisms prove to be too clumsy to avert an existential crisis, the resulting circumstance would render options that can only be described as extraordinarily hypothetical and speculative.

The good news is that Eagle's "nuclear trigger" is largely metaphorical. The President is subject to legal and practical encumbrances.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ I genuinely hope that you are correct Mike and, further, pray that we never get to a point where we will know for certain.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> ^ I genuinely hope that you are correct Mike and, further, pray that we never get to a point where we will know for certain.


I share your prayer, Shaver. 
That said, make no mistake: my contempt for manchild Trump notwithstanding, the risk to which we refer rests far greater in the governments of Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan than those of the US and other western democracies.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Despite how it may be portrayed in the movies, the National Command Authority for the launch of nuclear weapons is not as simple as the POTUS opening up "the football" and pushing a red button.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> As an outsider watching this stuff, I find the whole concept of parading the relatives of those who have been, ostensibly through the policies or actions of the other Party, or rival politicians, killed or have died as a result of these policies, most distasteful. Do supporters of the two Parties really find these ostentatious displays of grief acceptable? I know from another thread that several Trump supporters find nothing wrong with _*his*_ exploitation of grief, certainly. Do Democrat supporters also find this acceptable?


There you go again using the parts of a definition rather than the whole one.
For clarification here is the definition: the action or fact of treating someone *unfairly* in order to benefit from their work.

so, please chouan when you are going to throw around words to make someone look worse than they actually are, please understand what the word really means.

I may be wrong, but I didn't read anyone saying that the DNC is exploiting these people. It's been called a "victimfest" but no one has said that the DNC is exploiting these speakers.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> He said he didn't:
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-making-fun-reporters-disability/story?id=35463888


I don't believe him. Reporter Kovaleskie is the more credible party involved in this instance. The tape of Trump making fun the the reporters disability says all that needs to be said.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> Despite how it may be portrayed in the movies, the National Command Authority for the launch of nuclear weapons is not as simple as the POTUS opening up "the football" and pushing a red button.


The NCA consists of two people...the President and the Secretary of Defense and the NCA issues the "go to war" order and indeed, it is or certainly could be that simple. Sadly our President and other elective and appointed officials do not have to successfully complete the batteries of psychological tests and undergo mental health evaluations prior to assuming their responsibilities, as do our military personnel. Trump in the middle of one of his temper tantrums could prove disastrous! Is it worth the risk. I'm not sure I would reach that conclusion.

PS: Don't misunderstand me...I am also not a fan of Hillary Clinton. This upcoming election truly does boil down to picking the lesser of two evils.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think your concerns are misplaced. That's all I'll say about that.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

After his suggestion that a foreign power (Putin even) hacks his opponent's e-mails are you still so sure.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> There you go again using the parts of a definition rather than the whole one.
> For clarification here is the definition: the action or fact of treating someone *unfairly* in order to benefit from their work.




Interesting that you missed this one "The fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage for oneself:" 
In any case, are you suggesting that getting a distraught, grieving relative to give vent to their grief publicly, when they are especially vulnerable, to benefit one's political campaign, is not treating someone unfairly? Are you suggesting that a clearly distraught grieving mother is going to reason completely rationally? Did you not read those articles I gave you links to? The explanation is given very clearly in all of them.




Dmontez said:


> so, please chouan when you are going to throw around words to make someone look worse than they actually are, please understand what the word really means.


I'm fully aware of the definition of exploit and exploitation, thank you. Are you aware of how insulting it to suggest that I don't know the definition of an English word? I assume that you are; are you also aware of how petulant and ridiculous it makes you appear?



Dmontez said:


> I may be wrong, but I didn't read anyone saying that the DNC is exploiting these people. It's been called a "victimfest" but no one has said that the DNC is exploiting these speakers.


So the expression "victimfest" has no negative connotation, no suggestion that these people are being used?

It is curious that you didn't respond when other members referred to this exploitation, but waited until I joined in! Nothing personal though, I assume!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

culverwood said:


> After his suggestion that a foreign power (Putin even) hacks his opponent's e-mails are you still so sure.


Yes...it's called talking smack.

I think many of the opinions expressed here as well as the DNC this week are exactly why Trump is so popular and may just win in November. People just aren't buying the same nonesense anymore. The same arguments are falling flat, on both sides mind you given the support for Bernie Sanders.

Last night in a hugely overlooked interview with Nancy Pelosi, she was asked why Trump is so popular with white working class people. I'll let you google it yourself but she basically called them uneducated (please watch the clip and see how she started to say that then quickly changed to non-college educated) rabble and referenced the "3 G's"; guns, gays and God.

This should be played on an endless loop because it really is what the elite ruling class thinks of most Americans, particularly when we don't agree with them. After 8 years of this nonesense people have had it. It's sort of difficult for the average person sitting at home trying to pay the bills to listen to someone who gets paid $250k to talk for an hour and take some pictures tell them they understand their problems.

Each of the speakers last night had spent a lifetime suckling at the government teet. None of them has ever had to produce anything or be measured for their performance and none has ever had to worry about trying and failing as no such thing exists in government.

So for all of the gnashing of teeth that is going on within and without, most people just want to be left alone to live their lives without someone over them telling them what they should eat, drive, where to live, what to buy, what doctor to see, and basically stealing money from their pay checks to give out to their pet projects that do nothing for people and produce nothing of value.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> The tape of Trump making fun the the reporters disability says all that needs to be said.


The so-called mocking actually has nothing to do with the actual disability. This is a contrived accusation, a rather illegitimate one. The reporter does not shake or have a speech impediment. Also, Trump publicly used identical motion and speech to mimic an able-bodied backtracking general.


culverwood said:


> After his suggestion that a foreign power (Putin even) hacks his opponent's e-mails are you still so sure.


Note that he said the _deleted_ e-mails, which are _allegedly_ personal.
Charles Krauthammer, who I normally disdain, points out the brilliant move that this is. Trump is crazy like a fox. If the HRC crowd, or better yet Hillary herself, accused him of supporting a national security risk, he has them/her in a position to either admit that these deleted messages were not all about yoga and diet tips and that she (duh, of course) lied during investigation or else they will have to run away with their tails between their legs, again.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ even if he did, so what!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Well my minor point is that the accusers are so desparate that they claim Trump mocks a victim of a contracture, meaning that he has limited motion, with exaggerated flailing. This makes no sense, but the accusers are an emotional and irrational lot.
It would also show someone aspiring to governmental leadership that fails to treat journalists as cronies to collaborate with in shared disservice to the public. And doing so in pursuit of truth. I'm not sure how that is a bad thing except that the easily offended brigade invented a PC violation.

Anyway, I've been derelict in watching the convention, so I apologize and thank other posters that have. I especially agree with the synopsis that the Democrats are very elitist in their notions that they know what is best for us stupid people, and of course that they are very wrong and (now provably) undemocratic. In fairness, Paul Ryan doesn't appear to have a drop of private sector experience either...


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Yes...it's called talking smack.
> 
> I think many of the opinions expressed here as well as the DNC this week are exactly why Trump is so popular and may just win in November. People just aren't buying the same nonesense anymore. The same arguments are falling flat, on both sides mind you given the support for Bernie Sanders.
> 
> ...


Very well said...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Interesting that you missed this one "The fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage for oneself:"
> In any case, are you suggesting that getting a distraught, grieving relative to give vent to their grief publicly, when they are especially vulnerable, to benefit one's political campaign, is not treating someone unfairly? Are you suggesting that a clearly distraught grieving mother is going to reason completely rationally? Did you not read those articles I gave you links to? The explanation is given very clearly in all of them.
> 
> 
> ...


I do not think that allowing someone to speak publicly about what has happened to them is treating them unfairly. M-W does not use the definition you have supplied, in any case it still has the qualifying term "*unfair*", and a reasonable person would not say that either side is being treated unfairly, or that either side get's an* unfair* advantage, therefore neither group is is exploiting their speakers.

It is quite obvious that you do not understand the meaning of the word, since you refuse to use it correctly, and I do not see it as insulting at all.

What I do find insulting is that you wish to use these words that make a group of people look bad, yet you don't use the words correctly, or you skew the definition in order for it to fit your narrative.

Now the OP, I think uses the term "victimfest" rather sarcastically. Michael brown was not a victim, although the media and the Left wish him to be, his mother is not a victim either, and I do not see any negative connotation to it.

You could have called what the RNC did a victimfest as well, as they truly were victims of the policies/actions of the Left, or HRC directly.

I do not see how it is curious at all, as your post #12 is the one I am responding to, and as of yet from the quick glancing of all three pages the only member who has used the word "exploit". I may have missed it in the next two pages, but yours was the first one and therefore the one I am responding to.

What I do find curious is your need to play the victim here, when you are not a victim at all.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tempest said:


> The so-called mocking actually has nothing to do with the actual disability. This is a contrived accusation, a rather illegitimate one. The reporter does not shake or have a speech impediment. Also, Trump publicly used identical motion and speech to mimic an able-bodied backtracking general.
> 
> Note that he said the _deleted_ e-mails, which are _allegedly_ personal.
> Charles Krauthammer, who I normally disdain, points out the brilliant move that this is. Trump is crazy like a fox. If the HRC crowd, or better yet Hillary herself, accused him of supporting a national security risk, he has them/her in a position to either admit that these deleted messages were not all about yoga and diet tips and that she (duh, of course) lied during investigation or else they will have to run away with their tails between their legs, again.


Am I the only one who sees the irony here? The dems are complaining about Trump supporting or egging on something that may be a security risk, but it was HRC herself who said that they were all personal emails having to do with her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding plans. In fact, according to her, there was nothing ever marked classified.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh, Trump set the bait and the HRC spokesperson totally fell for it.
https://thefederalist.com/2016/07/2...mit-her-e-mails-are-a-national-security-issue

BTW, before anyone misunderstands the exact wording, we have on video "Russia if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" at 0:42 here.
And of course on twitter
"If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> Very well said...


I concur. A most succinct, yet passionate, summary. Politics is no place for politicians.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Honestly? You are unable to percieve the cynical opportunism in the tragic being paraded for political gain?



Dmontez said:


> I do not think that allowing someone to speak publicly about what has happened to them is treating them unfairly. M-W does not use the definition you have supplied, in any case it still has the qualifying term "*unfair*", and a reasonable person would not say that either side is being treated unfairly, or that either side get's an* unfair* advantage, therefore neither group is is exploiting their speakers.
> 
> It is quite obvious that you do not understand the meaning of the word, since you refuse to use it correctly, and I do not see it as insulting at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Honestly? You are unable to percieve the cynical opportunism in the tragic being paraded for political gain?


I still don't see it as exploitation. Yes all of the speakers we are talking about have been through tragedies, but I don't see it as unfair to anyone. The word exploitation has a qualifier to be able to use it and unfortunately for chouans argument it doesn't work.

Undoubtedly he will continue to use it in the same context, and he will continue to be wrong.

The most tragic part is that I'm sure he teaches his students using the same failed logic.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

You don't see it? Please, I implore you, look harder. It will come into focus should you concentrate.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> How is Donald Trump the village idiot? Sorry but I'm just not buying that.
> 
> He had a peculiar way about him and I can understand that a lot of what he says rubs some people the wrong way, but he's far from an idiot.
> 
> The man has built a multi billion dollar real estate business. I don't know too many idiots capable of that.


Has he? He hasn't disclosed any financials, so no one can say for certain, but there is good reason to think that he does not in fact have billions; if you have a billion and one dollars in cash, and a billion dollars in debt, you have a dollar.

He has demonstrated time and again that he floats enormous debt, and is adept at using bankruptcy laws. He's certainly cunning, but that's not necessarily the sort of intelligence suited to statecraft.

My main worry about Trump is that he lacks the number one competency which makes a good head of state: he's a poor judge of character. He surrounds himself with bad and incompetent people - there's a reason he's famous for readily firing people: he needs to.

DH


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Forbes magazine declares his personal _net_ worth as $4.5 billion. 
https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/

For sport, I will now claim that the "grieving families" were exploit_ing_ the committee, or the media, or the public, because that is about as equally (in)valid of a claim.

Oh, the topic. Well, the real victims are obviously the Sanders delegates that were reportedly having their signs confiscated, and being kept from the hall and replaced by paid seatfillers. And of course the DNC conspired to cheat their candidate. This was definitely unfair, as opposed to the mutually agreed upon arrangement that some deem unfair.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dhaller said:


> Has he? He hasn't disclosed any financials, so no one can say for certain, but there is good reason to think that he does not in fact have billions; if you have a billion and one dollars in cash, and a billion dollars in debt, you have a dollar.
> 
> He has demonstrated time and again that he floats enormous debt, and is adept at using bankruptcy laws. He's certainly cunning, but that's not necessarily the sort of intelligence suited to statecraft.
> 
> ...


Let's take a look at BHO's record as a businessman:

1) A trillion dollar stimulus bill with little to show for it

2) $600 million venture capital adventure into solar energy that went belly up

3) $2.1 billion spent on a healthcare insurance website that failed to launch

4) The VA....I don't think we need to say anything more about that

The list goes on and on.

As for HRC, she did make a killing in cattle futures and she has dabbled in real estate so I suppose she does have some experience in the business world. Oh wait, she may not want to mention that part of her resume.

This administration, HRC being a large part of it, were themselves incompetent and surrounded themselves with incompetents and sycophants. The difference in the real world is that incompetence is punished and pushed out. In government, it is tolerated, accepted or perhaps not even recognized as there is no mechanism to hold someone accountable. Unless of course, you embarrass the boss.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You don't see it? Please, I implore you, look harder. It will come into focus should you concentrate.


Do you think that maybe you are concentrating too hard and maybe coming up with the answer you want rather than the answer that is there.

Please explain exactly how it is unfair, and I will gladly concede.

You are also more than welcome to find a word that fits the situation rather than trying to make the situation fit the word.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Well, they just had four parents of killed police officers, half of them from Chicago. NPR/PBS had David Brooks comment that there were 25 to 30 family members that had lost people on stage so far, and that this was drastically more than previous years.
Chicago of course has very strict gun control laws, and Obama pal Rahm Emmanuel has been mayor there for five years. Oops.

And now they had parents of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq. There was no mention of the fact that he was probably killed by Muslims or that Obama was largely elected to end the war in which his son was killed.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

And still some people cannot see that this parading of relatives, some still grieving, is wrong. But that's politics for you.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> Yes...it's called talking smack.
> 
> I think many of the opinions expressed here as well as the DNC this week are exactly why Trump is so popular and may just win in November. People just aren't buying the same nonesense anymore. The same arguments are falling flat, on both sides mind you given the support for Bernie Sanders.
> 
> ...


In a thread filled with very good posts, this is a great one!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

culverwood said:


> And still some people cannot see that this parading of relatives, some still grieving, is wrong. But that's politics for you.


I'd agree that it is tasteless and an attempt to manipulate the emotions of the public, but thus is American politics.
The insinuation that the family members are in some vulnerable emotional state and being unwittingly exploited to peddle a narrative is what I find laughable. Everybody is in on it. These are not Jerry Springer show guests too dumb to realize why they are there, or being cheaply bought with a trip to the city. It is insulting to assume them to be such rubes that they will speak to a national audience without deeply considering the consequences and motives of their words.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tempest said:


> I'd agree that it is tasteless and an attempt to manipulate the emotions of the public, but thus is American politics.
> The insinuation that the family members are in some vulnerable emotional state and being unwittingly exploited to peddle a narrative is what I find laughable. Everybody is in on it. These are not Jerry Springer show guests too dumb to realize why they are there, or being cheaply bought with a trip to the city. It is insulting to assume them to be such rubes that they will speak to a national audience without deeply considering the consequences and motives of their words.


A trenchant observation, Tempest!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

culverwood said:


> And still some people cannot see that this parading of relatives, some still grieving, is wrong. But that's politics for you.


What is wrong is lying to the mother of a fallen soldier for rank political reasons. What is also wrong is cynically couching one's criticism of the exposure of that lie, by the mother, as concern for the mother.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> I'd agree that it is tasteless and an attempt to manipulate the emotions of the public, but thus is American politics.
> The insinuation that the family members are in some vulnerable emotional state and being unwittingly exploited to peddle a narrative is what I find laughable. Everybody is in on it. These are not Jerry Springer show guests too dumb to realize why they are there, or being cheaply bought with a trip to the city. It is insulting to assume them to be such rubes that they will speak to a national audience without deeply considering the consequences and motives of their words.


No one is assuming that. One need not be an illiterate hick to be exploited. Even were we to consider this a mutual exploitation, given that many seem to consider celebrity the only meaningful validation of their existance nowadays , nevertheless these people are being used.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If I have to listen to one more admonition about how not all Muslims are terrorists I'll go crazy. Libs certainly have not the same tolerance for those who own firearms. 

Those same Muslim parents who spoke last night should also be asked if they see a problem with a religion which teaches such things. Or perhaps asked to explain why people in this country may have the impression that Islam is an intolerant religion. I'm just curious as to what their answer would be. 

This is an incredibly tolerant society, perhaps the most tolerant in the world and certainly ever in history. Despite everything that has happened, Muslims still come and go, worship and otherwise involve themselves into society pretty seamlessly. 

I see nothing wrong with banning immigration from certain countries that are known hotbeds of terrorism. 

Interesting how the US doesn't allow certain airlines to fly into the US directly due to inadequate safety records or security screenings from the country of origin yet we are supposed to just allow the wholesale immigration of refugees here without the same safeguards.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

And now reporter Michael Edison of Good Morning America is reporting on "The Donald's" reaction to several of the DNC speakers...it seems he is claiming if he had been on the stage with any one of several speakers he would have been compelled to "punch them in the face!" That doesn't sound emotionally stable to me; nor does it strike me as even the thoughts of a rational man; and it is certainly not presidential! If one of us made that kind of irrational public pronouncements, we could very possibly find ourselves criminally charged with 'simple assault, but if Trump makes such proclamations, he is just being patrioticcrazy! 

However, on the other side of the coin, listening to VP Biden speaking the other night, I found myself struck with the reality that we, as a Nation, have already survived with an arguably unstable incumbent elective official serving just a single heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Perhaps this great nation of ours is strong enough to survive a psychological screwball sitting in the President's chair? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> No one is assuming that. One need not be an illiterate hick to be exploited. Even were we to consider this a mutual exploitation, given that many seem to consider celebrity the only meaningful validation of their existance nowadays , nevertheless these people are being used.


Indeed. That they may be using the situation themselves does not mean that they're not being exploited themselves.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> I still don't see it as exploitation. Yes all of the speakers we are talking about have been through tragedies, but I don't see it as unfair to anyone.


An interesting opinion, but one that you are entitled to, of course.



Dmontez said:


> The word exploitation has a qualifier to be able to use it and unfortunately for chouans argument it doesn't work.


Doesn't it? You seem to be insisting here that only your opinion can be valid, and, as my opinion is compatible with yours, then I must be wrong! Not only in my opinion, but wrong in my understanding of the word! Such misplaced arrogance!



Dmontez said:


> Undoubtedly he will continue to use it in the same context, and he will continue to be wrong.


I will continue to use it in the same way and I will continue to be correct in my usage.



Dmontez said:


> The most tragic part is that I'm sure he teaches his students using the same failed logic.


Indeed I do. I also insist, of course, that my students become active members of the Socialist Worker's Party, otherwise I will fail their essays......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> And now reporter Michael Edison of Good Morning America is reporting on "The Donald's" reaction to several of the DNC speakers...it seems he is claiming if he had been on the stage with any one of several speakers he would have been compelled to "punch them in the face!" That doesn't sound emotionally stable to me; nor does it strike me as even the thoughts of a rational man; and it is certainly not presidential! If one of us made that kind of irrational public pronouncements, we could very possibly find ourselves criminally charged with 'simple assault, but if Trump makes such proclamations, he is just being patrioticcrazy!
> 
> However, on the other side of the coin, listening to VP Biden speaking the other night, I found myself struck with the reality that we, as a Nation, have already survived with an arguably unstable incumbent elective official serving just a single heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Perhaps this great nation of ours is strong enough to survive a psychological screwball sitting in the President's chair? :icon_scratch:


If I believed for a moment that Donald Trump would actually do that I may be worried. Given that he's never been arrested or accuse of aggravated assault or that none of his children or ex-wives has written a tell all book, my mind is at rest.

Mitt Romney was a nice guy. Genial, gentle and the consummate family man. By the end of the campaign he was a capitalist fascist, misogynist and racist. Maybe someone with some fire in his belly is a good thing.

By the way, I recall BHO saying during the Gulf oil spill in 2010 that he was looking for "someone's ass to kick".


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

It appears that the Trump camp's denial of plagiarism over that speech was somewhat misplaced.......
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...-mistake-in-lifting-michelle-obama-lines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/melania-trump-speech-meredith-mciver.html?_r=0 https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-melania-plagiarism-20160719-snap-story.html 
On the other hand, Melania Trump's website has disappeared, possibly to do with the dishonest claims that were made in it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/melania-trump.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/melania-trumps-website-taken-down/ https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/melania-trump-website/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rs-plagiarised-speech-education-a7160856.html
For Mr.Montez' benefit I haven't included the Guardian article.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> If I believed for a moment that Donald Trump would actually do that I may be worried. Given that he's never been arrested or accuse of aggravated assault or that none of his children or ex-wives has written a tell all book, my mind is at rest.
> .............................
> .........


So, because Trump has not yet carried out one of these threats of violence, it makes it OK? Do you really you consider it normal behavior, reflective of a psychologically stable mind, or at all presidential for a candidate to conduct themselves in such a manner? Is this type of conduct generally acceptable to the American electorate?

Please, my friend, don't misunderstand me. It is not my intent to argue with you, or anyone else. I am just totally amazed that the American electorate has sunk to the point where the past and present conduct of either parties candidate is acceptable. I am no more inclined to vote for Hillary than I am for The Donald, at this point, but ready or not, November will soon be bearing down upon us. At this point it seems divine intervention is our only hope! :crazy:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> So, because Trump has not yet carried out one of these threats of violence, it makes it OK? Do you really you consider it normal behavior, reflective of a psychologically stable mind, or at all presidential for a candidate to conduct themselves in such a manner? Is this type of conduct generally acceptable to the American electorate?


I guess I'm just not as worked up over that sort of thing anymore. Our current POTUS dances on chat shows and Bill Clinton was fellated 10 feet from the oval office.

The candidate on the other side habitually lies, which I'm sure is quite unpresidential as well. I guess I've just gotten numb to it. I'm more interested in what he will do.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

This notion of genteel docile leadership may be all that we've been exposed to in our lives (well, LBJ for some?) but, as I keep repeating, American history was not all milquetoast. Andrew Jackson was in a few duels, I believe, and VP Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in one while in office. I'm tempted to cite the righteous anger of Christ chasing out the moneychangers as well.
https://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-all-time.html


Spoiler



This is mentioned in G.Gordon Liddy's autobiography.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Doesn't it? You seem to be insisting here that only your opinion can be valid, and, as my opinion is _not_ compatible with yours, then I must be wrong! Not only in my opinion, but wrong in my understanding of the word! Such misplaced arrogance!














Chouan said:


> Indeed I do. I also insist, of course, that my students become active members of the Socialist Worker's Party, otherwise I will fail their essays......


This is all classic chouan, and unfortunately par for the course.

no one ever said anything about you forcing your students to join the socialist party, but as usual you take what someone says, and interpret it how you want to, and then accuse them of saying that.

I will no longer respond to you on this matter, unless of course you can justify how exactly the treatment of the speakers you refer to is *unfair*.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> This is all classic chouan, and unfortunately par for the course.
> 
> no one ever said anything about you forcing your students to join the socialist party, but as usual you take what someone says, and interpret it how you want to, and then accuse them of saying that.
> 
> I will no longer respond to you on this matter, unless of course you can justify how exactly the treatment of the speakers you refer to is *unfair*.


Really? Is that a promise?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> So, because Trump has not yet carried out one of these threats of violence, it makes it OK? Do you really you consider it normal behavior, reflective of a psychologically stable mind, or at all presidential for a candidate to conduct themselves in such a manner? Is this type of conduct generally acceptable to the American electorate?
> 
> Please, my friend, don't misunderstand me. It is not my intent to argue with you, or anyone else. I am just totally amazed that the American electorate has sunk to the point where the past and present conduct of either parties candidate is acceptable. I am no more inclined to vote for Hillary than I am for The Donald, at this point, but ready or not, November will soon be bearing down upon us. At this point it seems divine intervention is our only hope! :crazy:


Maybe we should all take a closer look at Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson? I certainly will...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Maybe we should all take a closer look at Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson? I certainly will...


All I know is that he doesn't seem to understand libertarianism very well. His opponent in the debate here gets it while Johnson offers severely compromised/crippled libertarianism.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tempest said:


> All I know is that he doesn't seem to understand libertarianism very well. His opponent in the debate here gets it while Johnson offers severely compromised/crippled libertarianism.


He's not my ideal candidate either, but neither are the two candidates offered by the monopoly parties. I'll take a look to see if the Constitution Party is running a candidate - I've voted for their candidates in the past...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tempest said:


> All I know is that he doesn't seem to understand libertarianism very well. His opponent in the debate here gets it while Johnson offers severely compromised/crippled libertarianism.


Just read a list of Johnson's positions; he is a faux libertarian and someone I could not support.

Time to read about Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party platform...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I've basically heard that the Libertarians have strayed and the Constitution Party is the preferred conservative idealist's 3rd party. It's a shame, as the Libertarians are finally getting mass media attention to some degree.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I'll end this fun thread with the story that Orlando shooter/victim Omar Mateen's dad has been seen attending a Hillary event with a homemade campaign sign. Nobody is quite sure what to make of this.
https://www.wptv.com/news/state/orlando-shooters-father-attends-hillary-clinton-rally-in-kissimmee


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> I'll end this fun thread with the story that Orlando shooter/victim Omar Mateen's dad has been seen attending a Hillary event with a homemade campaign sign. Nobody is quite sure what to make of this.
> https://www.wptv.com/news/state/orlando-shooters-father-attends-hillary-clinton-rally-in-kissimmee


Your point is?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)




----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


>


Entirely correct my friend. For all of Donald Trump's flaws and foibles, it really is amazing how journalists are not going through the myriad of lies that this woman and her husband have subjected the American people to in the 25 years since them first came to national prominence.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Not amazing at all! Most of those who make up the 'Lame Stream Media' are Democrats...gotta protect the candidate at all costs, don't-ya-know?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Your point is?


When I say "Nobody is quite sure what to make of this" that is what I mean. We're not all playing word games here.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> When I say "Nobody is quite sure what to make of this" that is what I mean. We're not all playing word games here.


Why is it important to you that the person in question attended a Democrat rally? It clearly is important to you otherwise you wouldn't have posted the link. So, what is your point?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL. Not amazing at all! Most of those who make up the 'Lame Stream Media' are Democrats...gotta protect the candidate at all costs, don't-ya-know?


Most of the media manipulation is so blatantly obvious. I wonder why they bother or if anyone is really fooled.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Why is it important to you that the person in question attended a Democrat rally? It clearly is important to you otherwise you wouldn't have posted the link. So, what is your point?


He's on record as saying that homosexuals will be punished by God. I wonder if a Klansman were to attend a Trump rally if you'd be so dismissive of his presence.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Mateen is a "grieving parent" at a political campaign event and thus is being shoehorned in despite the DNC convention being over.
Also, since every joke needs to be spelled out for some people, this is a spin on the parent killer calling himself an orphan gag. See, Omar kind of killed a bunch of other people before himself, and only a special type would consider him a victim. It's a lighthearted thread.



SG_67 said:


> I wonder if a Klansman were to attend a Trump rally if you'd be so dismissive of his presence.


Oh, touche! The lefties went after Trump merely because David Duke vocally supported him. Here we have a murderer's father, a literal Muslim extremist, literally attending HRC rally with a sign of his own and sitting in close proximity. Fair game, obviously.


----------

