# Donald Trump and Republicans



## Chouan

Dear all, as some of you may know, I teach American Government and Politics at "A" Level in the UK. My students were bemused to say the least at the reaction of Republicans to the two controversial stances recently taken by Donald Trump. They assumed that his grossly racist stereotyping of Mexican immigrants would have immediately killed his chances of gaining the Republican nomination, yet were surprised to find that the views that he expressed improved his popularity ratings. They also assumed that his comments about McCain wouldn't be taken particularly seriously, although they thought his comments unpleasant, and were again surprised to see the reactions of Republicans, as portrayed in the British news media. Any views?


----------



## Chillburgher

Chouan said:


> They assumed that his grossly racist stereotyping of Mexican immigrants would have immediately killed his chances of gaining the Republican nomination, yet were surprised to find that the views that he expressed improved his popularity ratings.


I'm a bit surprised that they were surprised. Nativism is a powerful element among a large number of Republican voters.



Chouan said:


> They also assumed that his comments about McCain wouldn't be taken particularly seriously, although they thought his comments unpleasant, and were again surprised to see the reactions of Republicans, as portrayed in the British news media. Any views?


The reactions of his Republican opponents and other prominent members of the GOP were resoundingly (and appropriately) negative. The reactions of likely GOP primary voters, not so much. His poll numbers haven't shifted much in the aftermath.

McCain isn't a particularly popular figure with hard-core conservatives, who make up the vast majority of Trump supporters.


----------



## cosmic_cookie

I'm mildly ashamed, confused and worried of our populous if 15% of the party wants this man in office. I honestly think that everyone else in the party is in on the joke but me; "we'll wait until Iowa to let Trumpy in on the joke".


----------



## SG_67

This is what annoys me about Trump and the following he has. First of all, it's a slow news cycle and he's the bright shiny object. 

The more fundamental problem is that he's somewhat a newcomer to the particular ideology he states he espouses. He's been, in the past, a supporter of Hillary Clinton, has given money to Dems, has been pro choice, pro immigration and a host of other dem causes. One wonders about his true conviction vs. his genetic predisposition toward needing attention and self promotion. 

It's kind of hard for me to take him seriously and for him to call himself a Republican is a bit of a joke. At least 1/3 of his support comes from self identified independents. He has a strong following from those who have no greater than a high school education, which should say something prima facie. 

He's burning hot and he'll cool off just as quickly. So to answer your question, I don't think he really has that much Republican support. As compared to your country where the campaign season is truncated by law, here anyone and anytime can jump in and make a go of it. He has a lot of money and TV is his natural environment. 

I think by the Fall he will have been an interesting footnote and the grown ups will be back in charge.


----------



## cosmic_cookie

Funny part about his TV show: it's what kept him afloat after a bankruptcy where his personal money got tied up into the case. I'd say it's 50/50 that he'll magically plunge us into defaulting and send us back to the dark ages, or successfully get us out of China's debt by casting us as a German reality TV show.

But look at Ronald Regan. From the little I know about his presidency, he put America in one of its strongest economic positions in history... but there was also that thing about trees and carbon dioxide... also star warseqs laser satellites - but I right that off as visionary; look at the Navy's rail gun... there's got to be a correlation.


----------



## SG_67

Notice how all other candidates typically will try to underplay thier net worth in financial disclosure statements yet Trump is such an egomaniac that he actually inflated his!


----------



## cosmic_cookie

SG_67 said:


> Notice how all other candidates typically will try to underplay thier net worth in financial disclosure statements yet Trump is such an egomaniac that he actually inflated his!


:laughing: lol well his business is basically self promotion. Plus, it's worth noting that in business more people will work with you if you display what they aspire to become - I think that's his campaigning plan.


----------



## SG_67

cosmic_cookie said:


> :laughing: lol well his business is basically self promotion. Plus, it's worth noting that in business more people will work with you if you display what they aspire to become - I think that's his campaigning plan.


I'm not really sure there's even a plan save hurling insults at his opponents.

His campaign, if it can be called that, is devoid of any substance or plan. It basically boils down to everyone is stupid except him.


----------



## cosmic_cookie

Genuine question: who was the last candidate you remember that was less worried about how much mud they can sling and more worried about displaying their plan?


----------



## SG_67

Such thinking represents a romantic view of politics. In truth, when running for office one needs to gauge the position they are in and what they need to do to garner attention. 

When one is ahead, one can take the high road and focus on the issues and let the lower tiered candidates slug it out and jockey for better position. 

Trump is a loose cannon. I'm not sure he's even a Republican. The novelty will wear off quite quickly and though he will have some die hard supporters, he'll be at best a punch line starting soon. 

At some point he will have to articulate a vision and plan. Getting Mexico to build a wall is not a plan. Calling one's opponents losers is not a vision to move the country forward. Taking the wood to China and other trading partners is pure pablum. 

It appeals to a certain part of my party that is deeply anti-intellectual. The same people who gravitated toward Sarah Palin and Duck Dynasty. The problem with that crowd is that their attention span is low.


----------



## 32rollandrock

The GOP isn't seriously concerned about Trump. He's gonna implode, and pretty much everyone knows it. If he's still around for the first debate, he won't be around long thereafter.

It should not be at all surprising that his remarks on Mexicans have given Trump a boost in the polls. America is full of hate and cannot, ever it seems, deal with its racial issues. And fear mongering is a tried-and-true tactic in this nation when it comes to politics. Remember: They're polling Republicans, or folks who lean Republican, and there aren't a lot of brothers or Hispanics in GOP ranks. As for McCain, that's chickens roosting. We throw the term "hero" around in this nation as if it's a cheap Frisbee. Make no mistake: McCain is an honest-to-God hero. But the term has been cheapened to the point that Trump can say something like that and get away with it. A cop who gets shot in the back is called a hero in America these days. You got killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? You're an automatic hero, no matter how it happened. It's a more comfortable term than "cannon fodder." That's why it gets used so much when it really isn't appropriate. And when "hero" ceases to have any real meaning, guys like Trump can go to town.


----------



## SG_67

^ To state that America is "full of hate" is pure nonsense and hyperbole. 

There has always been nativist segment of society but they are on the fringe. I don't see the persecution of immigrants occurring and for the most part we are quite tolerant of one another.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> The GOP isn't seriously concerned about Trump. He's gonna implode, and pretty much everyone knows it. If he's still around for the first debate, he won't be around long thereafter.
> 
> It should not be at all surprising that his remarks on Mexicans have given Trump a boost in the polls. America is full of hate and cannot, ever it seems, deal with its racial issues. And fear mongering is a tried-and-true tactic in this nation when it comes to politics. Remember: They're polling Republicans, or folks who lean Republican, and there aren't a lot of brothers or Hispanics in GOP ranks. As for McCain, that's chickens roosting. We throw the term "hero" around in this nation as if it's a cheap Frisbee. Make no mistake: McCain is an honest-to-God hero. But the term has been cheapened to the point that Trump can say something like that and get away with it. A cop who gets shot in the back is called a hero in America these days. You got killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? You're an automatic hero, no matter how it happened. It's a more comfortable term than "cannon fodder." That's why it gets used so much when it really isn't appropriate. And when "hero" ceases to have any real meaning, guys like Trump can go to town.


Yep, you are all for reasoned discussion alright....


----------



## cosmic_cookie

SG_67 said:


> ^ To state that America is "full of hate" is pure nonsense and hyperbole.
> 
> There has always been nativist segment of society but they are on the fringe. I don't see the persecution of immigrants occurring and for the most part we are quite tolerant of one another.


SG, it is a hyperbole, but not far from one. You would be surprised how much hate I've seen displayed in private by men who you'd naturally offer the benefit of the doubt.

Here's a quote that I felt was passive racism that was displayed on our own forums; post number sixty-five: 


Jovan said:


> And none of the Anglo-American sartorial authorities


What bothers me about this is that an "American" of any decent simply could not suffice as part of the "sartorial authorities", so much so that he was compelled to specify "Anglo"; I may be simply reading far too deep into it, but it simply never settled well with me that he didn't simply say "American sartorial authorities". For what it's worth, Jovan did reach out to me afterwards via PM to say, "[...]no disrespect is intended[...]".


----------



## vpkozel

cosmic_cookie said:


> SG, it is a hyperbole, but not far from one. You would be surprised how much hate I've seen displayed in private by men who you'd naturally offer the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Here's a quote that I felt was passive racism that was displayed on our own forums; post number sixty-five:
> 
> What bothers me about this is that an "American" of any decent simply could not suffice as part of the "sartorial authorities", so much so that he was compelled to specify "Anglo"; I may be simply reading far too deep into it, but it simply never settled well with me that he didn't simply say "American sartorial authorities". For what it's worth, Jovan did reach out to me afterwards via PM to say, "[...]no disrespect is intended[...]".


Does the term British-American style offend you?


----------



## Gurdon

cosmic_cookie said:


> SG, it is a hyperbole, but not far from one. You would be surprised how much hate I've seen displayed in private by men who you'd naturally offer the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Here's a quote that I felt was passive racism that was displayed on our own forums; post number sixty-five:
> 
> What bothers me about this is that an "American" of any decent simply could not suffice as part of the "sartorial authorities", so much so that he was compelled to specify "Anglo"; I may be simply reading far too deep into it, but it simply never settled well with me that he didn't simply say "American sartorial authorities". For what it's worth, Jovan did reach out to me afterwards via PM to say, "[...]no disrespect is intended[...]".


In the context of men's clothing the term "Anglo-American" refers to British and American. Some time back, the terms Anglo, or Anglo American were used in relatively polite company in the American Southwest when discussing individuals of various ethnic backgrounds. I do not know the current social conventions pertaining to the use of the terms.

Gurdon


----------



## cosmic_cookie

Gurdon said:


> In the context of men's clothing the term "Anglo-American" refers to British and American. Some time back, the terms Anglo, or Anglo American were used in relatively polite company in the American Southwest when discussing individuals of various ethnic backgrounds. I do not know the current social conventions pertaining to the use of the terms.
> 
> Gurdon


Like I said, I think I was just reading too far into it. I haven't experienced Jovan say anything like that since, and he did contact me afterwards to explain himself, but it still strikes me as odd that exact ethnicity became subject.



vpkozel said:


> Does the term British-American style offend you?


 Not one ounce.


----------



## Gurdon

The term Anglo-American has sometimes been used by Europeans as shorthand for the neo-conservative approach* to politics and international trade favored by the US and UK, in distinction from the social welfare capitalism of post-war Western Europe. That being said, in light of current EU positions with respect to Greece, I think things may have changed there.

Gurdon

__________
* Which they refer to as neo-liberal


----------



## cosmic_cookie

Gurdon said:


> The term Anglo-American has sometimes been used by Europeans as shorthand for the neo-conservative approach* to politics and international trade favored by the US and UK, in distinction from the social welfare capitalism of post-war Western Europe. That being said, in light of current EU positions with respect to Greece, I think things may have changed there.
> 
> Gurdon
> 
> __________
> * Which they refer to as neo-liberal


Thank you, that information was new to me, but I'm worryed that this derived subject my derail us from the thread (albeit a better discussion than that of Trump fizzling out).

On the topic of Trump, one redeeming quality is that he will answer a question straight if pressed, rather than completely dodging or refusing to answer. Is that smart? No, but I trust that he can answer to us a little more after seeing that. An example: 




That said, I still wouldn't vote for him, for the reason that he should be running as a democrat, based on his support history. His ideals seem to either waver too easily, or are too undefined in his own book.


----------



## SG_67

cosmic_cookie said:


> SG, it is a hyperbole, but not far from one. You would be surprised how much hate I've seen displayed in private by men who you'd naturally offer the benefit of the doubt.


Particular anecdotes don't pass for racism or some cultural proclivity toward racist attitudes. For every one person you find that displays such hate, I'll produce 5 who do not.

The question is one of institutional racism, be it in the form of government or our cultural institutions. I'd argue that the U.S. is probably the most inclusive of any country and one that can as quickly assimilate those of other cultures within 1-2 generations.

If one looks at the broad landscape of this country and how minorities are represented in government and other professions, I think you'll find that such hatred that you speak of is a relatively minority view.


----------



## vpkozel

cosmic_cookie said:


> Not one ounce.


When it comes to sartorial matters, I think that they mean exactly the same thing. If you break it down literally, the specifically do mean exactly the same thing - but terms often take on a meaning other than their literal meaning.

So, as you said in response to Gurdon, I think you may have been reading a bit more into that - since sartorial matters were specifically mentioned as the context. JMHO.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ To state that America is "full of hate" is pure nonsense and hyperbole.
> 
> There has always been nativist segment of society but they are on the fringe. I don't see the persecution of immigrants occurring and for the most part we are quite tolerant of one another.


Full of hate is, perhaps an exaggeration. However, the popularity of such hate filled figures as Bill O'Reilly does rather suggest that many Americans are, at the very least, tolerant of the message of xenophobic hatred. I know that he is probably a deliberate caricature, that his hate filled rants are deliberate, but the audience is clearly there.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Full of hate is, perhaps an exaggeration. However, the popularity of such hate filled figures as Bill O'Reilly does rather suggest that many Americans are, at the very least, tolerant of the message of xenophobic hatred. I know that he is probably a deliberate caricature, that his hate filled rants are deliberate, but the audience is clearly there.


Yep. All the hate only comes from one direction....

Also, can we apply your logic to other groups besides Americans - or would that be hateful and racist?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Full of hate is, perhaps an exaggeration. However, the popularity of such hate filled figures as Bill O'Reilly does rather suggest that many Americans are, at the very least, tolerant of the message of xenophobic hatred. I know that he is probably a deliberate caricature, that his hate filled rants are deliberate, but the audience is clearly there.


This is how debased the overall debate has become. Any question as to our immigration policy is automatically tinged with racist and xenophobic pretense.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to be open minded and non-hateful and at the same time petition our government or engage in public discourse at the course of our immigration policy.

There's an attempt, and a very successful one at that, on the part of the left to equate the two. In terms of rhetoric, it's quite Orwellian.

Just for the record, I'm not an O'Reilly fan and rarely watch his program. As for Trump, his views on immigration are as empty and devoid of substance as a Jolly Rancher is of nutrients.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> This is how debased the overall debate has become. Any question as to our immigration policy is automatically tinged with racist and xenophobic pretense.


Any question? Here we have a would be politician whose popularity increases when he launches a racist rant about Mexican immigrants; when the racist rant is challenged you think that the debate has become debased? Do you really not think that his "they're rapists" remark, for example, isn't racist and xenophobic stereotyping?



SG_67 said:


> I think it's perfectly acceptable to be open minded and non-hateful and at the same time petition our government or engage in public discourse at the course of our immigration policy.
> 
> There's an attempt, and a very successful one at that, on the part of the left to equate the two. In terms of rhetoric, it's quite Orwellian.


Really? I hadn't noticed!



SG_67 said:


> Just for the record, I'm not an O'Reilly fan and rarely watch his program. As for Trump, his views on immigration are as empty and devoid of substance as a Jolly Rancher is of nutrients.


It doesn't matter, really, whether or not you're an O'Reilly fan, the fact is that he is very popular, which suggests that his views are popular.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Yep. All the hate only comes from one direction....


Who is suggesting that? Or are you, again, using the "they did it too" excuse?



vpkozel said:


> Also, can we apply your logic to other groups besides Americans - or would that be hateful and racist?


What logic is that? That a popular television personality is a peddler of xenophobic hate suggests that, if he is so popular, which he appears to be, that his brand of xenophobic hate has a large and receptive audience?


----------



## Dmontez

*


SG_67 said:



This is how debased the overall debate has become. Any question as to our immigration policy is automatically tinged with racist and xenophobic pretense.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to be open minded and non-hateful and at the same time petition our government or engage in public discourse at the course of our immigration policy.

There's an attempt, and a very successful one at that, on the part of the left to equate the two. In terms of rhetoric, it's quite Orwellian

Click to expand...

*Yes to all of this.

Have you even seen an Illegal Alien? Have you ever been to a border town? Protecting our border is a big problem, not just from Mexican's but what our CBP calls OTM's (Other than mexican)

Here is what I know to be true about our United States Border Patrol, my father was a Senior BP Agent in the RGV sector, and president of the AFGE 3307 Union when he was fired. The excuse that his superiors used for the firing was a problem with his uniform. I can't remember if it was the crucifix he was wearing was visible from under the shirt, or if he had a button undone on it. He was fired in 1999 and won his case posthumous against them for wrongful termination in 2002. The real reason for his superiors targeting him was that he was speaking out against the mission at the time.

It was called "Operation X" this meant that their duty at the time was to station a person a long the Rio Grande river every 1/2 of a mile inside of a vehicle. The river is not a straight line there are bends where visibility is nowhere near a 1/2 mile. Coyotes learned and tested this and ended up using those blind spots. Apprehension numbers went down, way down, and the superiors reported these numbers saying "look arrests are WAY down we are doing a great job, and the Government would parade those numbers out and everyone would think wow, we are doing such a great job on the border, when in reality illegals just learned to cross at points they could not be seen.

do you think that its more reasonable to think that from 2000 to 2001 that 400k less people tried to get into the US, or that we just did not find that extra 400k and that they were successful in illegally entering the country?

Take a look at these figures:

Total # of apprehensions:









Total that come from Mexico:









Total that are from countries other than Mexico:


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> What logic is that? That a popular television personality is a peddler of xenophobic hate suggests that, if he is so popular, which he appears to be, that his brand of xenophobic hate has a large and receptive audience?


What you call xenophobic hate, I call having concern for the safety of our Country.

You use xenophobic hate, and slather it across anyone who thinks that we have a problem securing our border. I have a problem with that.



Chouan said:


> Any question? Here we have a would be politician whose popularity increases when he launches a racist rant about Mexican immigrants; when the racist rant is challenged you think that the debate has become debased? Do you really not think that his "they're rapists" remark, for example, isn't racist and xenophobic stereotyping?


I am going to quote this again and leave it here for you to read again:



SG_67 said:


> This is how debased the overall debate has become. Any question as to our immigration policy is automatically tinged with racist and xenophobic pretense.
> 
> I think it's perfectly acceptable to be open minded and non-hateful and at the same time petition our government or engage in public discourse at the course of our immigration policy.
> 
> There's an attempt, and a very successful one at that, on the part of the left to equate the two. In terms of rhetoric, it's quite Orwellian..


Is it still racist if it's true? 
Is it still racist if I am a first generation American with my full lineage going back to Mexico, and I feel the same way?

The problem is that you are taking a small part of a quote, that happens to be true, and labeling it as a racist point of view, and then saying this is racist and anyone who thinks this is also racist.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I stand my statement. America is filled with hate. Hate and fear. Both are in our DNA. We don't like to admit it, but it is true. And until we can come to grips with it, until we can admit it, it will never change.

Fear and hate of immigrants is a time-honored tradition in America. Really, there can be no serious debate about this point. Politicians have long seized on this and used our divisiveness to their advantage. I don't condone illegal immigration, but, at the same time, I find arguments that illegal immigrants are, en masse, taking jobs and committing crimes to be laughable. When I lived in Phoenix, it was very common to hear complaints about illegal immigrants. And the same people who whined about it were the same people who were living in houses that were roofed by illegal immigrants. Whose pools and landscaping were maintained by illegal immigrants. Whose homes were cleaned by illegal immigrants. Bottom line, the white majority that complained about illegal immigration enjoyed a standard of living enabled by illegal immigration. I don't want to say "hypocritical," but if the shoe fits...


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> I stand my statement. America is filled with hate. Hate and fear. Both are in our DNA. We don't like to admit it, but it is true. And until we can come to grips with it, until we can admit it, it will never change.
> 
> Fear and hate of immigrants is a time-honored tradition in America. Really, there can be no serious debate about this point. Politicians have long seized on this and used our divisiveness to their advantage. I don't condone illegal immigration, but, at the same time, I find arguments that illegal immigrants are, en masse, taking jobs and *committing crimes* to be laughable. When I lived in Phoenix, it was very common to hear complaints about illegal immigrants. And the same people who whined about it were the same people who were living in houses that were roofed by illegal immigrants. Whose pools and landscaping were maintained by illegal immigrants. Whose homes were cleaned by illegal immigrants. Bottom line, the white majority that complained about illegal immigration enjoyed a standard of living enabled by illegal immigration. I don't want to say "hypocritical," but if the shoe fits...


They committed their first crime upon entering our country without permission, so yes en masse they are committing crimes.

Can we say as a whole that they commit more crimes than the average American? I don't think that is something that we can quantify, but illegally entering the country is not a good start.

So it's hypocritical to hire a company for a job, and expect them to not break the law by hiring illegal aliens?


----------



## 32rollandrock

I think that you miss the point.

Of course it is a crime to enter the country illegally. I'm not defending that. What I'm saying is, once these folks are across the border, the vast, vast majority engage in work at low wages that many citizens won't do. They process chickens and hogs. They pick fruits and vegetables. They perform manual labor and take the worst jobs imaginable.. And they tend to work their butts off.

Anecdotes can always be dangerous, but that said, a neighbor from a long time ago once had some sort of issue under his house, I don't recall exactly what it was. He needed someone to crawl on his belly like a snake in the crawl space to address it. If memory serves, it involved spreading plastic under the house, which I did myself a long, long, long time ago in high school and would never do again. The guy did the work and my neighbor refused to pay him the full amount on the grounds that it was too much money. It was not too much money--we're talking $400 or so to spend a half day in a crawl space--but the guy had no recourse and had to accept it. And don't get started with contract law. What's fair is fair.

This is, in my experience, not unusual. As I say, the price of houses in cities such as Phoenix is artificially low because the labor pool, thanks to a steady stream of illegal immigrants and right-to-work laws, works for relative peanuts. This helps explain why McCain has taken stances on illegal immigration that puts him at odds with the GOP powers that be. The political powers see a chance to score points and take advantage. McCain sees how it really plays out. He should be commended for his political courage in this regard.

The offense takes what the defense gives. There's plenty of money to be made from illegal immigration, which helps explain why this has unfolded the way that it has. For the GOP to scream bloody murder about illegal immigration while the usual suspects profit from it just ain't cool.



Dmontez said:


> They committed their first crime upon entering our country without permission, so yes en masse they are committing crimes.
> 
> Can we say as a whole that they commit more crimes than the average American? I don't think that is something that we can quantify, but illegally entering the country is not a good start.
> 
> So it's hypocritical to hire a company for a job, and expect them to not break the law by hiring illegal aliens?


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> What you call xenophobic hate, I call having concern for the safety of our Country.
> 
> You use xenophobic hate, and slather it across anyone who thinks that we have a problem securing our border. I have a problem with that.
> 
> I am going to quote this again and leave it here for you to read again:
> 
> Is it still racist if it's true?
> Is it still racist if I am a first generation American with my full lineage going back to Mexico, and I feel the same way?
> 
> The problem is that you are taking a small part of a quote, that happens to be true, and labeling it as a racist point of view, and then saying this is racist and anyone who thinks this is also racist.


Well, I think that you've just very effectively proved my point!


----------



## Dmontez

My point is that a majority of the people crossing the border illegally are from countries other than Mexico. 

Frankly these numbers scare the hell out of me.

Lets compare the number in 2000 to the numbers in 2014.

In 2000 1.6m illegal aliens were apprehended only 36k are from countries other than Mexico.

in 2014 488k illegal aliens were apprehended and 257k are from countries other than Mexico.

After seeing this is it really that crazy to want our borders to be more secure?


----------



## 32rollandrock

I don't understand what frightens you so much.

A quarter-million apprehensions is a drop in the proverbial bucket considering the population of the United States. Also, the numbers seem suspect to me. An increase of more than 100,000 between 2013 and 2014, with a total of 257,000 in 2014?

Something ain't right. I don't know what it is. But it seems to me that there may well be an apples-to-apples issue here.

Don't surrender to fear and hyperbole. And don't trust the government. Use your noggin and ask yourself whether there is a near-doubling of illegal immigration in the space of one year or whether something else is going on.



Dmontez said:


> My point is that a majority of the people crossing the border illegally are from countries other than Mexico.
> 
> Frankly these numbers scare the hell out of me.
> 
> Lets compare the number in 2000 to the numbers in 2014.
> 
> In 2000 1.6m illegal aliens were apprehended only 36k are from countries other than Mexico.
> 
> in 2014 488k illegal aliens were apprehended and 257k are from countries other than Mexico.
> 
> After seeing this is it really that crazy to want our borders to be more secure?


----------



## Dmontez

3/2 thank you for having a discussion on this with me. I fear though that you are still missing my point. Please re read through my original post on the subject #27. My fear is that we are not catching nearly as many illegals as we should. I don't think that there are 1.2mm less trying to get into the U.S. from 2000- 2014. I am quite positive that our government is allowing more people to enter our country illegally and telling us that arrests are way down so whatever we are doing is working.


----------



## Tiger

_Not sure if this is helpful (or accurate), but a recent column by retired judge Daniel Leddy contained the following:
_
"Illegal aliens commit crimes, including violent felonies, in numbers grossly disproportionate to the 3.5 percent of the general population that they constitute, an inconvenient reality for their apologists, but one readily documented in numerous studies. For instance, *according to data compiled by the U.S. Sentencing Commission for the year 2014, they accounted for 20 percent of kidnapping/hostage-taking cases, 16.8 percent of drug-trafficking cases, and 12 percent of murder convictions. An FBI crime study found that they perpetrated 53 percent of the burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas."

*I'll stay out of this battle - still nursing scars (and immense frustration!) from a different Interchange duel...


----------



## SG_67

I think 32RR is Hunter S. Thompson resurrected! 

"Fear and Loathing in Downstate Illinois".


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I don't understand what frightens you so much.
> 
> A quarter-million apprehensions is a drop in the proverbial bucket considering the population of the United States. Also, the numbers seem suspect to me. An increase of more than 100,000 between 2013 and 2014, with a total of 257,000 in 2014?
> 
> Something ain't right. I don't know what it is. But it seems to me that there may well be an apples-to-apples issue here.
> 
> Don't surrender to fear and hyperbole. And don't trust the government. Use your noggin and ask yourself whether there is a near-doubling of illegal immigration in the space of one year or whether something else is going on.


I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Your thesis assumes that the governments statistics are accurate year over year. The jump in numbers could be due to improved methodology or revision based on new data. Look at how the jobs numbers and GDP are constantly revised up and down.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Any question? Here we have a would be politician whose popularity increases when he launches a racist rant about Mexican immigrants; when the racist rant is challenged you think that the debate has become debased? Do you really not think that his "they're rapists" remark, for example, isn't racist and xenophobic stereotyping?
> 
> Really? I hadn't noticed!
> 
> It doesn't matter, really, whether or not you're an O'Reilly fan, the fact is that he is very popular, which suggests that his views are popular.


I'm sure in your media you have a few blow hards that draw an audience but would it be fair to say their views are representative of the Kingdom? I suppose Benny Hill represents what is most witty and funny in British culture?

And for the record, Trump is not a politician. He's drawing a crowd and there are those that agree with him, but look at his numbers; he's polling around 18%.

That's hardly a majority and doubtful that it will get much higher than that. He's drawing crowds but he's a celebrity. Something perhaps not known in your politics but something we have to put up with from time to time.


----------



## MaxBuck

Trump is a clown and a blowhard, but nothing he's said strikes me as being racist. Xenophobic, I can buy, but not racist.


----------



## SG_67

^ I think that's an important distinction and one that should not be lost. 

Some are quick to equate the two to the detriment of diluting the meaning of each.


----------



## Dmontez

Really seriously, can we stop throwing around the word xenophobic? It's really just saying good job you listened to your parents and you don't trust strangers. You can call me xenophobic all you want, I have the same level of distrust for the guy who walks down my street looking for cats to pet, as I do a Mexican crossing the border illegally.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I don't disagree with you at all. I think, however, that your point may well prove mine.

I think that we both agree that these statistics can't really be trusted. There are all sorts of reasons, aside from crescendoing numbers of illegal immigrants, that can explain the numbers. Increased enforcement at the street level. Changes in the definition of "apprehension" (which seems a wriggle word if I ever heard one). Those are off the top of my head. There are probably more. The point is, the numbers could easily change to buttress calls for changes in policy or to help influence political winds. Which brings me back to fear and hate. Even with these numbers from the border patrol, the crime rate in the United States has plummeted over this same period of time--we're safer now than we were when the "apprehensions" were a fraction of what the border patrol says that they are today. If the crime rate has plummeted while illegal immigration has exploded, what's to stop someone from saying that illegal immigrants make America safer? I am not arguing that, but it makes as much sense, to me, as saying illegal immigrants are a bunch of criminals who need to go back to where they came from. That's what Trump and a lot of other fear mongers are saying, and it just makes no sense. They get away with it only because we've been conditioned to hate and fear people who are not like ourselves, particularly people who don't speak our language or share our skin complexion. Anyone who would point to crime stats and illegal immigration numbers and say that illegal aliens make America safer would be subject to scorn and ridicule. Say the opposite and a lot of people say "Yup," even though anyone with a lick of common sense should know that the subject is much more complicated.

Again, I'm not defending illegal immigration. But it's a subject that's nigh impossible to address without the discussion going off the rails. One thing that troubles me. This guy Jose Antonio Vargas, the acknowledged illegal immigrant who has not been deported and travels freely to give speeches and attend conferences and receive awards. I can appreciate his situation. He was brought here at age 12 by adults, no fault of his own, and found out only later that he wasn't supposed to be here. He went to college, got a job as a journalist and won a ton of awards before his illegal past caught up with him. A talented guy, and courageous in many respects. But what do you say to the dishwasher and his family who suffers when the full weight of immigration law comes down on them? How do you explain the concept of "equal protection" when an illegal immigrant who took a spot in a university that might otherwise have gone to a legal resident, who landed a coveted job that might have otherwise gone to a legal resident, is allowed to remain here? The dishwasher/roofer/farm worker is doing work that citizens won't take, and they are being punished along with their families. The government breaks up families by deporting parents with menial jobs while their children, born here, remain while Vargas stays. It doesn't seem fair or logical to me. But there isn't much fair or logical about immigration policy. There is, however, no shortage of politics.



Dmontez said:


> 3/2 thank you for having a discussion on this with me. I fear though that you are still missing my point. Please re read through my original post on the subject #27. My fear is that we are not catching nearly as many illegals as we should. I don't think that there are 1.2mm less trying to get into the U.S. from 2000- 2014. I am quite positive that our government is allowing more people to enter our country illegally and telling us that arrests are way down so whatever we are doing is working.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Again, I'm not defending illegal immigration. But it's a subject that's nigh impossible to address without the discussion going off the rails.


Absolutely! I couldn't agree with you more. Perhaps keep that in mind the next time you claim America, and by extension Americans, are full of hate.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Who is suggesting that? Or are you, again, using the "they did it too" excuse?


I think that you should ask that question of the person who posted his thoughts using only one example.....



> What logic is that?


Just regular, old fashioned logic.



> That a popular television personality is a peddler of xenophobic hate suggests that, if he is so popular, which he appears to be, that his brand of xenophobic hate has a large and receptive audience?


Obviously. Cause people who watch TV shows must, by definition, agree with 100% of the things that the host says. :weneedasarcasmsmile:

Does that mean I have to agree politically with Sean Penn and Tim Robbins because I think that they are good actors?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I stand my statement. America is filled with hate. Hate and fear. Both are in our DNA. We don't like to admit it, but it is true. And until we can come to grips with it, until we can admit it, it will never change.
> 
> Fear and hate of immigrants is a time-honored tradition in America. Really, there can be no serious debate about this point. Politicians have long seized on this and used our divisiveness to their advantage. I don't condone illegal immigration, but, at the same time, I find arguments that illegal immigrants are, en masse, taking jobs and committing crimes to be laughable. When I lived in Phoenix, it was very common to hear complaints about illegal immigrants. And the same people who whined about it were the same people who were living in houses that were roofed by illegal immigrants. Whose pools and landscaping were maintained by illegal immigrants. Whose homes were cleaned by illegal immigrants. Bottom line, the white majority that complained about illegal immigration enjoyed a standard of living enabled by illegal immigration. I don't want to say "hypocritical," but if the shoe fits...


That is a vastly different statement than your first one where you made it racial. Some of the first anti immigrant stances were against the Irish. And, well, you can't really get any whiter than the Irish.....


----------



## 32rollandrock

I didn't intend for it to be racial, and if anyone drew such a conclusion, rest assured that was not my intention. The Irish, as you state, are an excellent example, one that I had in mind all along.



vpkozel said:


> That is a vastly different statement than your first one where you made it racial. Some of the first anti immigrant stances were against the Irish. And, well, you can't really get any whiter than the Irish.....


----------



## 32rollandrock

That America is filled with hate and fear explains why it is nigh impossible to have an intelligent discussion on either race or immigration. There's just too much baggage, suspicion and stereotyping that feeds on itself and becomes the proverbial chicken-or-egg. It is impossible to be rational because the underlying hate and fear is entirely irrational.

I've been reading a book on the 1950s by David Halberstam that covers the gamut--Marilyn Monroe, the space race, the quiz show scandals, Ike and, of course, race relations. What was going on behind the scenes to get a 9-0 vote in Brown vs. Board of Education is instructive. It wasn't easy to get a unanimous vote, according to Halberstam's book. At one point, Ike told Warren that segregationists weren't bad people, it was simply a matter of objecting to the prospect of innocent white girls having to sit next to "black bucks" in the classroom. ugh. Associate justice Stanley Reed was going to hold out but ultimately caved--in 1947, according to Halberstam, court clerks had organized an office Christmas party and invited the mostly black janitorial staff, which prompted Reed to announce that he wouldn't attend.The party was canceled. The killers of Emmett Till, after their acquittal, came clean and said that what they did wasn't a matter of hate at all--rather, it was akin to doing their civic duty, and their acquittal suggests they had community support. These sorts of things can't be explained, I think, by anything other than hate and fear, and you don't reverse that degree of hatred/fear overnight or even in the course of six decades. We might like to think that we are more enlightened than they were when Eisenhower was in the White House, and we probably are. But that does not mean we're out of the woods.



SG_67 said:


> Absolutely! I couldn't agree with you more. Perhaps keep that in mind the next time you claim America, and by extension Americans, are full of hate.


----------



## cosmic_cookie

vpkozel said:


> Yep. All the hate only comes from one direction....
> 
> Also, can we apply your logic to other groups besides Americans - or would that be hateful and racist?


I don't think anyone is denying that racism leaks from all groups. He was simply stating an example.



vpkozel said:


> When it comes to sartorial matters, I think that they mean exactly the same thing. If you break it down literally, the specifically do mean exactly the same thing - but terms often take on a meaning other than their literal meaning.
> 
> So, as you said in response to Gurdon, I think you may have been reading a bit more into that - since sartorial matters were specifically mentioned as the context. JMHO.


Yes, I agree that context is important in all matters, but when one says British (e.g.: American) it is inclusive of many cultures because it is term of nationality, not ethnicity; where as Anglo (e.g.: Afro) is still used to denote a specific ethnicity; societal affiliation vs. genetic decent. This is simply my personal view on the subject, and I only wish to state it - not convince anyone nor debate it.



SG_67 said:


> Particular anecdotes don't pass for racism or some cultural proclivity toward racist attitudes. For every one person you find that displays such hate, I'll produce 5 who do not.
> 
> The question is one of institutional racism, be it in the form of government or our cultural institutions. I'd argue that the U.S. is probably the most inclusive of any country and one that can as quickly assimilate those of other cultures within 1-2 generations.
> 
> If one looks at the broad landscape of this country and how minorities are represented in government and other professions, I think you'll find that such hatred that you speak of is a relatively minority view.


I understand what you're trying to say, but I believe that even at the levels that we currently have at home, it's simply unacceptable. My point is, you can produce 100 people who don't casually display hate, but you won't know which of the 100 have two faces until you actually get to know them.

The two things that seem to take a natural course in reducing racism is education and time.

A prime example: a member of my family is sadly a colonialist at heart, so much so that it is baffling. None of the offspring share the same views held by their parent. The biggest contrast between both generations is how different cultures were integrated in their lives while they were young. The elder generation was brought up in a world comforted by the pain of an entire ethnic group, then entered adulthood in a new world that contrasted with what was familiar. The younger one never witnessed the vulgarity of true oppression, but they grew up in a world were both groups did their best to treat each other as equal. Even as of today, that elder in my family will smile and speak kindly with others, but will display such distaste when those others are not around. The younger of the two generations has taught my generation to see how such oppression has shaped nations for the worse.

Another example: I was at a restaurant a few months ago when a decently ranked and known man, and his mother also attended . Their family left India during independence to another commonwealth and returned here just recently. The man's mother was so bluntly racist, speaking about the, and I quote "superiority" and her "disgust" towards Indians. Her son didn't participate, but he made no effort to stop her. The restaurant was empty except for the staff, but never the less it was a public display.

Additionally, back home stateside and here, to truly understand the intertwinement of racism and power you have to experience it first hand and speak to these men directly to see the contrast of public perception and what is true. These ideals clearly weaken as generations pass, but make no mistake - these ideals are still strong.



Chouan said:


> It doesn't matter, really, whether or not you're an O'Reilly fan, the fact is that he is very popular, which suggests that his views are popular.


His views are popular with a subsection. I am a republican, and I can't stand listening to the man. We must gage who exactly his viewership is. "Bill O'Reilly Scores His Best Ratings Of 2015. Controversy continues to become Bill O'Reilly, ratings-wise. The Fox News Channel host last night logged his biggest audience of 2015 to date - 3.3 million viewers. He also averaged 590,000 viewers in the news demo" - deadline.com, March 4th, 2015. US population: "318,881,992" - census.gov, July 4th, 2014.

O'Reilly has a statistical viewsership of ~1.03% of the population based on the numbers I was able to find. According to a Gallup poll on an article from businessinsider.com, on January 28, 2014, 25% of the polled identifies as republican, and 31% as independent. So if we make the assumption that 56% of the population may have some inclination to listen to O'Reilly, only ~ 3.3 million of the 178 million potential listeners listened, on his best day... that's 1.85% of his viable potential viewership.

He has an extremist view on the party principals. I wouldn't say his views are very popular.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Obviously. Cause people who watch TV shows must, by definition, agree with 100% of the things that the host says. :weneedasarcasmsmile:


Why would anybody watch such poisonous stuff if they didn't like it?



vpkozel said:


> Does that mean I have to agree politically with Sean Penn and Tim Robbins because I think that they are good actors?


Straw man, again (you're very keen on them, aren't you!). What do actors politics have to do with the roles that they play?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> That is a vastly different statement than your first one where you made it racial. Some of the first anti immigrant stances were against the Irish. And, well, you can't really get any whiter than the Irish.....


Only the racist comments on Irish immigrants were racist because they were about people described in the media of the time as a race. If you condemn a people because of their race it's racist. At the time the Irish were often described by American writers as not being white. There's plenty of literature on the subject.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> Yes to all of this.
> 
> Have you even seen an Illegal Alien? Have you ever been to a border town? Protecting our border is a big problem, not just from Mexican's but what our CBP calls OTM's (Other than mexican)
> 
> Here is what I know to be true about our United States Border Patrol, my father was a Senior BP Agent in the RGV sector, and president of the AFGE 3307 Union when he was fired. The excuse that his superiors used for the firing was a problem with his uniform. I can't remember if it was the crucifix he was wearing was visible from under the shirt, or if he had a button undone on it. He was fired in 1999 and won his case posthumous against them for wrongful termination in 2002. The real reason for his superiors targeting him was that he was speaking out against the mission at the time.
> 
> It was called "Operation X" this meant that their duty at the time was to station a person a long the Rio Grande river every 1/2 of a mile inside of a vehicle. The river is not a straight line there are bends where visibility is nowhere near a 1/2 mile. Coyotes learned and tested this and ended up using those blind spots. Apprehension numbers went down, way down, and the superiors reported these numbers saying "look arrests are WAY down we are doing a great job, and the Government would parade those numbers out and everyone would think wow, we are doing such a great job on the border, when in reality illegals just learned to cross at points they could not be seen.
> 
> do you think that its more reasonable to think that from 2000 to 2001 that 400k less people tried to get into the US, or that we just did not find that extra 400k and that they were successful in illegally entering the country?
> 
> Take a look at these figures:
> 
> Total # of apprehensions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total that come from Mexico:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total that are from countries other than Mexico:


Coyotes? You're describing illegal immigrants as Coyotes, (or using the term to describe them) really? By using the term you are de-humanising them. By calling them "coyotes" you're distancing yourself from their humanity. How much more racist can you get?


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> My point is that a majority of the people crossing the border illegally are from countries other than Mexico.
> 
> Frankly these numbers scare the hell out of me.
> 
> Lets compare the number in 2000 to the numbers in 2014.
> 
> In 2000 1.6m illegal aliens were apprehended only 36k are from countries other than Mexico.
> 
> in 2014 488k illegal aliens were apprehended and 257k are from countries other than Mexico.
> 
> _*After seeing this is it really that crazy to want our borders to be more secure?*_


Straw man. Who here is suggesting that your borders shouldn't be secure? Now that your family are securely established as US citizens you appear to be wanting to close, and securely bolt, the door behind you, as it were! However, the point, in this context, thjat I made about Trump was the support he got from Republicans for his statement about Mexican immigrants being rapists. "They're rapists" he said. Not some of them, but "they're rapists". Do you really think that that is a reasonable thing to say?


----------



## Chouan

cosmic_cookie said:


> I don't think anyone is denying that racism leaks from all groups. He was simply stating an example.
> 
> Yes, I agree that context is important in all matters, but when one says British (e.g.: American) it is inclusive of many cultures because it is term of nationality, not ethnicity; where as Anglo (e.g.: Afro) is still used to denote a specific ethnicity; societal affiliation vs. genetic decent. This is simply my personal view on the subject, and I only wish to state it - not convince anyone nor debate it.
> 
> I understand what you're trying to say, but I believe that even at the levels that we currently have at home, it's simply unacceptable. My point is, you can produce 100 people who don't casually display hate, but you won't know which of the 100 have two faces until you actually get to know them.
> 
> The two things that seem to take a natural course in reducing racism is education and time.
> 
> A prime example: a member of my family is sadly a colonialist at heart, so much so that it is baffling. None of the offspring share the same views held by their parent. The biggest contrast between both generations is how different cultures were integrated in their lives while they were young. The elder generation was brought up in a world comforted by the pain of an entire ethnic group, then entered adulthood in a new world that contrasted with what was familiar. The younger one never witnessed the vulgarity of true oppression, but they grew up in a world were both groups did their best to treat each other as equal. Even as of today, that elder in my family will smile and speak kindly with others, but will display such distaste when those others are not around. The younger of the two generations has taught my generation to see how such oppression has shaped nations for the worse.
> 
> Another example: I was at a restaurant a few months ago when a decently ranked and known man, and his mother also attended . Their family left India during independence to another commonwealth and returned here just recently. The man's mother was so bluntly racist, speaking about the, and I quote "superiority" and her "disgust" towards Indians. Her son didn't participate, but he made no effort to stop her. The restaurant was empty except for the staff, but never the less it was a public display.
> 
> Additionally, back home stateside and here, to truly understand the intertwinement of racism and power you have to experience it first hand and speak to these men directly to see the contrast of public perception and what is true. These ideals clearly weaken as generations pass, but make no mistake - these ideals are still strong.
> 
> His views are popular with a subsection. I am a republican, and I can't stand listening to the man. We must gage who exactly his viewership is. "Bill O'Reilly Scores His Best Ratings Of 2015. Controversy continues to become Bill O'Reilly, ratings-wise. The Fox News Channel host last night logged his biggest audience of 2015 to date - 3.3 million viewers. He also averaged 590,000 viewers in the news demo" - deadline.com, March 4th, 2015. US population: "318,881,992" - census.gov, July 4th, 2014.
> 
> O'Reilly has a statistical viewsership of ~1.03% of the population based on the numbers I was able to find. According to a Gallup poll on an article from businessinsider.com, on January 28, 2014, 25% of the polled identifies as republican, and 31% as independent. So if we make the assumption that 56% of the population may have some inclination to listen to O'Reilly, only ~ 3.3 million of the 178 million potential listeners listened, on his best day... that's 1.85% of his viable potential viewership.
> 
> He has an extremist view on the party principals. I wouldn't say his views are very popular.


Interesting post, with some interesting views. Could you clarify the restaurant incident please?


----------



## Chouan

Of course, xenophobia exists everywhere, in the UK we have at least one political party that thrives on it:


----------



## Chouan

Unfortunately, this one is actually real:


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Coyotes? You're describing illegal immigrants as Coyotes, (or using the term to describe them) really? By using the term you are de-humanising them. By calling them "coyotes" you're distancing yourself from their humanity. How much more racist can you get?


I would expect a teacher to do a better job of research before forming a conclusion.


----------



## SG_67

I think it's safe to say that both xenophobia and some measure of racism will always exist in every society, regardless of the particular make up of the government. 

The question is how that society deals with that tendency. I'm the the UKIP doesn't speak for all Brits, though they may have a following. We have our own nativists and though they are loud, I don't really see their policies being enacted. 

Immigration policy, however, is just that; a policy. We don't just let anyone in and there is a right way to go about coming here. There are competing reasons for wanting in. From fleeing persecution to seeking employment, we need to have policies in place. What do we do with children of immigrants? 

What do we do with those who have been here for 20 years working and contributing yet without legal status? Their spouses and families? Those who commit crimes? 

These are all questions and policies that should be debated. They can and should be done without people being called racists and xenophobes. 

By the way, I am a child of immigrants so I hardly qualify as a nativist.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I didn't intend for it to be racial, and if anyone drew such a conclusion, rest assured that was not my intention. The Irish, as you state, are an excellent example, one that I had in mind all along.


If you didn't intend for it to be racial then why did you specifically make it about race?



32rollandrock said:


> It should not be at all surprising that his remarks on Mexicans have given Trump a boost in the polls. A*merica is full of hate and cannot, ever it seems, deal with its racial issues. *


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Only the racist comments on Irish immigrants were racist because they were about people described in the media of the time as a race. If you condemn a people because of their race it's racist. At the time the Irish were often described by American writers as not being white. There's plenty of literature on the subject.


Irish is not a race. Sorry. And trying to draw a comparison between the knowledge of race 100-150 years ago is invalid as science has changed so much in that time. But I would love to see some of these writings - and were they widely held by the American public at large?

And if as you say that any condemnation of people because of their race is racist, then by definition any praise of a group must also be considered racist, does it not? The key is whether the statements are factual or not - e.g., is it racist to say that black people are better at basketball than white people?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Irish is not a race. Sorry. And trying to draw a comparison between the knowledge of race 100-150 years ago is invalid as science has changed so much in that time. But I would love to see some of these writings - and were they widely held by the American public at large?


https://www.victoriana.com/history/irish-political-cartoons.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/06/especially-the-blacks-and-the-irish/57556/
https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ons-from-the-turn-of-the-20th-century/383248/



vpkozel said:


> And if as you say that any condemnation of people because of their race is racist, then by definition any praise of a group must also be considered racist, does it not? The key is whether the statements are factual or not - e.g., is it racist to say that black people are better at basketball than white people?


It is indeed. It is also racist to suggest that they have a natural sense of rhythmn and lovely white teeth.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> I would expect a teacher to do a better job of research before forming a conclusion.


So, you think that referring to people as "coyotes" is perfectly acceptable? Note, not "coyotaje". Similar, but not the same, so much easier to use a word that also means "jackal". How about "cockroaches"? https://www.theguardian.com/global-...nced-united-nations-human-rights-commissioner Or other expressions that dehumanise?


----------



## SG_67

^ I don't know who this Katie Hopkins is nor do I apologize for her however I don't think it's the UN's job to be condemning a private citizen or a free press.

Perhaps that's not the way it works in Mr. Al Hussein's native land but in the west we have a free press whether he likes it or not. 

I'm tired of unaccountable bureaucratic functionaries from 3rd world dictatorships lecturing the west on morals and proper discourse. Let's see a free press in Jordan critical of the government and then perhaps he can talk.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> So, you think that referring to people as "coyotes" is perfectly acceptable? Note, not "coyotaje". Similar, but not the same, so much easier to use a word that also means "jackal". How about "cockroaches"? https://www.theguardian.com/global-...nced-united-nations-human-rights-commissioner Or other expressions that dehumanise?


Coyote does not refer to the illegal aliens. It refers to the smugglers.

You could have found that out in less time than it took you to write that post. And no, I don't really care if people traffickers feel dehumanized or not.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Coyotes? You're describing illegal immigrants as Coyotes, (or using the term to describe them) really? By using the term you are de-humanising them. By calling them "coyotes" you're distancing yourself from their humanity. How much more racist can you get?


Ha! I laughed out loud when I read this. This shows how little you actually know on this subject. Before you go calling someone one of those terrible "ist" words. Try googling the term coyotes and immigration together.

My favorite thing about your response is that out of my lengthy post, and all of the facts and figures I put out there the only thing you can do is attack me for using a word you don't even understand.

If you used a scale of 0-10 for racism and asked me how much more racist I can get the answer is I am sitting at zero and can move all the way to 10. I do not believe any race is superior to any other.

It must be really nice being a liberal. "When someone presents you with inconvenient truths and facts, attack them call them a racist!"


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> It is indeed. It is also racist to suggest that they have a natural sense of rhythmn and lovely white teeth.


I am on my phone, so I can't easily respond to the Irish stuff, but it is interesting to know that the NBA is racist. So are US colleges.


----------



## cosmic_cookie

Chouan said:


> Interesting post, with some interesting views. Could you clarify the restaurant incident please?


There's not much to clarify. She was bitter of history and social advancement; there's rarely logical rhyme and reason involved with those rants.



vpkozel said:


> Irish is not a race. Sorry. And trying to draw a comparison between the knowledge of race 100-150 years ago is invalid as science has changed so much in that time. But I would love to see some of these writings - and were they widely held by the American public at large?
> 
> And if as you say that any condemnation of people because of their race is racist, then by definition any praise of a group must also be considered racist, does it not? The key is whether the statements are factual or not - e.g., is it racist to say that black people are better at basketball than white people?


The Irish were looked at as a completely separate people - less than others; for all intents and purposes, it was racism. I'm under the impression that you're unaware of their history. I would suggest to Google "Irish oppression"; you may find some interesting information. Also, there is a difference between how we utilize condemnation and praise to such extant that both have profound implications to the phyche. Also, one cannot praise nor condemn a group without a generalization, so it's best not to do either except to praise the perseverance displayed during a struggle, or a very specific group for their accomplishments and/or advancement of society as a whole (it helps to reinforce the idea of pushing for positive change where needed).


----------



## 32rollandrock

Not mutually exclusive. If you'd like to substitute "ethnic" for "racial," feel free.



vpkozel said:


> If you didn't intend for it to be racial then why did you specifically make it about race?


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Not mutually exclusive. If you'd like to substitute "ethnic" for "racial," feel free.


Yes they are mutually exclusive. Race and ethnicity are two different things.

Herein lies the problem with throwing terms like racist around as though it's a punch line. It becomes muddled and diluted and we have a hard time seeing and dealing with real racism.

There's a huge difference in saying that we don't want illegal immigrants in this country who have committed crimes and saying that we don't want anyone whose skin color is different from ours.


----------



## 32rollandrock

The only true nativists tend to live in poverty on reservations.

And an excellent post. There's a ton of nuance and things to consider when it comes to immigration policy. All too often, though, the debate/policy becomes ridiculous. One of the best examples is building a fence along the Mexican border. Ask the Chinese or French about the effectiveness of impenetrable walls.



SG_67 said:


> I think it's safe to say that both xenophobia and some measure of racism will always exist in every society, regardless of the particular make up of the government.
> 
> The question is how that society deals with that tendency. I'm the the UKIP doesn't speak for all Brits, though they may have a following. We have our own nativists and though they are loud, I don't really see their policies being enacted.
> 
> Immigration policy, however, is just that; a policy. We don't just let anyone in and there is a right way to go about coming here. There are competing reasons for wanting in. From fleeing persecution to seeking employment, we need to have policies in place. What do we do with children of immigrants?
> 
> What do we do with those who have been here for 20 years working and contributing yet without legal status? Their spouses and families? Those who commit crimes?
> 
> These are all questions and policies that should be debated. They can and should be done without people being called racists and xenophobes.
> 
> By the way, I am a child of immigrants so I hardly qualify as a nativist.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Coyote does not refer to the illegal aliens. It refers to the smugglers.
> 
> You could have found that out in less time than it took you to write that post. And no, I don't really care if people traffickers feel dehumanized or not.


That's alright then. Although the word, as I pointed out, should be Coyotaje, you'd rather use a word that means jackal. Again, your posts continue to prove my point.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> I am on my phone, so I can't easily respond to the Irish stuff, but it is interesting to know that the NBA is racist. So are US colleges.


So the NBA and US colleges take people on because they're black? Not that they're good at basketball? Or, do you really think that because they're black that they're good at basketball? Or do they happen to be good players because they've practiced a lot?


----------



## Chouan

cosmic_cookie said:


> There's not much to clarify. She was bitter of history and social advancement; there's rarely logical rhyme and reason involved with those rants.


Sorry, a misunderstanding. I couldn't work out from your post where this incident occurred and who were the people involved. That's all.



cosmic_cookie said:


> The Irish were looked at as a completely separate people - less than others; for all intents and purposes, it was racism. I'm under the impression that you're unaware of their history. I would suggest to Google "Irish oppression"; you may find some interesting information. Also, there is a difference between how we utilize condemnation and praise to such extant that both have profound implications to the phyche. Also, one cannot praise nor condemn a group without a generalization, so it's best not to do either except to praise the perseverance displayed during a struggle, or a very specific group for their accomplishments and/or advancement of society as a whole (it helps to reinforce the idea of pushing for positive change where needed).


Again, a very interesting post.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> My favorite thing about your response is that out of my lengthy post, and all of the facts and figures I put out there the only thing you can do is attack me for using a word you don't even understand.


Did you not notice my previous response? I'd be interested to know what you thought that your statistics proved. That Mexican immigrants are rapists?



Dmontez said:


> It must be really nice being a liberal.


It is nice being a liberal. At least I'm not full of fear and hate!



Dmontez said:


> "When someone presents you with inconvenient truths and facts, attack them call them a racist!"


Is that what you really think? What are these inconvenient truths? That Mexican immigrants are rapists?

I must admit that I do find this particular American attitude, that you've expressed, towards immigrants both curious and amusing. I also find it the same when Australians condemn immigrants. As I said above, you, and your mate of central European origin, appear to be in the situation of, having your family safely become Americans, you are now seeking the bolt the door behind to stop any more of those dreadful immigrants getting in and spoiling things for you.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> It is nice being a liberal. At least I'm not full of fear and hate!


With respect, a disinterested party reading what you've written on this thread would likely conclude that you are.


----------



## Dmontez

MaxBuck said:


> With respect, a disinterested party reading what you've written on this thread would likely conclude that you are.


I completely agree.



Chouan said:


> Did you not notice my previous response? I'd be interested to know what you thought that your statistics proved. That Mexican immigrants are rapists?
> 
> It is nice being a liberal. At least I'm not full of fear and hate!
> 
> Is that what you really think? What are these inconvenient truths? That Mexican immigrants are rapists?
> 
> I must admit that I do find this particular American attitude, that you've expressed, towards immigrants both curious and amusing. I also find it the same when Australians condemn immigrants. As I said above, you, and your mate of central European origin, appear to be in the situation of, having your family safely become Americans, you are now seeking the bolt the door behind to stop any more of those dreadful immigrants getting in and spoiling things for you.


I don't think I noticed the original one. I've been viewing from mobile and I miss things. That's my fault if I did. 
I think that any reasonable person would read this thread and believe that you are full of fear and hatred towards political views that do not align with yours. We should make one of those terrible "ist" words for people like that.

I admit that I find your complete lack of comprehension appalling. I really hope that you're a math teacher. I have never once said that I was for stopping all immigration, only ILLEGAL immigration. You would actually have a valid argument if the lie you are spreading was true, but it's not.



SG_67 said:


> There's a huge difference in saying that we don't want illegal immigrants in this country who have committed crimes and saying that we don't want anyone whose skin color is different from ours.


 Chrism please read this multiple times. I really hope that it sinks in.



Chouan said:


> It is indeed. It is also racist to suggest that they have a natural sense of rhythmn and lovely white teeth.


I think I have found the problem. I believe that racism occurs when someone thinks that one particular race is superior to another.

Your definition seems to include any type of prejudice, which I would argue is not and never will be actual racism.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> Your definition seems to include any type of prejudice, which I would argue is not and never will be actual racism.


Not my definition. If one thinks that a race is better, or worse, at any given thing because of the race, that is racism. It is as simple as that.


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> With respect, a disinterested party reading what you've written on this thread would likely conclude that you are.


No. Not for myself certainly. What I do feel towards racists, xenophobes, bigots and haters is contempt, which is not the same as fear and hatred.
I feel contempt for a man who can say of Mexican immigrants "They are rapists". I feel contempt for people who think that saying such a thing is reasonable. I feel contempt for people who seek to justify a person saying such a thing.


----------



## SG_67

^ as well you should, but please don't paint with broad strokes and condemn anyone whose party affiliation may be the same and certainly anyone who stands up and asks his government to address basic questions regarding overall immigration policy. 

I may be mistaken and if I am I apologize, but you seem want to apply Donald Trump's rants to a broader audience and as a summary of our questioning of a fundamental government policy.

Here's the thing; it's easy to find some hay seed who rants and raves about all these Mexicans running across the border and doing this and that. And how all of them should be rounded up and sent back.

But digging into the specifics, you'll find people may feel differently. Asked whether families should be separated as a result you'll get a different answer. You may well get a different answer if the person ranting actually knows or is friends with someone in this predicament. 

People are always in favor of generalities yet when particulars are discussed, attitudes change. That's not me, Macchiavelli said this some 500 years ago and it's still true. 

So regarding Donald, keep in mind his stance on immigration was much different a few years ago. Most of the people flocking to him have few well thought out policy positions and I have a sneaking suspicion that their opinions can be changed once we move away from generalities and into the particulars.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Not my definition. If one thinks that a race is better, or worse, at any given thing because of the race, that is racism. It is as simple as that.


So if I were to say that white people must be one of the best at baseball, because they represent 60% of the MLB, to you that would be racism?

If you really think that's true then you are doing a disservice to the students that you are teaching, and to anyone who is a victim of actual racism.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ as well you should, but please don't paint with broad strokes and condemn anyone whose party affiliation may be the same and certainly anyone who stands up and asks his government to address basic questions regarding overall immigration policy.


I'm not aware of having done that. My post was predicated on the fact that his popularity increased having said what he said.



SG_67 said:


> I may be mistaken and if I am I apologize, but you seem want to apply Donald Trump's rants to a broader audience and as a summary of our questioning of a fundamental government policy.
> 
> Here's the thing; it's easy to find some hay seed who rants and raves about all these Mexicans running across the border and doing this and that. And how all of them should be rounded up and sent back.


Indeed, and there are at least two members of this forum, who've written on this thread (not you) who seem to support his view.



SG_67 said:


> But digging into the specifics, you'll find people may feel differently. Asked whether families should be separated as a result you'll get a different answer. You may well get a different answer if the person ranting actually knows or is friends with someone in this predicament.


Indeed, but, as mentioned above, there are people writing in this thread who appear to support his view.



SG_67 said:


> So regarding Donald, keep in mind his stance on immigration was much different a few years ago. Most of the people flocking to him have few well thought out policy positions and I have a sneaking suspicion that their opinions can be changed once we move away from generalities and into the particulars.


Again, I'm sure you're right. However, that his popularity rose after he made that speech is very telling.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> So if I were to say that white people must be one of the best at baseball, because they represent 60% of the MLB, to you that would be racism?
> 
> If you really think that's true then you are doing a disservice to the students that you are teaching, and to anyone who is a victim of actual racism.


Straw man. Again. 
If you said that white people were the best at baseball, because they are white, that would be racism. Because white people are 60% of those who play baseball is, of itself, meaningless.
Any other questions?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I'm not aware of having done that. My post was predicated on the fact that his popularity increased having said what he said.
> 
> Indeed, and there are at least two members of this forum, who've written on this thread (not you) who seem to support his view.
> 
> Indeed, but, as mentioned above, there are people writing in this thread who appear to support his view.
> 
> Again, I'm sure you're right. However, that his popularity rose after he made that speech is very telling.


His numbers rose according to polling data, taking into account the particular margin of error of the poll. That's different from being popular.

When the party he claims to be a member of denounces what he says does that matter?

Let me ask another question; I predict, at some point in the very near future, he will implode. By your logic, will you admit that his views are by extension less popular?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Indeed, and there are at least two members of this forum, who've written on this thread (not you) who seem to support his view.
> 
> Indeed, but, as mentioned above, there are people writing in this thread who appear to support his view.


I don't think that I have seen anyone support what Trump said. Could you please provide those quotes?

Disagreeing with what you have to say about Trump's thoughts and agreeing with them are two vastly different things.


----------



## Chillburgher

For those who are not taking Trump seriously, I submit the following findings from the latest Bloomberg Politics poll.

The following is a list of demographic subgroups of Republican voters who currently favor Trump:

- Males
- Females
- Those younger than 45
- Those older than 45
- Seniors
- Those having no more than a high school diploma
- College graduates
- Those earning $100K or more
- Those earning $50K or less
- Born-again Christians
- Catholics 
- Protestants
- "Tea Party" conservatives

Among those who call themselves "moderate" Republicans, Bush leads with 20%. The Donald comes in second with 19%.


----------



## Dmontez

I've been meaning to share this video on this thread.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> For those who are not taking Trump seriously, I submit the following findings from the latest Bloomberg Politics poll.
> 
> The following is a list of demographic subgroups of Republican voters who currently favor Trump:
> 
> - Males
> - Females
> - Those younger than 45
> - Those older than 45
> - Seniors
> - Those having no more than a high school diploma
> - College graduates
> - Those earning $100K or more
> - Those earning $50K or less
> - Born-again Christians
> - Catholics
> - Protestants
> - "Tea Party" conservatives
> 
> Among those who call themselves "moderate" Republicans, Bush leads with 20%. The Donald comes in second with 19%.


I won't argue those statistics, and I'll still maintain that Trump is not a serious candidate.

At some point, he will be asked to provide specifics and be pressed. The political press is not as forgiving and far less sycophantic than the entertainment press.

There will come a time when calling people idiots will grow tired, and some reporter will ask something that draws blood. The rest of the sharks will smell it and his numbers will implode.

If I'm wrong I'll eat my words but I've seen demagogues come and go and this is typically the pattern that their candidacies follow.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I absolutely, positively guarantee that Trump won't be a candidate (except, perhaps, in his own mind) come the convention. No way, no how. If Trump gets more than 1 percent of the delegate vote at the Republican convention, I will wear nothing but Donald Trump ties and Donald Trump shirts for the rest of my life and beyond--I will be cremated in Trump-wear. You have my word on it.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I absolutely, positively guarantee that Trump won't be a candidate (except, perhaps, in his own mind) come the convention. No way, no how. If Trump gets more than 1 percent of the delegate vote at the Republican convention, I will wear nothing but Donald Trump ties and Donald Trump shirts for the rest of my life and beyond--I will be cremated in Trump-wear. You have my word on it.


Are you saying this because you don't like him or you don't like his line of clothing? What about the cologne?


----------



## Acct2000

Somehow gaudy satin ties don't fit my image of 32rollandrock. You must be pretty confident!


----------



## Chillburgher

32rollandrock said:


> I absolutely, positively guarantee that Trump won't be a candidate (except, perhaps, in his own mind) come the convention. No way, no how. If Trump gets more than 1 percent of the delegate vote at the Republican convention, I will wear nothing but Donald Trump ties and Donald Trump shirts for the rest of my life and beyond--I will be cremated in Trump-wear. You have my word on it.


Delegates in a large number of states are awarded proportionally, not on a winner take all basis. He'll almost certainly get at least 1% of them, should he not drop out before voting/caucusing begin.

FWIW, I'm virtually certain he won't win the nomination either. But for the time being, he remains a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Dmontez

I am really impressed that in 20+ years he hasn't changed his stance from that Oprah video. When was the last time a politician stayed with the same views for more than a few years?


----------



## 32rollandrock

I don't like him, I don't like his clothing and I don't wear cologne.



SG_67 said:


> Are you saying this because you don't like him or you don't like his line of clothing? What about the cologne?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Can't agree. He's a farce to be laughed at, not reckoned with. He may be rich, but he isn't stupid, at least, not overly so. He'll play this game for awhile longer to stoke his ego, which is all he's doing it for in the first place, then run away when faced with the power of super PAC's that have way more money to blow than he's willing to spend. He has zero backing. You can't win all by yourself. You can't even make a decent run all by yourself. We're a year away from the convention. He's taking advantage of the early hype and insatiable demand for "news" to grab some headlines. By the time we carve our Thanksgiving turkeys, Trump will be gone.



Chillburgher said:


> Delegates in a large number of states are awarded proportionally, not on a winner take all basis. He'll almost certainly get at least 1% of them, should he not drop out before voting/caucusing begin.
> 
> FWIW, I'm virtually certain he won't win the nomination either. But for the time being, he remains a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I am really impressed that in 20+ years he hasn't changed his stance from that Oprah video. When was the last time a politician stayed with the same views for more than a few years?


Consistency, of itself, is hardly impressive! Consider the other politicians whose views have remained consistent for 20+ years, Vladimir Putin, for example. There are many others that one wouldn't wish to have in power!


----------



## vpkozel

A thought. He does get to keep the money he raises, no matter what, right? Trump does love him some money.....


----------



## 32rollandrock

What money is he raising? I doubt that anyone is giving him anything substantial.



vpkozel said:


> A thought. He does get to keep the money he raises, no matter what, right? Trump does love him some money.....


----------



## 32rollandrock

I had actually thought of Stalin. Same difference.

Consistency isn't necessarily a virtue. The world changes. People grow wiser as they grow older. My views on a zillion things have certainly changed over the years. Consistency can be a sign of someone who is a poor listener and poor thinker.



Chouan said:


> Consistency, of itself, is hardly impressive! Consider the other politicians whose views have remained consistent for 20+ years, Vladimir Putin, for example. There are many others that one wouldn't wish to have in power!


----------



## Chouan

This is interesting https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ald-trump-was-garbled-incoherent-and-dominant


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> This is interesting https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ald-trump-was-garbled-incoherent-and-dominant


I'd have to agree in general. Trump seemed to blabber on and didn't offer anything really of substance. He had his moment to really show that he was more than just a blowhard and he somewhat stumbled.

Me thinks the bloom will slowly start coming off the rose.

I thought Kasich did quite well and I'm glad he was up there. Of all the candidates, he seemed the most grown up and genuine. Chris Christie did well too.

The most cartoonish and vacuous were Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. It's too bad they were given prime time slots because they really do belong at the kids table.


----------



## eagle2250

Having, as a matter of past practice, always voted my conscience, rather than along straight party lines, I am troubled by the nagging possibility that my choice in the coming presidential election could end up being between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Egad, I would rather poke my eye out with a dull stick, than be forced to choose between those two possibilities!


----------



## SG_67

^ I don't think you have to worry about the former. I don't see him lasting through the Fall. 

I did get a kick out of how unabashedly he bragged about paying off politicians and how HRC came to his wedding because he told her to. I'll say this much, he's fun to watch.


----------



## 32rollandrock

eagle2250 said:


> Having, as a matter of past practice, always voted my conscience, rather than along straight party lines, I am troubled by the nagging possibility that my choice in the coming presidential election could end up being between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Egad, I would rather poke my eye out with a dull stick, than be forced to choose between those two possibilities!


Embarrassed to admit it, but I missed last night's debate. Instead, I changed the oil in my motorcycle so that I might take a weekend jaunt through the hinterlands of Wisconsin. I'll have to catch it via YouTube. This said, NYT, always a hard sell when it comes to Trump, gave him much credit in this morning's review. I still say that he doesn't have a shot. It'll be either Bush or Walker vs. Hillary. None of the prospects are particularly encouraging. It wouldn't be surprising if turnout ends up low.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Again, didn't watch it (yet), but looking forward to the part where he reportedly told Rand Paul "I bought you, too." If Trump has a purpose, perhaps it is pointing out when the other candidates have no clothes.



SG_67 said:


> ^ I don't think you have to worry about the former. I don't see him lasting through the Fall.
> 
> I did get a kick out of how unabashedly he bragged about paying off politicians and how HRC came to his wedding because he told her to. I'll say this much, he's fun to watch.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Again, didn't watch it (yet), but looking forward to the part where he reportedly told Rand Paul "I bought you, too." If Trump has a purpose, perhaps it is* pointing out when the other candidates have no clothes*.


Gentleman! This is the interchange....we can't have a discussion of clothing here!


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> At some point, [Trump] will be asked to provide specifics and be pressed. The political press is not as forgiving and far less sycophantic than the entertainment press.
> 
> There will come a time when calling people idiots will grow tired, and some reporter will ask something that *draws blood*. The rest of the sharks will smell it and his numbers will implode.
> 
> If I'm wrong I'll eat my words but I've seen demagogues come and go and this is typically the pattern that their candidacies follow.


Given Trump's comments about Megyn Kelly, the remark in bold was rather prescient.

Given how Trump has withstood the slings and arrows thus far (not to mention his seeming immunity to his own self-inflicted wounds), I remain skeptical that the gist of your prediction will come to pass any time soon.

The pattern you describe is indeed typical. But this particular demagogue is not.


----------



## SG_67

His candidacy is ~1 month old now. Wait until he has to come up with policy specifics.


----------



## Acct2000

A wall with his name on it and amending the Constitution to delete the 14th amendment aren't specifics?? (LOL)


----------



## gaseousclay




----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> Wait until he has to come up with policy specifics.


I don't foresee this day coming until sometime after his inauguration, heaven forfend.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> I don't foresee this day coming until sometime after his inauguration, heaven forfend.


That's a good point. I recall our current POTUS simply proclaiming hop and change and little else. Oh wait, the rise of the oceans would reversed and the planet would heal....yeah that's it.


----------



## sonnhorn

The Trump vs. Self hating cuckservatives.


----------



## Brio1

sonnhorn said:


> The Trump vs. Self hating cuckservatives.


Trump combines the qualities of a schmuck and a schlub rolled into one. What happened to the gentlemanly and erudite conservatives such as Edmund Burke ? Alas, they are no more . And with regard to Hilary , she would be most suitable in the pillory.


----------



## Tempest

sonnhorn said:


> The Trump vs. Self hating cuckservatives.


Dang, it's a shame the banhammer fell on him, as the mention of the wonderful cuckservative term reveals one that has wised to the false tough-guy conservatism that is actually beholden to interests outside (often against) those they should be representing.
The Trump mention of immigration is a fine example of this. Constituents overwhelmingly oppose immigration, especially illegals. The politicians see contributions from companies desiring suppressed wages, and also dream of immigrants as a voter base, and neglect, nay oppose, the will of their constituents.


----------



## DCLawyer68

I think Trump's steady 20%+ poll numbers reflect two things really. 

(a) The "political establishment" can't stand him; and 
(b) Many Americans are really angry at the political establishment and supporting Trump is the only way some people have to make their displeasure heard.

We're months away from the first primary, and Trump is going to need to move the needed north of the the 20-something point. I don't think he can, but who knows? My own politics and the positions taken by Mr Trump are about as far apart as one can get.


----------



## Chillburgher

Well, we're well in to autumn and Mr. Trump remains at or near the top of the polls. The ascendancy of Dr. Carson does seem to be taking a toll on him, however.

The Washington Post:

_[Trump] spent more than 10 minutes angrily attacking his chief rival, Ben Carson, at one point calling him "pathological, damaged."

__Gone was the candidate's recent bout of composure and control on the campaign trail....An hour and 20 minutes into the speech, people who were standing on risers on the stage behind Trump sat down. The applause came less often and less loud. As Trump skewered Carson in deeply personal language, a sense of discomfort settled on the crowd of roughly 1,500. Several people shook their heads or whispered to their neighbors.

_
_Carson wrote in his autobiography that as a young man he....[tried] to stab a friend, only to have the blade stopped and broken by the friend's belt buckle....Trump said he doesn't believe Carson is telling the truth and questioned how a belt buckle could stop a blade. He stepped away from the podium and acted out how he imagined such an attack would happen, with his own belt buckle flopping around.

_
_....And yet Carson is doing well in the polls, Trump said in disbelief. "How stupid are the people of Iowa?" Trump said. "How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?"

_


----------



## Chouan

I'm sure that you're all aware that he is now advocating that no Muslims should be allowed to enter the US (to thunderous applause).


----------



## moltoelegante

Chouan said:


> I'm sure that you're all aware that he is now advocating that no Muslims should be allowed to enter the US (to thunderous applause).


Yes, now I wish Europe would follow his lead.


----------



## Chouan

moltoelegante said:


> Yes, now I wish Europe would follow his lead.


So American muslims serving in US armed forces abroad, for example, should be refused entry? Is it because they make your skin crawl?


----------



## Tempest

I would encourage all nations to forbid foreign armies from occupying their land. It just makes sense. Such is the dementia of the blue-pilled PC mindset that a simple and effective policy of containment is deemed unacceptable while a fantastical notion of infringing on civil rights by seizing legally owned private firearms in a quantity outnumbering the populace is deemed a moral obligation.


----------



## SG_67

I take issue with the title of the thread "Donald Trump and the Republicans".

I'm not really sure he's a republican. At least not one that has been active in the party. Seems to me he's more tied to Democrats.

This is all much ado about nothing. Trump will not be the nominee. I don't care what things look like right now, he will wither. 

In the end, my guess is it will come down to Christie, Bush or Rubio. Part of the problem is you have a lot of people still in the race who really should drop out. 

As things draw closer you'll see some of the party big wigs come out and endorse specific candidates or perhaps a single candidate. This will start happening probably in January or early February. The party will start to rally around that one person.


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> This is all much ado about nothing. Trump will not be the nominee. I don't care what things look like right now, he will wither.


Whether or not he becomes the nominee, the fact that close to 1/3 of Republican primary voters are currently supporting this guy is decidedly _not _nothing. Trump doesn't particularly frighten me, but his supporters do, particularly how many of them there are.



SG_67 said:


> In the end, my guess is it will come down to Christie, Bush or Rubio.


Christie and Bush have about as much chance at winning this nomination as I do, and I'm neither running nor a Republican. It's going to come down to Rubio, Cruz and Trump, in ascending order of likelihood.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> I would encourage all nations to forbid foreign armies from occupying their land. It just makes sense.


I'm sorry? Where has this come from? Although I agree in principle, I don't see what it has to do with the thread.



Tempest said:


> Such is the dementia of the blue-pilled PC mindset that a simple and effective policy of containment is deemed unacceptable


Containment of what?



Tempest said:


> while a fantastical notion of infringing on civil rights by seizing legally owned private firearms in a quantity outnumbering the populace is deemed a moral obligation.


You've lost me again.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> I'm sorry? Where has this come from? Although I agree in principle, I don't see what it has to do with the thread.
> *US soldiers abroad during peacetime (aka, no declared war).
> *Containment of what?
> *A potential threat or hazard.*
> You've lost me again.
> *The US had this romantic Islamic couple doing a shootup. The lefties want to ignore their origins and possible motives and just blindly disarm the innocent citizenry so they'll be defenseless. *


My comments in bold italic.

The GOP, long dead to me despite my efforts to steer them right in primaries, will either stand behind their first desirable candidate in over a quarter century (note: W was elected as a denunciation of Clinton, as Obama was a denunciation of W) or they will fade into irrelevance as far as presidential races go. The Libertarians, Green Party, the Commies, all are more viable than the non-Trump candidates. The Republicans have a losing history of picking awful, loyal, candidates instead on ones that stand a chance of victory. This is their last chance to wise up and serve the will of their membership.
I would agree that Trump is not a Republican in the modern sense. The problem is that almost everybody hates them, as they stand for botched foreign policy, ineffectiveness, and screwing over the working man. People love Trump for good reasons, and the Republicans abandoning them is part of it.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> My comments in bold italic.


" Originally Posted by *Chouan*https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1750863#post1750863I'm sorry? Where has this come from? Although I agree in principle, I don't see what it has to do with the thread.
*US soldiers abroad during peacetime (aka, no declared war).
*Containment of what?
*A potential threat or hazard.*
You've lost me again.
*The US had this romantic Islamic couple doing a shootup. The lefties want to ignore their origins and possible motives and just blindly disarm the innocent citizenry so they'll be defenseless."

*I still don't understand your first point, or your subsequent comment. To clarify, Trump stated that no Muslims should be allowed into the US until further notice. US Armed forces are stationed outside of the US. How can Muslim member of US armed forces be refused entry to their home country on the basis of their faith?
Similarly, other American citizens of Muslim faith are currently not in the US. They could be away on business or on holiday. Are they to have their rights as citizens of the US denied them by being refused entry to their home country, on the grounds of their faith, when they seek to return?


----------



## Chouan

His further statements about London and Paris are similarly nonsense.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...trump-for-london-police-in-fear-muslims-claim


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> His further statements about London and Paris are similarly nonsense.
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...trump-for-london-police-in-fear-muslims-claim


Trump again merely stating what knowledgeable people have long known.
https://www.breitbart.com/national-...europe-are-sharia-run-no-go-zones-for-police/
https://www.breitbart.com/london/20...erous-than-new-york-warns-former-un-diplomat/


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Trump again merely stating what knowledgeable people have long known.
> https://www.breitbart.com/national-...europe-are-sharia-run-no-go-zones-for-police/
> https://www.breitbart.com/london/20...erous-than-new-york-warns-former-un-diplomat/


Yawn.....


----------



## moltoelegante

some of the internet memes are pretty funny


----------



## moltoelegante

Chouan said:


> His further statements about London and Paris are similarly nonsense.
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...trump-for-london-police-in-fear-muslims-claim


You just make it too easy sometimes. You don't even make an effort to learn the truth, or (as I suspect) you are just trolling.


----------



## Concordia

Someone needs to photoshop his head onto Mussolini's body. It wouldn't require that much of a change-- the squint and the pout are more or less identical.



moltoelegante said:


> some of the internet memes are pretty funny


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> To clarify, Trump stated that no Muslims should be allowed into the US until further notice. US Armed forces are stationed outside of the US. How can Muslim member of US armed forces be refused entry to their home country on the basis of their faith?
> Similarly, other American citizens of Muslim faith are currently not in the US. They could be away on business or on holiday. Are they to have their rights as citizens of the US denied them by being refused entry to their home country, on the grounds of their faith, when they seek to return?


I honestly can't believe that a teacher would make such egregious factual errors and twisted leaps of logic. You really should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Tempest

Concordia said:


> Someone needs to photoshop his head onto Mussolini's body. It wouldn't require that much of a change-- the squint and the pout are more or less identical.


That has nothing to do with making America great again. I think you missed the point.
Future president Trump has been doing a yeoman's job of bringing truths that only true zealots knew and dared speak into the public arena. He has been slaughtering sacred cows and letting cats out of bags. Why is he the first to do this in so long?

And how did Merkel beat him for Time's Man of the Year??


----------



## SG_67

Just so we can be clear:

"Trump, in a formal statement from his campaign, urged a "total and complete shutdown" of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can "figure out what is going on."Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: "Mr. Trump says, 'everyone.' "
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...ump-calls-for-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-us)


----------



## vpkozel

SG_67 said:


> Just so we can be clear:
> 
> "Trump, in a formal statement from his campaign, urged a "total and complete shutdown" of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can "figure out what is going on."Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: "Mr. Trump says, 'everyone.' "
> https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...ump-calls-for-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-us)


And in the next paragraph



> During a Tuesday morning interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," however, Trump clarified that American Muslims would still be able to travel freely under his plan.
> "If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different," Trump said.


----------



## SG_67

^ sure, and let's leave it to individuals to reconcile the difference. Sounds like a classic "let's walk this back" statement of which our current president has turned into a matter of routine. 

Assuming the clarification is the correct sentiment and everyone jist made a mistake assuming otherwise, how would he go about doing it?

Would he have people recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ave Maria at customs, like in the Hundred Years War? Would he simply ask for religious affiliation? Would be just ban anyone who
Looked like a Muslim, which would at least keep out bearded hipsters as well. 

There are actually smarter ways to go about keeping us safe than off the cuff platitudes.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> I honestly can't believe that a teacher would make such egregious factual errors and twisted leaps of logic. You really should be ashamed of yourself.


See post 134. What is factually incorrect or egregious about my post?


----------



## Chouan

moltoelegante said:


> You just make it too easy sometimes. You don't even make an effort to learn the truth, or (as I suspect) you are just trolling.


Are you able to understand how newspapers work? Do you understand the political stances of newspapers? Do you understand what the Daily Mail is? Do you understand that some policemen might have their own agenda?
On a separate point, once again in your arrogance you seem to be suggesting that disagreement with your obviously correct view is trolling. I can assure you that I am not.


----------



## Shaver

More jolly japes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35058076


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Do you understand that some policemen might have their own agenda?


You would have to concede the same point, no? I can see a motive for them not to admit that they are afraid and failing at their jobs. What are you proposing as their motive?

Verification is simple. There are Mohammedan names, and they can be compiled. Yes, there are a handful of Islamic Williams and Marys but we're playing the odds here. A simple test would be to serve bacon on all inbound flights and see who is refusing. My favorite would be to have some imam greet people with "As-salamu alaykum" and watch for anyone fighting the reflexive response or actually saying it.


----------



## SG_67

^ So would someone name Joseph or Michael assumed to be an observant Christian? Should someone with the last name of Klein be assumed to be an observant Jew. 

People in the Middle East name their children according to cultural standards and norms, as we do in the West.

My parents are Persian. My mother is a Christian and she greets people "salam alaykum". Why? Because that's how people greet each other in the Middle East. It's not necessarily an expression of religion, anymore than saying "have a nice day" is an indication of religion here. 

Trump's proposals are the dopey rantings of an equally dopey person, at least in the political sense. 

Again, I've said it before and I'll say it again; Trump will start to wither and the party will rally around a grown up and someone who can carry the standard into the next election.


----------



## Langham

Tempest said:


> You would have to concede the same point, no? I can see a motive for them not to admit that they are afraid and failing at their jobs. What are you proposing as their motive?
> 
> Verification is simple. There are Mohammedan names, and they can be compiled. Yes, there are a handful of Islamic Williams and Marys but we're playing the odds here. A simple test would be to *serve bacon on all inbound flights *and see who is refusing. My favorite would be to have some imam greet people with "As-salamu alaykum" and watch for anyone fighting the reflexive response or actually saying it.


Thus spreading the net yet wider than even the audacious Donald Trump would dare.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> You would have to concede the same point, no? I can see a motive for them not to admit that they are afraid and failing at their jobs. What are you proposing as their motive?


What would you think? Living very near to London and visiting it frequently, I have never experienced any kind of fear whilst there, unlike New York, or Philadelphia, or Baltimore or New Orleans.....


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Thus spreading the net yet wider than even the audacious Donald Trump would dare.


Indeed! One would imagine that Tempest thinks that the only people who would refuse bacon, on religious grounds, would be Muslims! Similarly, Tempest seems to think that only Muslims speak arabic!


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> See post 134. What is factually incorrect or egregious about my post?


That is not what he said in his speech at all. You created a situation that could never come to pass for a variety of reasons, attributed it to him, then became outrged by what he did not say. Teachers should not be doing that. It is intellectually dishonest as well as lazy.

To quote Treebeard when he sees Eisnegard, "A wizard should know better!"


----------



## vpkozel

SG_67 said:


> ^ sure, and let's leave it to individuals to reconcile the difference. Sounds like a classic "let's walk this back" statement of which our current president has turned into a matter of routine.
> 
> Assuming the clarification is the correct sentiment and everyone jist made a mistake assuming otherwise, how would he go about doing it?
> 
> Would he have people recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ave Maria at customs, like in the Hundred Years War? Would he simply ask for religious affiliation? Would be just ban anyone who
> Looked like a Muslim, which would at least keep out bearded hipsters as well.
> 
> There are actually smarter ways to go about keeping us safe than off the cuff platitudes.


Don't get me wrong, he is a loon.

But what we are currently doing is obviously not working on a variety of levels.

So, if we are going to have open borders, then by all means let's do it and stop spending any money on it at all. If we are not going to have open borders, then let's start having some grown up discussions about the dangers we face and the way things need to be to deal with those dangers.


----------



## eagle2250

^^It's well past the time for the NSA to reinitiate/ramp-up their covert communications monitoring initiatives! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> That is not what he said in his speech at all. You created a situation that could never come to pass for a variety of reasons, attributed it to him, then became outrged by what he did not say. Teachers should not be doing that. It is intellectually dishonest as well as lazy.
> 
> To quote Treebeard when he sees Eisnegard, "A wizard should know better!"


I refer you again to post 134. 
I also listened to his speech. It is exactly what he said.


----------



## Tempest

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It's well past the time for the NSA to reinitiate/ramp-up their covert communications monitoring initiatives! :thumbs-up:


No. I actually would prefer to keep my civil liberties. This is an issue where Trump may be wrong, and I'd understand why. Surveillance is all about selling giant unnecessary systems and there is big money to be made. It doesn't even have to work, as it's all for show.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed! One would imagine that Tempest thinks that the only people who would refuse bacon, on religious grounds, would be Muslims! Similarly, Tempest seems to think that only Muslims speak arabic!


Actually I wish it was possible to get a decent bacon sandwich when flying. The usual muck Easyjet and the others serve up does nothing to soothe my unease.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> I refer you again to post 134.
> I also listened to his speech. It is exactly what he said.


Please post the portions where he said that American Muslims traveling abroad would be denied reentry.


----------



## vpkozel

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It's well past the time for the NSA to reinitiate/ramp-up their covert communications monitoring initiatives! :thumbs-up:


I could not disagree more. The likelihood of abuse is simply not worth the cost.

What we need is is a wholesale reexamination of the way that we do things and realize that the politically correct constraints and biases we inflict upon the processes often make it utterly useless, e.g. strip searching 80 grandmoms or toddlers.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Please post the portions where he said that American Muslims traveling abroad would be denied reentry.


What part of "everyone" don't you get? I again refer you to post 134.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> What part of "everyone" don't you get? I again refer you to post 134.


what part of the clarification the next day did you not get. Someone from his campaigned said "well he did say everyone" and the next day he said he was not referring to American Muslims.

When I read the original statement from the context clues I knew that he was not referring to American born Muslims, but because the general populace is so dumb they were asked for clarification, and someone from his campaign not Trump himself was quoted "well he did say everyone" the very next day Trump says he was not referring to American born Muslims"

It seems to me like his staff didn't bother to ask him, when they were asked for clarification.


----------



## Dmontez

vpkozel said:


> I honestly can't believe that a teacher would make such egregious factual errors and twisted leaps of logic. You really should be ashamed of yourself.


spot on, we also have a journalist in the forum somewhere that needs to turn in his "press card"


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> what part of the clarification the next day did you not get. Someone from his campaigned said "well he did say everyone" and the next day he said he was not referring to American Muslims.
> 
> When I read the original statement from the context clues I knew that he was not referring to American born Muslims, but because the general populace is so dumb they were asked for clarification, and someone from his campaign not Trump himself was quoted "well he did say everyone" the very next day Trump says he was not referring to American born Muslims"
> 
> It seems to me like his staff didn't bother to ask him, when they were asked for clarification.


Of course, the "clarification" the next day! Was this when he'd realised what a clanger he'd dropped with the "everyone" response?

I know that the man is very popular amongst some sectors of the American population, but some of you seem to be nearing desperation to prove that he isn't the ar$e that he appears to be! 
I'm glad that you "knew" that "everyone" in this context didn't actually mean "everyone", but that he'd forgotten to clarify that and that he'd forgotten to instruct his aids that a "blanket ban" didn't refer to Americans....

I find it both amusing and sad that so many Americans seem to be able to excuse or justify all kinds of grotesque utterances that Trump makes. I suppose that if you admire the man, you're now very much used to thinking up justifications for him!


----------



## Chouan

It appears that he is balanced in his stereotyping. Speaking to a meeting of Jewish political donors:
"_Mr Trump also made remarks that some said promoted Jewish stereotypes. "I know why you're not going to support me: you're not going to support me because I don't want your money," Mr Trump said. "You want to control your own politician." He also said, "I'm a negotiator, like you folks.""

_


----------



## Tempest

Yes, he failed to kowtow to the Zionist lobby and campaign contributors. And he's still alive and kicking. That's why he will be our next president. Can anyone else say they've done the same? He also told Netanyahu that he was cancelling his trip to The Jewish State until after he was elected, as their boob was talking smack. 
But I thought you had to be a cuckhold to survive in modern politics? How is Trump still alive? Because he is a superman, a demigod. Respect. Elect.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> What part of "everyone" don't you get? I again refer you to post 134.


You do realize that there are Muslims named Smith, don't you?

And you can refer to post 134 all you want. That wasn't Trump saying that and it wasn't a quote from the speech that you claimed you watched.

I might also point out that I posted my initial response in post 132, so to claim something that happened after that post as a source is just more intellectual laziness.


----------



## Dhaller

The great irony is that Donald Trump himself _has been radicalized by ISIS._

You don't have to be a terrorist to serve ISIS!

DH


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> You do realize that there are Muslims named Smith, don't you?
> 
> And you can refer to post 134 all you want. That wasn't Trump saying that and it wasn't a quote from the speech that you claimed you watched.
> 
> I might also point out that I posted my initial response in post 132, so to claim something that happened after that post as a source is just more intellectual laziness.


A continued attempt to justify a grotesque generalisation by your hero!

It would be interesting that, if he became your head of state and carried out his proposed policy, the US would be unable to entertain any members of the Middle Eastern governments that are your allies, like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Or are they exceptions to the blanket ban as well?

I'm sure that you'll be able to find a get out clause for that as well!


----------



## Chouan

He now appears to think that he is spokesman for the UK as well! I'm sure that there are people in the UK who would agree with him, of course, but there again, we have groups like UKIP, and the EDL, so its not unlikely. However, I would suggest that a petition of 500000+ asking for him to be banned from entering the UK (I haven't signed it) would mean that a significant number of people think him a dangerous ar$e, not merely an ar$e.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I'm sure that there are people in the UK who would agree with him ....


There probably are, as unbridled immigration and multiculturalism has had a lot of bad press recently, much of it involving the Asian (and by association, mostly Muslim) population, an alarming number of whom it seems may have paedophilic tendencies. This association with Islam may be entirely chance, possibly it is a cultural thing. Only this morning there are fresh and very disturbing revelations from Rotherham:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...were-raped-beaten-and-passed-between-men.html

Of course there is also the association with terrorism and ISIS to be taken into consideration. Here, Jeremy Corbyn seems to have hold of the wrong end of the stick:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-Mohamed-Dahir-to-be-freed-for-Christmas.html


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> A continued attempt to justify a grotesque generalisation by your hero!
> 
> It would be interesting that, if he became your head of state and carried out his proposed policy, the US would be unable to entertain any members of the Middle Eastern governments that are your allies, like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Or are they exceptions to the blanket ban as well?
> 
> I'm sure that you'll be able to find a get out clause for that as well!


My hero? Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.

But please stop trying to change the subject and post the specific passage in the speech you are pretending you watched.


----------



## eagle2250

:crazy:
Jeez Louise, Vietnam and the threat of the Draft (back in the 1960's) were insufficient incentive for me to run off to Canada seeking asylum (it's not that far North from central Pennsylvania., ya know), but the thought of living here with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office has me giving it some serious thought. I am reminded of that old sci-fi flick in which alien life forms possessed human bodies. Methinks the entire American electorate's brains, both Democrats and Republicans, have been taken over by idiots! Bwa, ha, ha, ha! 

Is it too much to ask that at least one of the parties come up with a palatable candidate?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> My hero? Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> But please stop trying to change the subject and post the specific passage in the speech you are pretending you watched.


----------



## Tempest

Someone on here may have been the subject of this news article.
https://www.theonion.com/article/will-be-end-trumps-campaign-says-increasingly-nerv-52002


Spoiler



SALISBURY, MD-Repeating identical comments he had made in June, July, August, September, and twice in November, increasingly nervous local man Aaron Howe responded to Donald Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. Monday by once again stating this would be the end of the Republican frontrunner's campaign, sources confirmed. "Well, that's it-you just can't say those kinds of things and expect to be taken seriously any longer," said an anxious Howe, his voice quavering slightly as he spoke aloud the very same words he had previously uttered in reaction to remarks about Mexicans, women, the disabled, former POW John McCain, and a number of other targeted parties. "That's the final nail in the coffin right there. There's no way he's coming back from this one." At press time, a visibly tense Howe was steadily amassing the angst and exasperation that would be unleashed in his seventh expletive-filled exclamation of the year when he catches sight of the newest set of GOP poll numbers.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


>


Perhaps you could point out the part where he referred to Americans in that. No one except someone trying to change the message would take what he said to mean Americans returning from abroad (just like he never said all Mexicans are rapists and killers, but I digress).

I wonder what you would say to one of your students who supported a position as poorly as you do?


----------



## RogerP

As ever, when I venture onto this subforum I find that I regret doing so. It is sad that so many forum members here embrace such hateful ideology, or at a minimum, thrive on being apologists for blatant racism.


----------



## Tempest

RogerP said:


> As ever, when I venture onto this subforum I find that I regret doing so. It is sad that so many forum members here embrace such hateful ideology, or at a minimum, thrive on being apologists for blatant racism.


This blind accusation is perhaps the most hateful thing that I have yet read.

However, it gives me an opportunity to praise a gift that future-President Trump has given us by proving that the leftist trick of trying to stifle debate with accusations of racism only works if you allow it to. Laugh it off and they are left with nothing but their sophistry and more impotent ad-hominem attacks.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> As ever, when I venture onto this subforum I find that I regret doing so. It is sad that so many forum members here embrace such hateful ideology, or at a minimum, thrive on being apologists for blatant racism.


Ah, yes, the ever present "if you don't agree with my view of things you are an ' -ist'".

Always so additive to any discussion.


----------



## Tempest

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/627734/Fiddle-Donald-Trump-Petition-UK-Government
Democratic base not opposed to Trump's suggestion.


----------



## Chillburgher

Still riding high.


----------



## Tempest

It will be nice to have an alpha male as our national leader, as Russia currently does. Putin is certainly exhibiting how an assertive person protects their nation's interests in his dealings with Turkey.



> "He's a very lively man, talented without doubt," Putin said when journalists approached him after the news conference and asked about Trump. "He's saying he wants to go to another level of relations - closer, deeper relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome that."


Get these girly men (and Killary) out of the race.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> It will be nice to have an alpha male as our national leader, as Russia currently does. Putin is certainly exhibiting how an assertive person protects their nation's interests in his dealings with Turkey.
> 
> Get these girly men (and Killary) out of the race.


I don't know about that. He got one of his planes shot down and he hasn't done anything about it really.


----------



## eagle2250

Jeez Louise, that's just what we need...

Trump with his finger on our nuclear trigger, while Putin has his on Russia's nuclear trigger! Putin has already told the world he considers nuclear weapons to be a routine option, in conducting combat operations and Trump didn't even know what the US Nuclear Triad was when asked recently! We could quite literally serve witness, during our lifetimes, to these two wackos bringing an end to life as we know it on the ever increasingly fragile planet of ours. :crazy:


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> Jeez Louise, that's just what we need...
> 
> Trump with his finger on our nuclear trigger, while Putin has his on Russia's nuclear trigger! Putin has already told the world he considers nuclear weapons to be a routine option, in conducting combat operations and Trump didn't even know what the US Nuclear Triad was when asked recently! We could quite literally serve witness, during our lifetimes, to these two wackos bringing an end to life as we know it on the ever increasingly fragile planet of ours. :crazy:


I'm not sure about that. There were those who thought Khrushchev was nuts (he did bang his shoe on the podium at the UN after all) and certainly in my lifetime there were those who thought Reagan would have done it (he did joke about legislation that would "make the USSR illegal, bombing will begin shortly" after all).

If Nukes didn't get used during the cold war, I doubt they would be used in this day and age.


----------



## eagle2250

^^Regarding the cold war comparison with our present day challenge, having served assignments with the 379th Bomb Wing, a B-52 wing with a nuclear alert mission and with the 351st Strategic Missile Wing, a Minuteman II ICBM wing, sequentially from 1972 to 1979, I'm not sure I would take much comfort in your analogy. I will simply say that the American public has no idea just how threatening those times really were or how close we came. Looking back on those years and quoting Charles Dickens, "It was at once, the best of times and the worst of times" and I'm just glad a Higher Power was looking down on us and protecting us from our mutual (USA/USSR/China) foolishness/recklessness!


----------



## Tempest

Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that President Trump will work _with _Russia and against "terrorism" unlike the current administration. 
I'd agree that Trump, like Reagan (who actually was suspected of senility in addition to brashness), is crazy like a fox. The nuclear threat as deterrent requires faith that it will be used, and it's clear that Trump is a fine bluffer.
Apparently Russia has had 145 sorties in two months, and lost one plane. The US plan of attack against ISIS has been to hug Muslims, invite them into the country, and attempt to remove firearms from the law-abiding public.


----------



## Dhaller

Tempest said:


> Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that President Trump will work _with _Russia and against "terrorism" unlike the current administration.
> I'd agree that Trump, like Reagan (who actually was suspected of senility in addition to brashness), is crazy like a fox. The nuclear threat as deterrent requires faith that it will be used, and it's clear that Trump is a fine bluffer.
> Apparently Russia has had 145 sorties in two months, and lost one plane. The US plan of attack against ISIS has been to hug Muslims, invite them into the country, and attempt to remove firearms from the law-abiding public.


I'm not sure that "work together" is the right phrase.

"Trump would be Putin's hand-puppet" is a more accurate description; Trump has already demonstrated how easily he's manipulated, while Putin is an old master of politics (at this point he's one of the most experienced practitioners of statecraft in the world). There's simply no comparison between the two, and certainly they can't function as actual peers.

DH


----------



## eagle2250

^^Egad!

Can you think of two egomaniacs more likely to bring that old national defense philosophy, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, to a fiery and decidedly deadly conclusion? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

For all of the fears of the cold war and the potential for a catastrophic event, MAD actually worked well. 

Nuclear weapons are a fact. How we deal with one another in light of that and strategic policies in place to thwart the use of them is what matters. 

I'm not saying I want a return to the Cold War, but in light of the world that was, the policies that the makers of strategy implemented worked.


----------



## Chouan

The Russians are doing very well aren't they. I suppose that killing 200 civilians in indiscriminate bombing, who weren't anywhere near any military targets isn't a problem to those who think Putin commendable. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ombs-killed-hundreds-civilians-syria-watchdog https://europe.newsweek.com/russian-airstrikes-kill-200-civilians-two-months-amnesty-408477 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ns-in-air-strikes-a-provocation-a6784206.html

16 civilians killed for every (estimated) "Islamist militant" killed isn't a very good ratio. Although I suppose that to those who appear to believe that all Muslims are guilty of terrorism it won't matter, as we all know that all Syrians are Muslims and are therefore terrorists, don't we. Same as we all know that all people who speak arabic are Muslims and are therefore terrorists, don't we.
It's almost as bad as deliberately targeting hospitals in Afghanistan, isn't it.


----------



## Chouan

It looks like Trump's ideas are already being carried out. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...enied-entry-to-the-us-says-imam-a6784171.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...muslim-family-flight-disneyland-david-cameron


----------



## Concordia

Ah, but his polling numbers are fantastic, and he's a very classy guy.


----------



## eagle2250

Reflecting on Trump's actions and extreme (emotional and inappropriate)) demeanor over the campaign cycle to date, I cannot help but conclude he would in all likelihood fail to survive the psychological screening process used to select crewmembers trained to staff combat crews manning the aircraft, submarines and missile launch control centers, integral to the USA's nuclear Triad.

I suppose that's no worse than Hillary Clinton incorporating "Top Secret" material in at least two of her emails, examined to date. I recall one of my fellow crew dogs facing an Article 15 action years ago, for failing to properly dispose of obsolete pages (material designated as "For Official Use Only") from the tech orders that applied to our weapon system. For those not familiar with the military, that's a career killer for an officer! And Hillary passes it of as "in retrospect, I made a mistake!" Where's the accountability her?

It seems like the candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are held to lesser standards than those, all too frequently disparaged underlings, they may someday be leading? Is that the best we can do?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> It looks like Trump's ideas are already being carried out. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...enied-entry-to-the-us-says-imam-a6784171.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...muslim-family-flight-disneyland-david-cameron


Obviously, the current president is racist....


----------



## Concordia

eagle2250 said:


> I suppose that's no worse than Hillary Clinton incorporating "Top Secret" material in at least two of her emails, examined to date. I recall one of my fellow crew dogs facing an Article 15 action years ago, for failing to properly dispose of obsolete pages (material designated as "For Official Use Only") from the tech orders that applied to our weapon system. For those not familiar with the military, that's a career killer for an officer! And Hillary passes it of as "in retrospect, I made a mistake!" Where's the accountability her?


I don't believe that there was any huge slip on any particular detail, nor do I think that this is symptomatic of any huge sort of evil on her part. Nevertheless, I think this issue will be the potential bug for a lot of Hillary supporters. Even if the Republican nominee is certifiable, or competent with some policies that one might not wish to implement, the question is will voters wish to have HRC in office? And if they do in 2016, how will they feel in 2020?

The best analogy I can think of (and I shudder, here) is Nixon in 1968. Well-schooled and intelligent, but not a natural politician, and cursed with some weird personality tics, which were aggravated by encounters with his past opponents. He got in mostly because a wild man ended up re-arranging the post-New Deal party alignment, and then wound up making one catastrophic mistake after another, more because of character flaws than any specific ideological problems. Let's hope that is only a worst-case fear w/r/t her personality.

True story about Nixon, BTW: my grandfather was raised as a Republican, back when Republicans stood for clean, progressive, orderly, not-terribly-racist government. He always voted the ticket, probably starting with Taft, but none of the family knew for sure what he did in 1960. He would have had no reason to want to vote for Kennedy, but he despised Nixon more than any politician. Some of this may have been Nixon's hostility to the Pasadena segment of California, to which my grandfather belonged, but it was more likely because Nixon had crucified a lot of people who had worked in China before the war. My grandfather had based his career on the mainland in the 20s and 30s, and was actively involved with Asian charities later on, so would definitely have had friends who were roughed up in Congress. The best guess that anyone had was that he walked into the booth and walked out again without voting for President. When he died 8 years later, he left the Asia Society in NY some of his papers and knickknacks. For some reason, the one they chose was a little figurine that had a long, Nixonian, nose. That was the one piece he hated more than any other.


----------



## Tempest

Dhaller said:


> Trump has already demonstrated how easily he's manipulated...


If you are referring to something besides him being tricked into calling Carleton Fiorina beautiful on live television, elaboration may be needed.


----------



## Liberty Ship

People are attracted to Trump because he fills a void. Trump says and asks what the press and media have refused to say and ask. That is his attraction. And as long as he is willing to do it, he will get support. Thus, Trump is a media creation, but not in the way people usually perceive it. And not in the way the media can even understand it! 

If the media really wanted to let the air out of Trump, they would attack the people and things Trump is attacking with the same well deserved viciousness. But they won't. They will protect the Progressive Left with their last breath; they have invested too much ego to do otherwise. So Trump will continue to gain power. Americans aren't so much looking for revenge as a reckoning. And the hope is that Trump can deliver it, even if it comes with an imperfect political package. 

The media are so narcissistic that they can't fathom, don't have a clue, that a majority of Americans hate their guts and hold them in contempt for promoting and facilitating the development of the situation in which we now find ourselves.


----------



## eagle2250

^^+1, absolutely.

Perhaps the most insightful comment yet offered in this thread...thank-you for that!


----------



## SG_67

For all the hand wringing about Trump and his temperament I would remind folks of the utter ridiculousness and downright pandering that the current lot of presidential candidates, both dems and GOP, as well as our current POTUS have engaged in.

*Hillary:*
The infamous "I don't feel no ways tard."

"We came in under sniper fire"

The emails......too many to list

"We'll 'make sure that the person who that film is arrested and prosecuted'

Monica Lewinsky is a "narcissistic loony tune" - https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.c...sbands-cheating-scandal-with-monica-lewinsky/

Obama:
The Cambridge police acted "stupidly"

The rise of the oceans an the healing of the planet line

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy" toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. "

The "JV team puts on Lakers uniforms....."

"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it....period" followed shortly after by "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it....IF"

The list goes on and on.


----------



## Chouan

A link sent to me by one of my students. Inspiring, isn't it.....


----------



## Chouan

He appears to be something of a bad loser https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ump-ted-cruz-stole-iowa-caucuses-new-election


----------



## tocqueville

Liberty Ship said:


> People are attracted to Trump because he fills a void. Trump says and asks what the press and media have refused to say and ask. That is his attraction. And as long as he is willing to do it, he will get support. Thus, Trump is a media creation, but not in the way people usually perceive it. And not in the way the media can even understand it!
> 
> If the media really wanted to let the air out of Trump, they would attack the people and things Trump is attacking with the same well deserved viciousness. But they won't. They will protect the Progressive Left with their last breath; they have invested too much ego to do otherwise. So Trump will continue to gain power. Americans aren't so much looking for revenge as a reckoning. And the hope is that Trump can deliver it, even if it comes with an imperfect political package.
> 
> The media are so narcissistic that they can't fathom, don't have a clue, that a majority of Americans hate their guts and hold them in contempt for promoting and facilitating the development of the situation in which we now find ourselves.


Complete fantasy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> He appears to be something of a bad loser https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ump-ted-cruz-stole-iowa-caucuses-new-election


He hasn't lost anything, and on the subject of the Cruz shenanigans, he does have a point.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/ted-cruz-voicemails-ben-carson-exclusive-audio/



Liberty Ship said:


> People are attracted to Trump because he fills a void. Trump says and asks what the press and media have refused to say and ask. That is his attraction. And as long as he is willing to do it, he will get support. Thus, Trump is a media creation, but not in the way people usually perceive it. And not in the way the media can even understand it!
> 
> If the media really wanted to let the air out of Trump, they would attack the people and things Trump is attacking with the same well deserved viciousness. But they won't. They will protect the Progressive Left with their last breath; they have invested too much ego to do otherwise. So Trump will continue to gain power. Americans aren't so much looking for revenge as a reckoning. And the hope is that Trump can deliver it, even if it comes with an imperfect political package.
> 
> The media are so narcissistic that they can't fathom, don't have a clue, that a majority of Americans hate their guts and hold them in contempt for promoting and facilitating the development of the situation in which we now find ourselves.


Exactly.
Concise and accurate.

Now, love Trump or hate him, you've got to agree that this is quite amusing.
https://trumpdonald.org


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> He appears to be something of a bad loser https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ump-ted-cruz-stole-iowa-caucuses-new-election


Woodward and Bernstein wrote in "All The President's Men" about Rat Fu**ing. It was a term one of Nixon's lawyers used to describe political dirty tricks.

Ted Cruz played dirty, but politics is a dirty game. The voters will judge him on it.


----------



## tocqueville

As best as I can tell, people are attracted to Trump because they are afraid, very afraid, of everything, it seems, and they need someone who will speak to their inchoate sense of fear and anger at the people they blame. I've interviewed the Trump supporters in my family at length, and all I get is that: "I'm afraid..." is what they say time after time. The world is a complicated place, and it scares them, and they don't like it, so they are attracted to someone who appears to sympathize with their views and gives them someone to blame. Demagoguery 101. These are people, mind you, who know what they know from right wing Talk Radio and seem to be convinced that there are seething hordes of Islamist Mexican rapists cresting over the border, and crazy liberals destroying the country with their political correctness. They are obsessed with the issue of political correctness, which I find fascinating. They are profoundly ignorant, though I love them dearly.

Anyway, I came here not to cast scorn on earlier comments about Trump and the progressive media (total garbage, and I notice that Sanders fans say the same thing, only the opposite direction), but to refer to this amusing thing re: Cruz (who otherwise isn't the least bit funny).

He has a new campaign logo. Here's a screen shot of his web page:








What's so funny about that? How appropriate it is. Highlighting the word "Trus." Which means:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=trus


----------



## Gurdon

tocqueville said:


> Anyway, I came here not to cast scorn on earlier comments about Trump and the progressive media (total garbage, and I notice that Sanders fans say the same thing, only the opposite direction), but to refer to this amusing thing re: Cruz (who otherwise isn't the least bit funny).
> 
> He has a new campaign logo. Here's a screen shot of his web page:
> View attachment 15765
> 
> 
> What's so funny about that? How appropriate it is. Highlighting the word "Trus." Which means:
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=trus


Indeed, I passed this along to a number of people earlier this morning. Also, the flame-like symbol looks somewhat like the Al Jazeera Arabic calligraphic logo.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver

Only simple people perceive the world as being complicated.

Political correctness is a blight on reason, an ersatz morality, perpetrated by inferior minds, subject to endless revisionism, fecund radicalisation, petty pieties and proselytising fanaticism.

I do not support Trump, nor any politician, but at least (rarely amongst his ilk) he does not talk out of both sides of his mouth at once.



tocqueville said:


> As best as I can tell, people are attracted to Trump because they are afraid, very afraid, of everything, it seems, and they need someone who will speak to their inchoate sense of fear and anger at the people they blame. I've interviewed the Trump supporters in my family at length, and all I get is that: "I'm afraid..." is what they say time after time. The world is a complicated place, and it scares them, and they don't like it, so they are attracted to someone who appears to sympathize with their views and gives them someone to blame. Demagoguery 101. These are people, mind you, who know what they know from right wing Talk Radio and seem to be convinced that there are seething hordes of Islamist Mexican rapists cresting over the border, and crazy liberals destroying the country with their political correctness. They are obsessed with the issue of political correctness, which I find fascinating. They are profoundly ignorant, though I love them dearly.
> 
> Anyway, I came here not to cast scorn on earlier comments about Trump and the progressive media (total garbage, and I notice that Sanders fans say the same thing, only the opposite direction), but to refer to this amusing thing re: Cruz (who otherwise isn't the least bit funny).
> 
> He has a new campaign logo. Here's a screen shot of his web page:
> View attachment 15765
> 
> 
> What's so funny about that? How appropriate it is. Highlighting the word "Trus." Which means:
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=trus


----------



## FLMike

tocqueville said:


> As best as I can tell, people are attracted to Trump because they are afraid, very afraid, of everything, it seems, and they need someone who will speak to their inchoate sense of fear and anger at the people they blame. I've interviewed the Trump supporters in my family at length, and all I get is that: "I'm afraid..." is what they say time after time. The world is a complicated place, and it scares them, and they don't like it, so they are attracted to someone who appears to sympathize with their views and gives them someone to blame. Demagoguery 101. These are people, mind you, who know what they know from right wing Talk Radio and seem to be convinced that there are seething hordes of Islamist Mexican rapists cresting over the border, and crazy liberals destroying the country with their political correctness. They are obsessed with the issue of political correctness, which I find fascinating. They are profoundly ignorant, though I love them dearly.
> 
> Anyway, I came here not to cast scorn on earlier comments about Trump and the progressive media (total garbage, and I notice that Sanders fans say the same thing, only the opposite direction), but to refer to this amusing thing re: Cruz (who otherwise isn't the least bit funny).
> 
> He has a new campaign logo. Here's a screen shot of his web page:
> View attachment 15765
> 
> 
> What's so funny about that? How appropriate it is. Highlighting the word "Trus." Which means:
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=trus


I think they were highlighting the word "TED". I'd love to have a chat with some of your ignorant family members, just to hear what they think about their crazy liberal cousin toquers.


----------



## FLMike

Shaver said:


> Only simple people perceive the world as being complicated.
> 
> Political correctness is a blight on reason, an ersatz morality, perpetrated by inferior minds, subject to endless revisionism, fecund radicalisation, petty pieties and proselytising fanaticism.
> 
> I do not support Trump, nor any politician, but at least (rarely amongst his ilk) he does not talk out of both sides of his mouth at once.


Amen, amen, and amen!


----------



## Balfour

Re NH (both Dem and GOP):

[email protected]


----------



## Chouan

"Political Correctness" is, however, usually a label applied by the politically incorrect to any view that they don't like. The term itself is loaded, and so, essentially, meaningless in any real argument.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> "Political Correctness" is, however, usually a label applied by the politically incorrect to any view that they don't like. The term itself is loaded, and so, essentially, meaningless in any real argument.


Yet the terms employed by the, if you will permit me,_ politically correct_ are so utterly devoid of bias......


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Yet the terms employed by the, if you will permit me,_ politically correct_ are so utterly devoid of bias......


:beer:

There are few as intolerant of different views as the 'enlightened liberal'; sanctimony oozes from such a creature. Political correctness is often just used a device used by said animal to censure views with which they disagree.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> :beer:
> 
> There are few as intolerant of different views as the 'enlightened liberal'; sanctimony oozes from such a creature. Political correctness is often just used a device used by said animal to censure views with which they disagree.


Indeed. The PC mob strive toward an environment in which they have curtailed free speech and engendered self-censorship through fear of consequence. It is not enough for them to say 'you are wrong' there must be punishment for transgression and it must be be severe.

Ideas must be allowed to wither or thrive in the full light of day.

.
.
.

..


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Indeed. The PC mob strive toward an environment in which they have curtailed free speech and engendered self-censorship through fear of consequence. It is not enough for them to say 'you are wrong' there must be punishment for transgression and it must be be severe.
> 
> Ideas must be allowed to wither or thrive in the full light of day.
> ..


Do you find this a particular issue in your place of work? The universities have been in the news quite a lot in this connection recently - 'Rhodes must fall', wearing of sombreros forbidden, etc. Only yesterday I read about a 'free speech society' being forbidden to hold meetings, at one uni.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Do you find this a particular issue in your place of work? The universities have been in the news quite a lot in this connection recently - 'Rhodes must fall', wearing of sombreros forbidden, etc. Only yesterday I read about a 'free speech society' being forbidden to hold meetings, at one uni.


There is an element of it here, as everywhere, but the nature of the disciplines with which I am involved lend themselves to a measure of perspective.


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> "Political Correctness" is, however, usually a label applied by the politically incorrect to any view that they don't like.


"By the politically incorrect...?"

Case closed.


----------



## FLMike

Odradek said:


> "By the politically incorrect...?"
> 
> Case closed.


Exactly. By referring to a group of people as "the politically incorrect", you are outing yourself as one of the PC nutjobs.


----------



## Tempest

I think the PC movement, which sought speech codes, has been supplanted by the SJW totalitarians that want to vilify thoughts, history, you, truth, reality, and anything else that makes them have bad feelz.

Wait, didn't lib Bill Maher try to oppose the PCers over two decades ago with a show entitled "Politically Incorrect"? It's the current year and people don't realize that anyone claiming to be PC or PI is a joke?


----------



## SG_67

Can't Truss It!


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver,

I was referring to the phenomenon by which what I describe as cranky right wingers in this country obsess over political correctness and rant about it as some great evil that's undermining America. I share your views on political correctness, but what I'm talking about is a strikingly disproportionate preoccupation. As the discourse goes, it is either a direct cause or a symptom of the unravelling all that makes us strong. There's a next step: it's the work of certain agents, certain media, certain people. From their the discourse can progress to all sorts of weirdness, conspiracy theories that often resembles anti-Semitism in some ways (it isn't, and I'm not making that claim, I'm just drawing an analogy).


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Yet the terms employed by the, if you will permit me,_ politically correct_ are so utterly devoid of bias......


Well, they certainly are if _*I*_ use them, of course ......


----------



## Chouan

FLCracka said:


> Exactly. By referring to a group of people as "the politically incorrect", you are outing yourself as one of the PC nutjobs.


So you think that I'm a "PC nutjob"? Really?


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Shaver,
> 
> I was referring to the phenomenon by which what I describe as cranky right wingers in this country obsess over political correctness and rant about it as some great evil that's undermining America. I share your views on political correctness, but what I'm talking about is a strikingly disproportionate preoccupation. As the discourse goes, it is either a direct cause or a symptom of the unravelling all that makes us strong. There's a next step: it's the work of certain agents, certain media, certain people. From their the discourse can progress to all sorts of weirdness, conspiracy theories that often resembles anti-Semitism in some ways (it isn't, and I'm not making that claim, I'm just drawing an analogy).


Which was exactly my point. By ironically using the expression "politically incorrect" I have drawn on my the wrath of those who obsess over the "PC brigade", without their realising that my use of the expression was deliberately provocative. Interesting responses ensued!


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Shaver,
> 
> I was referring to the phenomenon by which what I describe as cranky right wingers in this country obsess over political correctness and rant about it as some great evil that's undermining America. I share your views on political correctness, but what I'm talking about is a strikingly disproportionate preoccupation. As the discourse goes, it is either a direct cause or a symptom of the unravelling all that makes us strong. There's a next step: it's the work of certain agents, certain media, certain people. From their the discourse can progress to all sorts of weirdness, conspiracy theories that often resembles anti-Semitism in some ways (it isn't, and I'm not making that claim, I'm just drawing an analogy).


The journalist, Jon Ronson (a Jew) set out to investigate and discredit the major 'conspiracy theories' several years back. His findings were published in the book 'Them: Adventures with Extremists' and broadcast on T.V. as 'Secret Rulers of the World'. I believe that you would be interested in the somewhat disturbing evidence he uncovered, and which would seem to support the position of the cranks.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> The journalist, Jon Ronson (a Jew) set out to investigate and discredit the major 'conspiracy theories' several years back. His findings were published in the book 'Them: Adventures with Extremists' and broadcast on T.V. as 'Secret Rulers of the World'. I believe that you would be interested in the somewhat disturbing evidence he uncovered, and which would seem to support the position of the cranks.


Cranks often have a point, 'tis true.

My point, I guess, is that when I hear my Trump supporting, right-wing radio talk show listening, NRA membership card holding relatives tell me why they don't like political correctness, I agree with them. When they describe it as a great evil, and they go back to it again and again, I think, ok, guys, a little perspective here.

But to go back to my previous point, they are afraid, very afraid, and confused by the modern world. Or the post-modern, I guess I should say. They perceive lots of threats all around them. (Sometimes literally: my uncle had motion detectors installed in their home once because he claimed that "_they_ come through the walls," meaning door and window alarms were insufficient. Never could get a read on who "they" were, although I once heard him rail about Puerto Rican immigrants until I explained to him that Puerto Ricans cannot be immigrants. Migrants, maybe. (Oh, and then he launched into a 30 minute rant about Clinton pardoning some Puerto Rican pro-independence militants or something like that...I guess Puerto Rico was the theme of whatever the hell he was listening to on the radio that day). Neither of my two beloved Trump supporting relatives can find Puerto Rico on a map, by the way, or tell me about its history. Or find Russia, for that matter, or explain Syria other than to know with 100% certainty that it's all Obama's fault. That, my friends, is the "Republican base."


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> The journalist, Jon Ronson (a Jew) set out to investigate and discredit the major 'conspiracy theories' several years back. His findings were published in the book 'Them: Adventures with Extremists' and broadcast on T.V. as 'Secret Rulers of the World'. I believe that you would be interested in the somewhat disturbing evidence he uncovered, and which would seem to support the position of the cranks.


The name Jon Ronson makes me think of another great Jew, Ron Jeremy. And by the way, doesn't it sound like a made up name? Or a euphemism? "I won't have you sticking your Jon Ronson in my business!" Lol. "And that's when he flashed his Jon Ronson at me and I knew it was time to leave..."


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> Cranks often have a point, 'tis true.
> 
> My point, I guess, is that when I hear my Trump supporting, right-wing radio talk show listening, NRA membership card holding relatives tell me why they don't like political correctness, I agree with them. When they describe it as a great evil, and they go back to it again and again, I think, ok, guys, a little perspective here.
> 
> But to go back to my previous point, they are afraid, very afraid, and confused by the modern world. Or the post-modern, I guess I should say. They perceive lots of threats all around them. (Sometimes literally: my uncle had motion detectors installed in their home once because he claimed that "_they_ come through the walls," meaning door and window alarms were insufficient. Never could get a read on who "they" were, although I once heard him rail about Puerto Rican immigrants until I explained to him that Puerto Ricans cannot be immigrants. Migrants, maybe. (Oh, and then he launched into a 30 minute rant about Clinton pardoning some Puerto Rican pro-independence militants or something like that...I guess Puerto Rico was the theme of whatever the hell he was listening to on the radio that day). Neither of my two beloved Trump supporting relatives can find Puerto Rico on a map, by the way, or tell me about its history. Or find Russia, for that matter, or explain Syria other than to know with 100% certainty that it's all Obama's fault. That, my friends, is the "Republican base."


Just remember, Guam may tip over and capsize.


----------



## Balfour

I was amused by your post but equally stupid caricatures could be made of the Dem base.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Cranks often have a point, 'tis true.
> 
> My point, I guess, is that when I hear my Trump supporting, right-wing radio talk show listening, NRA membership card holding relatives tell me why they don't like political correctness, I agree with them. When they describe it as a great evil, and they go back to it again and again, I think, ok, guys, a little perspective here.
> 
> But to go back to my previous point, they are afraid, very afraid, and confused by the modern world. Or the post-modern, I guess I should say. They perceive lots of threats all around them. (Sometimes literally: my uncle had motion detectors installed in their home once because he claimed that "_they_ come through the walls," meaning door and window alarms were insufficient. Never could get a read on who "they" were, although I once heard him rail about Puerto Rican immigrants until I explained to him that Puerto Ricans cannot be immigrants. Migrants, maybe. (Oh, and then he launched into a 30 minute rant about Clinton pardoning some Puerto Rican pro-independence militants or something like that...I guess Puerto Rico was the theme of whatever the hell he was listening to on the radio that day). Neither of my two beloved Trump supporting relatives can find Puerto Rico on a map, by the way, or tell me about its history. Or find Russia, for that matter, or explain Syria other than to know with 100% certainty that it's all Obama's fault. That, my friends, is the "Republican base."


For every conceivable view there will doubtless be a nutter who subscribes to it. That a nutter believes something does not make it untrue.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> The name Jon Ronson makes me think of another great Jew, Ron Jeremy. And by the way, doesn't it sound like a made up name? Or a euphemism? "I won't have you sticking your Jon Ronson in my business!" Lol. "And that's when he flashed his Jon Ronson at me and I knew it was time to leave..."


In England the male member is occasionally referred to as a John Thomas. Joking aside, I urge you to read the book. I suspect that you would enjoy it, in and of itself, but that it may also intrigue you, if not inspire you.

If the U.S. government had not admitted to MK Ultra then any person promoting the information would be considered a laughable crank.


----------



## Elmer Zilch

While I agree that the censoring impulse on free speech coming from the (young) essentialist left is lamentable, usually when American right-wingers complain about "political correctness" they just mean that they miss the days when they could compliment their secretary's breasts or call a black man "boy" without repercussions. White male Christians are under siege, didn't you know?


----------



## Balfour

Elmer Zilch said:


> While I agree that the censoring impulse on free speech coming from the (young) essentialist left is lamentable, usually when American right-wingers complain about "political correctness" they just mean that they miss the days when they could compliment their secretary's breasts or call a black man "boy" without repercussions. White male Christians are under siege, didn't you know?


Massive overgeneralisation.


----------



## Shaver

Elmer Zilch said:


> While I agree that the censoring impulse on free speech coming from the (young) essentialist left is lamentable, usually when American right-wingers complain about "political correctness" they just mean that they miss the days when they could compliment their secretary's breasts or call a black man "boy" without repercussions. White male Christians are under siege, didn't you know?


Wait. What? Complimenting one's secretary's breasts is verboten now? Where will it ever end?


----------



## Tempest

Count me with the reactionary good old boys, as I refuse to call a man in a skirt a woman, or violent criminals shot in self-defense innocent victims of racist cops. This is all newspeak, lies.

White male Christians ARE under siege. In Europe, it's kind of worse for the women right now, but I assure you that white men are getting beaten too. BTW, people that suffered through the Superbowl had to endure a black racist propaganda fest.

Anyway, if none of this were happening, Trump would be somewhat less popular.



Shaver said:


> Wait. What? Complimenting one's secretary's breasts is verboten now? Where will it ever end?


Looking at a woman is a sexist microaggression. Bow your head and avert your eyes. Tell them of their superiority but absolutely do not compliment them on their appearance. Unless they are unattractive, at which point it would be lookist not to call them beautiful.


----------



## Shaver

I found the superbowl entertainment faintly alarming. But hey! White Lives Don't Matter.


----------



## Elmer Zilch

Really? You guys thought the Super Bowl halftime show was "racist" and "alarming"? Would you even have known what Beyonce was about if someone on your newsfeed hadn't freaked out about it? Jeezus...

The halftime show was hugely entertaining...at least the Beyonce and Bruno Mars portion of it. Too bad those Coldplay dinks had to spoil the fun. (But not as much as Von Miller spoiled Cam Newton's fun, amirite, fellas?!)


----------



## Shaver

Elmer Zilch said:


> Really? You guys thought the Super Bowl halftime show was "racist" and "alarming"? Would you even have known what Beyonce was about if someone on your newsfeed hadn't freaked out about it? Jeezus...
> 
> The halftime show was hugely entertaining...at least the Beyonce and Bruno Mars portion of it. Too bad those Coldplay dinks had to spoil the fun. (But not as much as Von Miller spoiled Cam Newton's fun, amirite, fellas?!)


Heh. What is Beyonce about?

I'll grant you, however, that Coldplay deserve a lingering and agonising death.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> I found the superbowl entertainment faintly alarming. But hey! White Lives Don't Matter.


The super bowl halftime show is a completely useless cultural institution.

No one watches it save those who were stupid enough to pay thousands of dollars to attend the game itself.

It is hurried, soulless and a wholly insincere performance done exclusively for the money.


----------



## Elmer Zilch

SG_67 said:


> The super bowl halftime show is a completely useless cultural institution.
> 
> No one watches it save those who were stupid enough to pay thousands of dollars to attend the game itself.
> 
> It is hurried, soulless and a wholly insincere performance done exclusively for the money.


Yeah, I miss the days when entertainers were sincere and performed only for the love of it. Bring back Up With People for the halftime show!


----------



## Elmer Zilch

Shaver said:


> Heh. What is Beyonce about?
> 
> I'll grant you, however, that Coldplay deserve a lingering and agonising death.


Vague and not-so-vague allusions to empowerment and the Black Panthers, as well as the marching bands and step culture of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I got it and so what? Still, "Formation" is the first Beyonce tune I've liked in a long time.

Really, the important question is: Why were Bruno Mars and his crew referencing 80's Run-D.M.C. with their outfits, down to the old-school Nikes and dude in a bucket hat, while performing "Uptown Funk," a throwback 80's Minneapolis Style groove tune, just without Morris Day and his Stacy Adams?


----------



## SG_67

Who's Bruno Mars? Seriously....I'm not being a wise ass. 

And is Beyoncé the one with the fat arse? 
(Ok...now I'm being a wise ass)


----------



## Elmer Zilch

SG_67 said:


> Who's Bruno Mars? Seriously....I'm not being a wise ass.
> 
> And is Beyoncé the one with the fat arse?
> (Ok...now I'm being a wise ass)


Bruno Mars: good Terence Trent D'Arby voice in the service of middle-of-the-road, not terribly interesting pop soul. The exception is "Uptown Funk," which has been EVERYWHERE for the last couple of years, but like I said, it's a pure Prince/Time 80's throwback. Mars himself, though, is a born entertainer and a great dancer. Sixty years ago he'd have been headlining at the Mocambo and teaching Steve Allen how to do the Hucklebuck.


----------



## Shaver

Elmer Zilch said:


> Bruno Mars: good Terence Trent D'Arby voice in the service of middle-of-the-road, not terribly interesting pop soul. The exception is "Uptown Funk," which has been EVERYWHERE for the last couple of years, but like I said, it's a pure Prince/Time 80's throwback. Mars himself, though, is a born entertainer and a great dancer. Sixty years ago he'd have been headlining at the Mocambo and teaching Steve Allen how to do the Hucklebuck.


Gotta kiss myself, I'm so pretty.


----------



## Gurdon

These last posts make me glad I lead a sheltered life. Except for a few names, and a couple of very general references (eg., football, half-time, Steve Allen) I have hardly a clue to the content of the above posts.

I did underside what might be termed the cultural war posts, but withheld comment as I could not add productively to the exchange, nor moderate it, should it become necessary to do so.

Nonetheless, most informative.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver

^ Moderation? Why Gurdon, my friend, whatever would possess you to suggest such a thing?


----------



## FLMike

Elmer Zilch said:


> While I agree that the censoring impulse on free speech coming from the (young) essentialist left is lamentable, usually when American right-wingers complain about "political correctness" they just mean that they miss the days when they could compliment their secretary's breasts or call a black man "boy" without repercussions. *White male Christians* are under siege, didn't you know?


Correction.....Straight white male Christians.....


----------



## FLMike

"Hey Beyonce, sorry I had a football game in the middle of your Black Panther Party". (Said in the voice of Forrest Gump)


----------



## Balfour

FLCracka said:


> "Hey Beyonce, sorry I had a football game in the middle of your Black Panther Party". (Said in the voice of Forrest Gump)




[text added to post]


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> The super bowl halftime show is a completely useless cultural institution.
> 
> No one watches it save those who were stupid enough to pay thousands of dollars to attend the game itself.
> 
> It is hurried, soulless and a wholly insincere performance done exclusively for the money.


I disagree. "Useless" implies benign. I could live with benign.


----------



## Chouan

Superbowl? It was reported on the BBC, for reasons that I couldn't fathom beyond the entertainment media's obsession with things American. Remind me, is the superbowl where they play rounders, or rugby with odd rules and armour? On the other hand, don't bother.....


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Superbowl? It was reported on the BBC, for reasons that I couldn't fathom beyond the entertainment media's obsession with things American. Remind me, is the superbowl where they play rounders, or rugby with odd rules and armour? On the other hand, don't bother.....


I feel the same way, although I did attend a Super Bowl party--albeit for the food. The host is an accomplished chef. Didn't watch a second of the game and could not care less.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

Many years ago, I loved (American) football, both college and professional. Now, I can't stand it! The various rules changes, commercialism, lack of imagination and action, plethora of penalties, and the incessant catering to the television audience has made this "sport" a contrivance that is more "bread and circuses" for the American masses than an athletic event.

Baseball and a little New York Rangers hockey are the only sports I care anything about anymore...


----------



## eagle2250

Where-oh-where did the thread about Donald Trump and the Republicans go? It seems to have fallen completely off this radar screen. Could we make an effort to get back to it? In that spirit and paraphrasing the iconic Sergeant Folley in that old movie classic, "An Officer and A Gentleman," "where has Donald Trump been all his life, Sweet Peas(?)...attending orgies and badmouthing Jeb Bush and his family, I'll bet!" :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver

*Donald Trump Is America's Most Gifted Political Satirist*










https://newrepublic.com/article/122047/donald-trump-americas-most-gifted-political-satirist


----------



## Elmer Zilch

Donald Trump has been an object of ridicule by reasonable people for most of my adult life. In the 1980's, the late, lamented Spy magazine attached epithets to the cast of mainly New York-centric characters it wrote about. Their epithet for Trump was "short-fingered vulgarian." Thus, whenever he was introduced in an article, it was always as "short-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump." Now, I see him on the news, and all I hear in my head is "GOP candidate short-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump."

But it's starting to seem less and less funny and more like a bad dream...


----------



## SG_67

^ I've said it before in this thread and I will continue to state it; Donald Trump WILL NOT be the nominee. I will eat my words otherwise. 

There are too many other options right now. Once the field gets narrowed a bit more and the conversation more focused, the electorate will coalesce around an establishment candidate.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I feel the same way, although I did attend a Super Bowl party--albeit for the food. The host is an accomplished chef. Didn't watch a second of the game and could not care less.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good for you! I hope that the food was as good as you hoped!
Actually the irritating thing, to me, is that our news media reports anything American, just about, but rarely anything about Europe. For example, Ireland is in the middle of their elections at the moment and I have yet to hear a news report on any form of British news media.


----------



## Balfour

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've said it before in this thread and I will continue to state it; Donald Trump WILL NOT be the nominee. I will eat my words otherwise.
> 
> There are too many other options right now. Once the field gets narrowed a bit more and the conversation more focused, the electorate will coalesce around an establishment candidate.


From your lips to God's ears.

Bush > Clinton > Trump > Sanders


----------



## SG_67

Balfour said:


> From your lips to God's ears.
> 
> Bush > Clinton > Trump > Sanders


I would reverse the Clinton>Trump in the equation.

Trump is a blow hard, a boor and cranky individual, but the Clinton's are pathological liars and corrupt. I've had enough of them and so has most of the country.


----------



## Balfour

SG_67 said:


> I would reverse the Clinton>Trump in the equation.
> 
> Trump is a blow hard, a boor and cranky individual, but the Clinton's are pathological liars and corrupt. I've had enough of them and so has most of the country.


I sympathise with the call: It's a tough one.


----------



## Tempest

Sanders would be much safer in office than Killary, merely because he is ineffective and unconnected. Also, he's not yapping about starting more wars, especially one as boneheaded as the Hillrod idea of fighting Russia.
I guess the benefit seen to HRC is that she is so close to mainstream (cuckservative) corporate (not capitalist) Republicanism. 
Trump vs. Sanders 2016, down with the elitist shills and America-seconders.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Cranks often have a point, 'tis true.
> 
> My point, I guess, is that when I hear my Trump supporting, right-wing radio talk show listening, NRA membership card holding relatives tell me why they don't like political correctness, I agree with them. When they describe it as a great evil, and they go back to it again and again, I think, ok, guys, a little perspective here.
> 
> But to go back to my previous point, they are afraid, very afraid, and confused by the modern world. Or the post-modern, I guess I should say. They perceive lots of threats all around them. (Sometimes literally: my uncle had motion detectors installed in their home once because he claimed that "_they_ come through the walls," meaning door and window alarms were insufficient. Never could get a read on who "they" were, although I once heard him rail about Puerto Rican immigrants until I explained to him that Puerto Ricans cannot be immigrants. Migrants, maybe. (Oh, and then he launched into a 30 minute rant about Clinton pardoning some Puerto Rican pro-independence militants or something like that...I guess Puerto Rico was the theme of whatever the hell he was listening to on the radio that day). Neither of my two beloved Trump supporting relatives can find Puerto Rico on a map, by the way, or tell me about its history. Or find Russia, for that matter, or explain Syria other than to know with 100% certainty that it's all Obama's fault. That, my friends, is the "Republican base."


That made me laugh out loud. There are people like that in the UK, who are usually supporters of UKIP.


----------



## Gurdon

Chouan said:


> That made me laugh out loud. There are people like that in the UK, who are usually supporters of UKIP.


I googled UKIP and came up. <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0142QXRQQ?tag=viglink20530-20> It doesn't explain what UKIP is, but I suspect people who know might find this amusing.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Balfour

Gurdon said:


> I googled UKIP and came up. <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0142QXRQQ?tag=viglink20530-20> It doesn't explain what UKIP is, but I suspect people who know might find this amusing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gurdon


UKIP are rather like the Tea Party x Walter Mitty; they obsess over the UK's relationship with Europe and would like to see the UK withdraw from the European Union.

Cheap shots at the right are easily taken (I appreciate not by you); as I said upthread, parody of the nonsensical politically correct liberal or the humourless leftish commissar provide compelling targets.


----------



## Chouan

Gurdon said:


> I googled UKIP and came up. <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0142QXRQQ?tag=viglink20530-20> It doesn't explain what UKIP is, but I suspect people who know might find this amusing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gurdon


I couldn't open it I'm afraid.













These are, obviously (or not so obviously) satirical, but they do capture the essence of the 'Kipper.


----------



## Langham

Gurdon said:


> I googled UKIP and came up. <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0142QXRQQ?tag=viglink20530-20> It doesn't explain what UKIP is, but I suspect people who know might find this amusing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gurdon


Views on supporters of UKIP may vary, but the party itself is one of several campaigning for the UK to withdraw from the European Union in the upcoming referendum. The government is somewhat divided on the issue.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Count me with the reactionary good old boys,


Really?



Tempest said:


> as I refuse to call a man in a skirt a woman,


I applaud your principles! Sometimes a thing can be _*so*_ bad that one just *has* to make a stand. I mean, what is the world coming to if one is being forced to call a man in a skirt a woman. Something should be done!



Tempest said:


> or violent criminals shot in self-defense innocent victims of racist cops.


Unless they are innocent victims of racist cops. After all, racists cops have been found to have falsified evidence. Obviously, not all black people killed by police in the US are innocent victims, but neither are they all armed and dangerous.



Tempest said:


> This is all newspeak, lies.


Indeed. Or distortions.



Tempest said:


> White male Christians ARE under siege.


Are they? How dreadful for you all. Is the US really as bad as that? I suppose that I, as a white Christian male, ought to feel grateful that I live in the UK rather than the US, as I don't feel under siege at all. Not in any sense.



Tempest said:


> In Europe, it's kind of worse for the women right now, but I assure you that white men are getting beaten too.


Are they? I hadn't noticed. In fact, I haven't noticed any kind of oppression of white Christian men, still less being under siege, or being beaten.



Tempest said:


> BTW, people that suffered through the Superbowl had to endure a black racist propaganda fest.


Actually, given all the comments I thought that I'd better watch the show, just to see it for myself. It was crap, but I couldn't see anything racist. Of course if it is a necessary corollary to saying "Black lives matter" is understood to mean that white lives don't matter, I could see that as being racist. But it isn't, so it isn't.



Tempest said:


> Anyway, if none of this were happening, Trump would be somewhat less popular.


No, there's always enough people who are full of hate and fear to give any populist demagogue support. All they need to do is tell them what they want to hear, encourage their fear and encourage their hate. It's been done before.



Tempest said:


> Looking at a woman is a sexist microaggression.


Is it? Really? Is that really the view in the US? Or is it just the view in the part of the US in which you live?



Tempest said:


> Bow your head and avert your eyes.


What, no sly glances at cleavages or anything else? God, what a desperate place the US must be!



Tempest said:


> Tell them of their superiority but absolutely do not compliment them on their appearance. Unless they are unattractive, at which point it would be lookist not to call them beautiful.


God! If the US is so dreadful why do you still live there!?


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> I couldn't open it I'm afraid.
> View attachment 15791
> View attachment 15792
> 
> These are, obviously (or not so obviously) satirical, but they do capture the essence of the 'Kipper.


Can we have less of the offensive, patronising, unfunny propaganda? The essence of the "kipper"?
"The police will visit you"?
( By the way, the police will now visit you if your small island community being flooded with gimmigrants, and voice that opinion. https://www.breitbart.com/london/20...ost-promise-zero-tolerance-on-offence-online/ )

Over 4 million people voted for UKIP candidates in the last general election. Chouan smears them all as being "thick". 
If the election was being held again this year that number would more than double.
It's the only UK political party with any integrity, and is only being held down at the moment due to the power of the far-left BBC, (which receives millions in EU funding every year) and the rest of the media, who try to keep it news of it from the public. That is when they are not smearing it.



Langham said:


> Views on supporters of UKIP may vary, but the party itself is one of several campaigning for the UK to withdraw from the European Union in the upcoming referendum. The government is somewhat divided on the issue.


Somewhat divided on the issue, is an understatement. We'll have to se if any of them have the views of their constituents at heart, or will they, like my local MP, just do whatever the slippery Cameron demands.

The government is currently engaged in an increasingly desperate charade, and public opinion has well and truly bolted in the opposite direction. Both of the large UK parties are embedded in the EU too far to ever want change. The Tories just want to be part of the club, while an increasingly delusional Labour would favour destruction of the British state and endless third world immigration. There is little to choose between them except in terms of style.

And now, back to Donald Trump, who I had always regarded as a loud-mouthed boor, but that's exactly what's needed to reverse the stupidity of the Obama era. The alternative, Hillary Clinton, is just plain evil.

By the way, I saw this morning that Jeb Bush forgot to renew his domain name, and Trump bought it. So now if you go to JebBush.com it redirects to Trump's website.


----------



## Chouan

Odradek said:


> Can we have less of the offensive, patronising, unfunny propaganda? The essence of the "kipper"?
> "The police will visit you"?
> ( By the way, the police will now visit you if your small island community being flooded with gimmigrants, and voice that opinion. https://www.breitbart.com/london/20...ost-promise-zero-tolerance-on-offence-online/ )
> 
> Over 4 million people voted for UKIP candidates in the last general election. Chouan smears them all as being "thick".
> If the election was being held again this year that number would more than double.
> It's the only UK political party with any integrity, and is only being held down at the moment due to the power of the far-left BBC, (which receives millions in EU funding every year) and the rest of the media, who try to keep it news of it from the public. That is when they are not smearing it.


It's only "offensive, patronising, unfunny propaganda" if it is ridiculing a view that one supports! The fact that you believe the BBC to be "far left" rather undermines your view. I would suggest that if you believe the BBC to be "far left" you have no idea of what "far left" means! Just to clarify, there is no "far left" mainstream news media in the UK. The news media that is often described as "far left", like the Guardian, is what would have been described 15 years ago as "centre right".
As far as 'Kippers being "thick" (not my words) is concerned, most of them have no idea of what UKIP's policies are beyond those satirised!
Here's some more to enjoy.....















Which is the satire?


----------



## Chouan

I rather liked these .


----------



## Chouan

Just to help thje members to understand UKIP, here are some interesting articles, 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po....-No-blacks.-No-Irish-is-now-Ukip-policy.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/23/ukip-is-officially-the-most-racist-party_n_6733996.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/19/what-does-ukip-have-to-do_n_5350757.html


----------



## Shaver

Manchester city centre is awash with Romanian shoplifting gangs. On the odd occasion I venture into town I am guaranteed to see several groups of Romanian females with (empty of children but full of loot) prams being carted off by the rozzers.

Here is a freedom of information disclosure from the Met, you will note a remarkable spike in criminal activity attributable to just one nationality. Can you guess which?

To be fair, though, the statistics would seem to suggest that Nigerians are marginally keener on rape than the Romanians.

.
.
.

.


----------



## Chillburgher

32rollandrock said:


> I absolutely, positively guarantee that Trump won't be a candidate (except, perhaps, in his own mind) come the convention. No way, no how. If Trump gets more than 1 percent of the delegate vote at the Republican convention, I will wear nothing but Donald Trump ties and Donald Trump shirts for the rest of my life and beyond--I will be cremated in Trump-wear. You have my word on it.


Not looking good.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> Not looking good.


Maybe that's why 32RR hasn't posted in a while! He's busy scooping up what's left of the Donald's ties and shirts.


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> Maybe that's why 32RR hasn't posted in a while! He's busy scooping up what's left of the Donald's ties and shirts.


Indeed.

Is there any chance he could also be Jeb Bush's website manager? If one visits https://www.jebbush.com, it's clear that that person has gone missing as well.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Manchester city centre is awash with Romanian shoplifting gangs. On the odd occasion I venture into town I am guaranteed to see several groups of Romanian females with (empty of children but full of loot) prams being carted off by the rozzers.
> 
> Here is a freedom of information disclosure from the Met, you will note a remarkable spike in criminal activity attributable to just one nationality. Can you guess which?
> 
> To be fair, though, the statistics would seem to suggest that Nigerians are marginally keener on rape than the Romanians.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> .


Are we talking about Romanians or Roma?


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Are we talking about Romanians or Roma?


Indeed. Most Brits ( and French and Spaniards) don't realise that there's a difference. After all, they're all the same, aren't they.....


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Indeed. Most Brits ( and French and Spaniards) don't realise that there's a difference. After all, they're all the same, aren't they.....


Assuredly, I am aware of the difference.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Are we talking about Romanians or Roma?


Romanians (which may, or may not, include Romani).


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Assuredly, I am aware of the difference.


I'm sure that you dn the other hand, you're not really representative of "most Brits".


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> I'm sure that you dn the other hand, you're not really representative of "most Brits".


Sorry, I may have been slightly over sensitive there.


----------



## Chouan

Interesting articles on Farage here https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/poli...rage-stalked-by-bellend-killer-20160104104993 and here https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/poli...mpaign-is-just-photo-of-farage-20151013102855


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> God! If the US is so dreadful why do you still live there!?


Because President Trump will make America great again, duh.


----------



## Langham

^^ I couldn't be bothered to read those articles on Farage, but the anti-Farage, anti-UKIP pro-EU propaganda is all boorish and rather offensive. The issue of whether the UK would be better or worse off in or out of the EU superstate should be a matter of sober reflection. Unfortunately many of our more mediocre politicians realise they have a vested interest in being able to prolong their careers, post electoral defeat, in a Brussels sinecure.


----------



## SG_67

^ Politicians here are no different. God forbid they actually go out and work. Even after doing time for a crime they will once again seek office somewhere.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Because President Trump will make America great again, duh.


How interesting. By suppressing feminism, I suppose, and what other policies? Politicians, especially populist demagogues have often gained power on a promise of making their country great again. They have rarely had coherent policies to achieve that aim, however.
Apart from making Mexico build a frontier wall, at their expense, and banning Muslims from entering the US, just what are is policies that will make the US great again?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^^ I couldn't be bothered to read those articles on Farage, but the anti-Farage, anti-UKIP pro-EU propaganda is all boorish and rather offensive. The issue of whether the UK would be better or worse off in or out of the EU superstate should be a matter of sober reflection. Unfortunately many of our more mediocre politicians realise they have a vested interest in being able to prolong their careers, post electoral defeat, in a Brussels sinecure.


Yes, reading about Farage referring to Black people as "n****rs", and the diminutive "nig-nogs", must be tiresome. Perhaps it is boorish to not pretend that he said those things? Referring to his proven racism is offensive? That's an interesting viewpoint.


----------



## Tempest

LOLWUT? Mussolini did not make his country great? Hitler made his country so great that a bunch of lesser countries got scared and had to tag team the German juggernaut. 
Trump has no interest in starting wars for other countries. He will be a tough negotiator with China, instead of a bent-over appeaser. And don't act like stifling the incessant whining and bullying of the PC/SJW crowd won't drastically improve any nation. It would improve this thread.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Yes, reading about Farage referring to Black people as "n****rs", and the diminutive "nig-nogs", must be tiresome. Perhaps it is boorish to not pretend that he said those things? Referring to his proven racism is offensive? That's an interesting viewpoint.


Wait, are you referring to this obvious joke?
https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/05/08/nigel-farage-to-go-back-to-being-full-blown-racist/


> "*******!" Farage exclaimed shortly after hearing the election news. "There, I've said it. Damn that feels so good. Paki pricks! *****! Seriously, you have no idea how long I've been waiting to say those beautiful words again. Paddy bastards! *****! God, what I wouldn't give to punch a homeless or a gay person in the jaw right now!"


If so, you're doing nothing to dispel the notion that "progressives" are humorless killjoys. I'm a Mick and I chuckled at this.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Yes, reading about Farage referring to Black people as "n****rs", and the diminutive "nig-nogs", must be tiresome. Perhaps it is boorish to not pretend that he said those things? Referring to his proven racism is offensive? That's an interesting viewpoint.


No, but I have found it tiresome in the past to read some of the other wishy-washy articles you've put up, that's the main reason I won't read them. Left-wing scribblers are always making up stories, Chouan, I'm surprised you're so easily led and taken in by such tittle-tattle.

What I find particularly boorish and offensive is that humourless imbeciles think these personal attacks are a substitute for rational analysis of the issues at stake.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> No, but I have found it tiresome in the past to read some of the other wishy-washy articles you've put up, that's the main reason I won't read them. Left-wing scribblers are always making up stories, Chouan, I'm surprised you're so easily led and taken in by such tittle-tattle.
> 
> What I find particularly boorish and offensive is that humourless imbeciles think these personal attacks are a substitute for rational analysis of the issues at stake.


Unless, of course, the issue at stake is climate change. In which case personal attacks seem, for some, to be a wholly acceptable substitute for rational analysis.


----------



## Balfour

Langham said:


> No, but I have found it tiresome in the past *to read some of the other wishy-washy articles you've put up, that's the main reason I won't read them. Left-wing scribblers are always making up stories, Chouan, I'm surprised you're so easily led and taken in by such tittle-tattle.
> 
> What I find particularly boorish and offensive is that humourless imbeciles think these personal attacks are a substitute for rational analysis of the issues at stake.*


Quite.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Unless, of course, the issue at stake is climate change. In which case personal attacks seem, for some, to be a wholly acceptable substitute for rational analysis.


Shaver, I know you (and others) appeared to have some difficulty in accepting my views on climate change but, as far as I can recall, it was I myself who was under attack on that occasion. My further inquiries into the subject since then have not caused me to alter my views, but I happen to think that the issue of the UK's future relations with the EU, and the referendum for withdrawal, is of far greater consequence than climate change.


----------



## Shaver

^I should think that would depend on whether one is capable of a longer view. Not all men are so endowed.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> If so, you're doing nothing to dispel the notion that "progressives" are humorless killjoys. I'm a Mick and I chuckled at this.


You are? I thought that you are an American.


----------



## Gurdon

Langham said:


> Views on supporters of UKIP may vary, but the party itself is one of several campaigning for the UK to withdraw from the European Union in the upcoming referendum. The government is somewhat divided on the issue.


Thank you, 
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> What I find particularly boorish and offensive is that _*humourless*_ imbeciles think these personal attacks are a substitute for rational analysis of the issues at stake.


Elsewhere in this thread the Left are described as lacking a sense of humour. However, when people like Farage are lampooned and satirised you are offended! Perhaps your political views have an influence on what you find funny? Whilst I find the views of the Daily Mash on Farage are funny, I find that their articles about Corbyn are also funny.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Wait, are you referring to this obvious joke?
> https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/05/08/nigel-farage-to-go-back-to-being-full-blown-racist/


No. The reason why it is successful as a satire is because, like most successful satire, it is an accurate reflection of the reality. It is successful because it reflects and references the racist language that he has used in the past, as well as the racist language used by other prominent UKIP members. His use of racist language was reported back in the 1990's. An example here https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/13/race.world 
Of course, now that UKIP is more of a main stream Party, desiring wider appeal, more from xenophobes than open racists, people like Farage wish to distance themselves from the rather unsavoury characters, parties and groups that they used to associate with, such as the BNP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party) and the NF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(UK)). There are significant numbers of UKIP members, including those involved in local politics as well as the national party, who are former members of those parties. UKIP does also associate with some less than admirable European political parties. There are some interesting items in this article https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ukip-party-bigots-lets-look-evidence


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> No, but I have found it tiresome in the past to read some of the other *wishy-washy* articles you've put up, that's the main reason I won't read them.


Because you don't like the content because it clashes with your own views?



Langham said:


> Left-wing scribblers are always making up stories, .


Unlike those of the Right, who always only write the objective truth I suppose!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Because you don't like the content because it clashes with your own views?


To some extent that is the case, but it's not a matter of 'don't like' so much as 'don't have the time of day for'.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> To some extent that is the case, but it's not a matter of 'don't like' so much as 'don't have the time of day for'.


Of course, it is always easier to ignore the views of others if you don't agree with them, then you can pretend that they don't exist and that your own views are correct and unchallenged.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Of course, it is always easier to ignore the views of others if you don't agree with them, then you can pretend that they don't exist and that your own views are correct and unchallenged.


A rather warped and daft interpretation if I may say so - you will just have to accept that I have arrived at my own views on the basis of wide-ranging reading and experience. I am aware that there are differing opinions on many matters, but within my rights in asserting my own.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> A rather warped and daft interpretation if I may say so - you will just have to accept that I have arrived at my own views on the basis of wide-ranging reading and experience. I am aware that there are differing opinions on many matters, but within my rights in asserting my own.


Out of genuine interest - where do you stand on the EU, Mr Langham?

I suspect that withdrawing may well be a mistake.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> ^I should think that would depend on whether one is capable of a *longer* view. Not all men are so *endowed*.


Some men are longer and more endowed than others!....:biggrin: 
(Borrowed and paraphrased lovingly from "Braveheart")


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> A rather warped and daft interpretation if I may say so - you will just have to accept that I have arrived at my own views on the basis of wide-ranging reading and experience. I am aware that there are differing opinions on many matters, but within my rights in asserting my own.


Of course you are, we're all entitled to our views. However, to consciously ignore views that don't coincide with our own, whilst dismissing them as "wishy washy" or being "made up stories", or "tittle tattle", or describing inconvenient truths as being boorish or offensive, tends to create an impression that you mind is somewhat closed, that you have arrived at a view and that it is now fixed, whatever new evidence might suggest. At the same time you seem to be accepting of any view, even if provably wrong, that coincides with your own, no matter what the source might be. For example, your opinions of Farage and Corbyn appear to be unchangeable, even when verifiable evidence is presented to you. You appear to have decided that, whatever evidence there is, your already established views are the correct ones. This assessment may be wrong, of course, but it is based on your comments.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Out of genuine interest - where do you stand on the EU, Mr Langham?
> 
> I suspect that withdrawing may well be a mistake.


I want to leave - apart from the grotesque redistributive financing arrangements, there is too much interference in our sovereignty by people in Brussels and elsewhere who have no interest in the greater good of the British people. In fact the EU never seems to have operated in the British interest. Another issue is that the people in charge clearly have no grasp of how to run a currency union, despite their wish for 'an ever-closer union'.

Had I not been too young to vote, I would probably have voted to join what was then the EEC, or Common Market, which was presented to us then as a free trade area, but it seems to have grown into something quite different. The EU is barely democratic in many ways - this may be seen as less of a problem in those countries where democracy is a recent innovation.

If the UK left, that might be a mistake, but for the EU not us. Perhaps the French and Germans etc might attempt to punish us in some spiteful way, or perhaps it would trigger a total collapse of the EU - who knows? Fear of the unknown will always persuade those of a cautious disposition to opt for the status quo, which is what I suspect may happen.

I'm not an isolationist or little Englander, I just don't see the EU as serving a particularly useful function, and I think most European countries would do better to regain their sovereignty, perhaps within a revived EFTA which would promote free trade without any unnecessary political baggage.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Of course you are, we're all entitled to our views. However, to consciously ignore views that don't coincide with our own, whilst dismissing them as "wishy washy" or being "made up stories", or "tittle tattle", or describing inconvenient truths as being boorish or offensive, tends to create an impression that you mind is somewhat closed, that you have arrived at a view and that it is now fixed, whatever new evidence might suggest. At the same time you seem to be accepting of any view, even if provably wrong, that coincides with your own, no matter what the source might be. For example, your opinions of Farage and Corbyn appear to be unchangeable, even when verifiable evidence is presented to you. You appear to have decided that, whatever evidence there is, your already established views are the correct ones. This assessment may be wrong, of course, but it is based on your comments.


I've been quite generous of my views on Corbyn, but I don't believe I've ventured an opinion on Farage anywhere in these boards. I'm not even sure I have an opinion on Farage if it comes to that, so some of your comments about me are slightly mystifying.

Your 'verifiable evidence' is hardly anything of the sort, I think you've got a damned cheek lecturing me or anyone else in that tone.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I want to leave - apart from the grotesque redistributive financing arrangements, there is too much interference in our sovereignty by people in Brussels and elsewhere who have no interest in the greater good of the British people. In fact the EU never seems to have operated in the British interest. Another issue is that the people in charge clearly have no grasp of how to run a currency union, despite their wish for 'an ever-closer union'.
> 
> Had I not been too young to vote, *I would probably have voted to join what was then the EEC, or Common Market, which was presented to us then as a free trade area, but it seems to have grown into something quite different. *The EU is barely democratic in many ways - this may be seen as less of a problem in those countries where democracy is a recent innovation.
> 
> If the UK left, that might be a mistake, but for the EU not us. Perhaps the French and Germans etc might attempt to punish us in some spiteful way, or perhaps it would trigger a total collapse of the EU - who knows? Fear of the unknown will always persuade those of a cautious disposition to opt for the status quo, which is what I suspect may happen.
> 
> I'm not an isolationist or little Englander, I just don't see the EU as serving a particularly useful function, and I think most European countries would do better to regain their sovereignty, perhaps within a revived EFTA which would promote free trade without any unnecessary political baggage.


Indeed. The Common Market, as was, in the 1970's and the Single Europe Act of the 1980's were most laudable notions but the spirit seems absent now.

Certain countries (who shall remain nameless) should never have been permitted as members of the EEA.


----------



## Langham

*Shackled to a corpse*

Something nice(?) about the EU for a change:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...ocrites-trying-to-block-Camerons-EU-deal.html


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I've been quite generous of my views on Corbyn, but I don't believe I've ventured an opinion on Farage anywhere in these boards. I'm not even sure I have an opinion on Farage if it comes to that, so some of your comments about me are slightly mystifying.


Indeed? You have certainly expressed an opinion of those who criticise him " *I couldn't be bothered to read those articles on Farage, but the anti-Farage, anti-UKIP pro-EU propaganda is all boorish and rather offensive.*". Our views are expressed in many ways; one doesn't have to explicitly say "I support Farage" in order to show where your support lies.



Langham said:


> Your 'verifiable evidence' is hardly anything of the sort, I think you've got a damned cheek lecturing me or anyone else in that tone.


You don't take kindly to having your views or attitudes challenged, do you. It seems to be, where politics are concerned, that your view is something like "I'll say what I like to members and about their views, but don't you dare do the same to me!".


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> LOLWUT?


???



Tempest said:


> Mussolini did not make his country great?


If you think that bankrupting his country through over-extending his armed forces, oppressing his people and suppressing opposition, and engaging on unwinnable imperialist adventures that lead to defeat and economic ruin is making a country great, I suppose.



Tempest said:


> Hitler made his country so great that a bunch of lesser countries got scared and had to tag team the German juggernaut.


Great? A state whose economy was in a state of collapse, and which relied on wars of conquest to gain slaves and booty was "great"?



Tempest said:


> Trump has no interest in starting wars for other countries.


Doesn't he? You are privy to his plans for the future?



Tempest said:


> He will be a tough negotiator with China, instead of a bent-over appeaser.


Bent-over appeaser? Who? when?



Tempest said:


> And don't act like stifling the incessant whining and bullying of the PC/SJW crowd won't drastically improve any nation. It would improve this thread.


Stifling of free speech? I rather thought that you Americans (or are you Irish? You seem to be confused on that issue) were in favour of freedom and that kind of thing. Or is it just free speech for those that agree with you? You've already suggested a couple of countries that took the view that you seem to be advocating!


----------



## Tempest

Show me the Pre-WWII German economic "state of collapse" please. 








Can you tell us what nations future-President Trump has plans to attack? Because here is reality, he's a pacifist compared to anyone but Sanders. The rest of the nuts want to start 3-7 wars.
The bent-over appeasers pretend they are "fair trade" advocates. Why we're trading at all with a Communist country is beyond me, ask Pappy Bush and Clinton, that pushed for Most Favored Nation trading status. It certainly Trump will negotiate for the benefit of his country, not for the rich campaign donors that moved their factories overseas. Anyone else saying such things? That's yet another reason that Trump has the people behind him.

The way to stifle the PC/SJW is to ignore them and belittle them. They are free to bellyache all they wish, but it is time that the government stopped actually treating them like sane credible people. President Trump has already made great leeway in the American's ability to speak openly with truth instead of the pretend fables of the left.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed? You have certainly expressed an opinion of those who criticise him " *I couldn't be bothered to read those articles on Farage, but the anti-Farage, anti-UKIP pro-EU propaganda is all boorish and rather offensive.*". Our views are expressed in many ways; one doesn't have to explicitly say "I support Farage" in order to show where your support lies.


What utter twaddle - you do like colouring things in.

The fact that I object to badly written propaganda does not imply feelings one way or the other for whatever that propaganda is written about. Don't you see that?

I stated earlier that I have no opinion on Farage. Accept that at its face value. I am anti-EU, as I explained in an earlier reply to Shaver, but only a very simple-minded fellow, blind to the infinite variations in the world about us, would conclude from that that I must necessarily therefore be a supporter of Farage (or even UKIP), even though he and they are also anti-EU. In fact I find most politicians either mildly or very offensive.


----------



## tocqueville

This morning on NPR they interviewed some Trump supporters in South Carolina. Classic stuff. One said he liked Trump because Trump would make America great again. How? By closing the border and by restoring our military.

Implied are several claims.

1. America isn't great any more.
2. One reason why it isn't great is because of immigration. Thus closing it will make America great again. Or at least greater.
3. The military needs restoration.
4. The military's need for restoration is a reason why America isn't great. Restoring it would make America great.

We can debate 1 all we want, although frankly I think America's pretty fantastic, thank you very much, and I'm struck by how Trump (and Sanders) supporters are so gloom and doom about it all. This is that fear I was talking about before, an inchoate, visceral feeling that things are going poorly.

As for the immigrant thing, again, fear + racism. Of course, this was a voter in South Carolina...let's not beat around the bush.

What's interesting, though, is the tie between immigrants and America's not being great again. I get dislike for immigrants. I get xeonphobia. I even get racism. I, too, get annoyed when I struggle to make myself understood speaking English in my own country (you'd be surprised how often my South American wife has had to intervene in Spanish at a store or a restaurant when I've been unable to resolve a misunderstanding). What's interesting here is the idea that somehow immigrants are to blame for America's alleged decline, which is really what the Trump voter is saying. Really? There's no rational, fact based way to make that argument, is there? I don't think so. We can blame immigrants for, say, a rise in street crime. Growing teen pregnancy rates. Fill in your preferred social ill here. But America's decline? 

And then we can talk about the military needing restoration. Restoration compared to what? That voter probably has no answer, since he's trafficking in impressions and myths rather than facts. The US military is pretty flush these days and only looks impoverished when compared to the boom days of 2001-2008. By every measure that counts the US military remains absolutely preeminent. Moreover, where's the evidence that "decline" is associated with the decline of America's "greatness." What the heck does that even mean, anyway? And, is it rational to think that blowing even more money on defense will make us "great" again?

Anyway, what we see is fear compounded by ignorance, leavened with at least a teaspoon of good old school racism. Behold the Trump supporter.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> This morning on NPR they interviewed some Trump supporters in South Carolina. Classic stuff. One said he liked Trump because Trump would make America great again. How? By closing the border and by restoring our military.
> 
> Implied are several claims.
> 
> 1. America isn't great any more.
> 2. One reason why it isn't great is because of immigration. Thus closing it will make America great again. Or at least greater.
> 3. The military needs restoration.
> 4. The military's need for restoration is a reason why America isn't great. Restoring it would make America great.
> 
> We can debate 1 all we want, although frankly I think America's pretty fantastic, thank you very much, and I'm struck by how Trump (and Sanders) supporters are so gloom and doom about it all. This is that fear I was talking about before, an inchoate, visceral feeling that things are going poorly.
> 
> As for the immigrant thing, again, fear + racism. Of course, this was a voter in South Carolina...let's not beat around the bush.
> 
> What's interesting, though, is the tie between immigrants and America's not being great again. I get dislike for immigrants. I get xeonphobia. I even get racism. I, too, get annoyed when I struggle to make myself understood speaking English in my own country (you'd be surprised how often my South American wife has had to intervene in Spanish at a store or a restaurant when I've been unable to resolve a misunderstanding). What's interesting here is the idea that somehow immigrants are to blame for America's alleged decline, which is really what the Trump voter is saying. Really? There's no rational, fact based way to make that argument, is there? I don't think so. We can blame immigrants for, say, a rise in street crime. Growing teen pregnancy rates. Fill in your preferred social ill here. But America's decline?
> 
> And then we can talk about the military needing restoration. Restoration compared to what? That voter probably has no answer, since he's trafficking in impressions and myths rather than facts. The US military is pretty flush these days and only looks impoverished when compared to the boom days of 2001-2008. By every measure that counts the US military remains absolutely preeminent. Moreover, where's the evidence that "decline" is associated with the decline of America's "greatness." What the heck does that even mean, anyway? And, is it rational to think that blowing even more money on defense will make us "great" again?
> 
> Anyway, what we see is fear compounded by ignorance, leavened with at least a teaspoon of good old school racism. Behold the Trump supporter.


There is much in what you say. But I repeat my point about the ease of satirising pols by the ignorance and prejudices of their supporters. Trump seems a genuine exception to this (i.e. just as bad as his ignorant and intolerant supporters). But the wider phenomenon is not limited to the rightwing.

You may appreciate this (you posted in another thread, but this is the 'ultimate' edition ('sushi': 1.19; 'democrats and republicans': 1.39).


----------



## Balfour

Of course idiocy is not limited to political supporters ...






Of course, poor W only needs to make a misunderestimate gaffe to be ridiculed, but Obama gets a pass.


----------



## tocqueville

I'm more than willing to forgive gaffs. I'm actually less tolerant of Biden's propensity to drop the "F" bomb, which I've heard in person. That's just not dignified. But Obama's no idiot. Nor, frankly, is W. I have plenty of issues with W., but I won't call him an idiot.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> I'm more than willing to forgive gaffs. I'm actually less tolerant of Biden's propensity to drop the "F" bomb, which I've heard in person. That's just not dignified.
> 
> W. has plenty of substantial things to be ridiculed about.


According to the secret service guy (Emmett?), HRC was intolerable to staff and Bush was a gentleman.

Obama has plenty to be ridiculed about substantively. My point was more that any politician will have wingnut, loony tune supporters and that's not a reliable yardstick.


----------



## Tempest

W is the Ozzy Osbourne that _allegedly_ cleaned up before his brain was completely fried.

It's no surprise that someone inside the DC bubble thinks America is A-OK. And compared to other devastated nations, we're okay. But what fool doesn't see how far we've fallen?

Anyone that thinks they are from the right and doesn't understand why Trump is beloved by the good American people needs to get their heads out of National Review and look at Tucker Carlson's article entitled Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right. 



> If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.
> 
> When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.


And as a proud member of the alt-right, I will let you know that we just don't care if you call us racist. It doesn't phase us. That ploy has been overused so much that it just doesn't work anymore. There are more important things for jobless people facing a "refugee" invasion and some additional wars than being labeled by the chattering classes.


----------



## SG_67

^ Perception is reality.

America is in decline because American has pulled away from it's traditional, post WWII / cold war obligations. We've abdicated the middle east and now the Russians have moved in. 

We've let the Chinese build bases on Islands and threaten water ways. We've let the North Koreans fire off missiles and hack into our corporations without any punishment. 

We've let the Chinese and Russians hack our secrets without any (at least visible and public) display of payback. 

We've let the Iranians take hold of one of our Naval vessels, hold the sailors at gun point and embarrassed them.

We've left the Saudi's and other Arabs on their own against the Iranians.

We've allowed a friendly government in Egypt to fall and were complicit at least rhetorically. 

Though we may not appreciate it, the rest of the world still works according to very 19th Century, Bismarckian rules of power politics. 

Our current POTUS has not real understanding of that and in fact, doesn't really seem to be curious about history. 

To paraphrase Mr. Spock "he is highly intelligent, but inexperienced". Personally, I question the highly intelligent claim.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Show me the Pre-WWII German economic "state of collapse" please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us what nations future-President Trump has plans to attack? Because here is reality, he's a pacifist compared to anyone but Sanders. The rest of the nuts want to start 3-7 wars.
> The bent-over appeasers pretend they are "fair trade" advocates. Why we're trading at all with a Communist country is beyond me, ask Pappy Bush and Clinton, that pushed for Most Favored Nation trading status. It certainly Trump will negotiate for the benefit of his country, not for the rich campaign donors that moved their factories overseas. Anyone else saying such things? That's yet another reason that Trump has the people behind him.
> 
> The way to stifle the PC/SJW is to ignore them and belittle them. They are free to bellyache all they wish, but it is time that the government stopped actually treating them like sane credible people. President Trump has already made great leeway in the American's ability to speak openly with truth instead of the pretend fables of the left.


Straw man. The German economy was being boosted by unsustainable expenditure on armaments which relied on conquest to sustain it. Coal and steel, as well as automotive products from the Sudetenland, Polish coal and steel, then the slave labour that conquest engendered. The Italian economy was the same. The sanctions that were imposed post 1936 didn't help.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> The German economy was being boosted by unsustainable expenditure on armaments which relied on conquest to sustain it.


Unsustainably boosted and "in collapse" are totally different things. Innovation is the mother of economic growth, and it is indisputable that the Germans at that time were world leaders in technology. Speaking of which, please address the notion of America's greatness, as I think we'd agree that the US economy is currently thoroughly unsustainable. And only Trump and Sanders seem to be properly addressing this.

To get back on topic, a religious leader of a small walled-in nation that accepts no immigrants has talked smack about future-President Trump. Liberal hypocrisy, shocking!


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ Perception is reality.
> 
> America is in decline because American has pulled away from it's traditional, post WWII / cold war obligations. We've abdicated the middle east and now the Russians have moved in.
> 
> We've let the Chinese build bases on Islands and threaten water ways. We've let the North Koreans fire off missiles and hack into our corporations without any punishment.
> 
> We've let the Chinese and Russians hack our secrets without any (at least visible and public) display of payback.
> 
> We've let the Iranians take hold of one of our Naval vessels, hold the sailors at gun point and embarrassed them.
> 
> We've left the Saudi's and other Arabs on their own against the Iranians.
> 
> We've allowed a friendly government in Egypt to fall and were complicit at least rhetorically.
> 
> Though we may not appreciate it, the rest of the world still works according to very 19th Century, Bismarckian rules of power politics.
> 
> Our current POTUS has not real understanding of that and in fact, doesn't really seem to be curious about history.
> 
> To paraphrase Mr. Spock "he is highly intelligent, but inexperienced". Personally, I question the highly intelligent claim.


Indeed, these are perceptions. They frame your reality. They are not mine.


----------



## Tempest

I'm an isolationist. I'm more concerned about how we exported our manufacturing base, the source of skilled labor for the middle class, and how real wealth is created. Remember 20+ years ago when US-made everyday items could be bought at local stores? A great time, now lost I'd say.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Indeed, these are perceptions. They frame your reality. They are not mine.


You only need to look around the globe to see for whom else these behaviors frame a reality.

Though, admittedly, they are not yours.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I'm an isolationist. I'm more concerned about how we exported our manufacturing base, the source of skilled labor for the middle class, and how real wealth is created. Remember 20+ years ago when US-made everyday items could be bought at local stores? A great time, now lost I'd say.


Manufacturing of cheap goods is better left to underdeveloped economies. If our workforce were busy building toasters and microwaves we would hardly have the human capital necessary for innovation and truly high end, sophisticated manufacturing.


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> Manufacturing of cheap goods is better left to underdeveloped economies. If our workforce were busy building toasters and microwaves we would hardly have the human capital necessary for innovation and truly high end, sophisticated manufacturing.


Our workforce lacks capacity? How so?


----------



## SG_67

^ the common complaint from the high tech sector is we do not had effectively trained people to work in the high tech manufacturing sector. 

Why? Because Union stiffs, along with demagogues on both the left and right, are holding on to this notion that everything will be set right once we rid ourselves of trade agreements and start manufacturing rubber duckies, t shirts and toasters right here in the Good Ol' U S of A. 

Why retrain when the union, the Donald and /or Bernie are going to bring us back to the promised land.


----------



## Shaver

Astonishingly the Pope has the brass neck, the unmitigated temerity, to criticise Trump!


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Astonishingly the Pope has the brass neck, the unmitigated temerity, to criticise Trump!


Yes that struck me as an odd comment to make. Of course Trump didn't waste time digging into him as well.

On a side note, I've never seen the Left so enamored with a Pope. I wonder why?


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> ^ the common complaint from the high tech sector is we do not had effectively trained people to work in the high tech manufacturing sector.


I read lots of industry manufacturing magazines, and have not seen this sentiment. The one I see, and know, is that students are told they must go to college and get a white collar service-sector job (paying in the $30K range) and not be a lowly factory worker (operating a very expensive machine and being paid at least twice as much). Of course incentivizing moving the factories overseas makes it all moot. Trump is very vocally in favor of stopping and reversing offshoring.

Government should stop subsidizing colleges so wastrels spend eight years to get a worthless degree and get into vo-tech.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I read lots of industry manufacturing magazines, and have not seen this sentiment. The one I see, and know, is that students are told they must go to college and get a white collar service-sector job (paying in the $30K range) and not be a lowly factory worker (operating a very expensive machine and being paid at least twice as much). Of course incentivizing moving the factories overseas makes it all moot. Trump is very vocally in favor of stopping and reversing offshoring.
> 
> Government should stop subsidizing colleges so wastrels spend eight years to get a worthless degree and get into vo-tech.


https://hbr.org/2014/08/employers-arent-just-whining-the-skills-gap-is-real/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579135253438812772

https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/news/economy/us-economy-job-skills-gap/

I do agree with you however, we need to stop subsidizing a college education for everyone. I'm not interested in some kid who wants to study French Lit. on my dime. Too many kids are graduating with useless degrees and then moving right back in with their moms and dads.

How do I know this? My front office is filled with them making $12-15/hr answering phones.


----------



## Pentheos

Way to go, Donald. See you in the White House!


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Unsustainably boosted and "in collapse" are totally different things. Innovation is the mother of economic growth,


The growing GDP per capita in Germany was created, in part, by the massive confiscations of property and businesses from political enemies and Germany's Jews. These people were regarded as non-people and weren't included in the population censuses. Hence the GDP per capita would look very much better than the reality. You've also got the absorption of the Sudetenland, with it's steel and coal industry, as well as the aero and automotive industry, which again makes Germany's figures look much better. Try https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arms-Autarky-Aggression-Foreign-Foundations/dp/0713156694 to see why the survival of Germany's economy was dependent upon aggression. Without the invasions and conquests Germany's economy was collapsing.



Tempest said:


> and it is indisputable that the Germans at that time were world leaders in technology.


Were they? Any evidence for this, beyond wishful thinking?



Tempest said:


> Speaking of which, please address the notion of America's greatness,


Why? Why would it be of any interest to me?



Tempest said:


> To get back on topic, a religious leader of a small walled-in nation that accepts no immigrants has talked smack about future-President Trump. Liberal hypocrisy, shocking!


Since when is the Vatican City walled in? Since when is it a nation? Hypocrisy in what way?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> We've let the Iranians take hold of one of our Naval vessels, hold the sailors at gun point and embarrassed them.


Just looking at one of your points for now. You think that disregarding international law, and disregarding the sovereign rights of another state, at the risk of causing lethal violence, is a sign of a country being "great"? Really? That a state recognising another state's sovereignty and juristiction over its internationally recognised territorial waters is a sign that it isn't "great"? That's a curious definition!


----------



## SG_67

^ Whatever the cause of the boat veering into Iranian waters, the fact that they took them hostage, basically, put them on their knees with guns pointed at them, held them, put them on TV and broadcast it worldwide was just as much a transgression of international law. 

The customary thing to do is to warn the vessel either by electronic or some other signals communication that it is within sovereign waters. 

The Iranian showed no hesitation to do what they did and did it with gusto. And we basically sat back and did absolutely nothing. It's how it looks to the rest of the world that matters.


----------



## Tempest

I am curious about what filters are on Chouan's internet connection. 
I'd love to talk about the boycotts orchestrated against Germany, but the PC will shut it down again.
On German WWII technology, he seems to be the first person ever not to know that they were way ahead. I'll answer the question with a question. Did the US swoop up all the German scientists and engineers that they could, and stymie postwar industry in Germany, merely because of some perverse altruism?
There is a site called wikipedia. Here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Vatican_City


> The territory of this landlocked sovereign city-state *consists of a walled enclave* within the city of Rome, Italy. It has an area of approximately 44 hectares (110 acres), and a population of just over 800.[SUP][/SUP]This makes Vatican City the smallest *independent state* in the world by both area and population.


The greatness of America is a vital topic if one is discussing Trump. We have at least one member here convinced that the US is great. The literal slogan of Trump implies that it is not. How can you skirt this issue?



Pentheos said:


> Way to go, Donald. See you in the White House!


Jeb! is gone! The people keep on speaking and the establishment hates it. It's okay, we hate them back. The good people are winning!


----------



## Pentheos

Personally, I am not convinced Trump is the best man for the job. He has no actual political experience -- which may be a good thing or a bad thing. He may be the voice of the people, but they are not my people.

What I do like about him is how near apoplexy he drives liberals.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> I am curious about what filters are on Chouan's internet connection.
> I'd love to talk about the boycotts orchestrated against Germany, but the PC will shut it down again.
> On German WWII technology, he seems to be the first person ever not to know that they were way ahead.


Way ahead in what way? Please explain.



Tempest said:


> I'll answer the question with a question. Did the US swoop up all the German scientists and engineers that they could, and stymie postwar industry in Germany, merely because of some perverse altruism?


The Germans had some technological developments in rocket propulsion. So, does that make them more technologically advanced than the rest of the world? Their use of Zyklon B was far in advance of the rest of the world as well, I suppose, and Carbon monoxide, but apart from that.....



Tempest said:


> There is a site called wikipedia. Here...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Vatican_City


But where are the walls? Whatever Wiki says, there are no walls surrounding the place, no gates, no border guards, no passport control, but, most importantly, there are no walls. Nation? You don't seem to have responded to that, or your confusion over your identity. Are you American or Irish?



Tempest said:


> The greatness of America is a vital topic if one is discussing Trump. We have at least one member here convinced that the US is great. The literal slogan of Trump implies that it is not. How can you skirt this issue?


With ease. By disregarding the emotional baggage that goes with whether a country is or isn't "great". Define great, and we can, perhaps begin a rational discussion.



Tempest said:


> Jeb! is gone! The people keep on speaking and the establishment hates it. It's okay, we hate them back. The good people are winning!


Are they? The people, or person, who describes all Mexican immigrants as rapists? That makes him good?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ Whatever the cause of the boat veering into Iranian waters, the fact that they took them hostage, basically, put them on their knees with guns pointed at them, held them, put them on TV and broadcast it worldwide was just as much a transgression of international law.
> 
> The customary thing to do is to warn the vessel either by electronic or some other signals communication that it is within sovereign waters.
> 
> The Iranian showed no hesitation to do what they did and did it with gusto. And we basically sat back and did absolutely nothing. It's how it looks to the rest of the world that matters.


Indeed. How it made the US look was that American military vessels strayed into Iranian territorial waters. It made US Naval people look incompetent because they made a significant navigational error, but it made the US government look reasonable because they didn't respond with violence or escalation.It made the US government look as if they were reasonable. 
Look at the international reaction to the US mercenaries shooting the bumboat man in Suez, in Egyptian territorial waters. What that did was confirm in the world's view that the US are arrogant murderes. This, however, made the rest of the world think that the US can be reasonable. What would you rather be seen as? Arrogant murderers or reasonable people? If being "great" means that you don't care that the rest of the world sees you as arrogant murderers, then you're welcome to that view.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The customary thing to do is to warn the vessel either by electronic or some other signals communication that it is within sovereign waters.


Is it? Please, as you are so knowledgeable about such matters, tell us what happened.


----------



## Pentheos

It always amuses me to a Brit trying to take moral high ground. Their propensity to murder and rapine stretches back 1,000 years. You should atone for the blood on your hands first.


----------



## Shaver

Pentheos said:


> It always amuses me to a Brit trying to take moral high ground. Their propensity to murder and rapine stretches back 1,000 years. You should atone for the blood on your hands first.


The clashing usage of determiner and second person pronoun somewhat confound one's ability to make sense of this statement.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Is it? Please, as you are so knowledgeable about such matters, tell us what happened.


Since you've been so keen in the past to defer to the UN as the arbiter of all things legal vis a vie international relations and order, from the "UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea"

Article30
Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations
of the coastal State
If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

You may have access to other source and materials and if so, please enlighten me.

Regardless, I'm quite sure there is no international standard that allows for the capture of a vessel, holding it's crew hostage and filming them and releasing the film as propaganda.

We are not at war with Iran.


----------



## Pentheos

Shaver said:


> The clashing *usage* of determiner and second person pronoun somewhat *confound* one's ability to make sense of this statement.


Nice grammar.


----------



## Shaver

Pentheos said:


> Nice grammar.


You are joking, I trust?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Since you've been so keen in the past to defer to the UN as the arbiter of all things legal vis a vie international relations and order, from the "UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea"
> 
> Article30
> Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations
> of the coastal State
> If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.
> 
> You may have access to other source and materials and if so, please enlighten me.
> 
> Regardless, I'm quite sure there is no international standard that allows for the capture of a vessel, holding it's crew hostage and filming them and releasing the film as propaganda.


I think you'll find that the US vessels in question did not leave Iranian territorial waters as they were required to do. If they'd left the Iranians would have found it very hard to arrest them. The fact that they didn't leave as required enabled the arrest to take place. What would you rather had happened? Are you suggesting that US Navy vessels violating another country's territorial waters, whether willfully or through incompetence, should be entitled to do so? Would doing so prove that the US is "great"?



SG_67 said:


> We are not at war with Iran.


Yet that hasn't stopped the US from taking military action against Iranian civilians. Is this kind of thing what makes a country "great"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> You are joking, I trust?


I would assume not, which is sad.


----------



## Chouan

Pentheos said:


> It always amuses me to a Brit trying to take moral high ground.


Does it? How interesting.



Pentheos said:


> Their propensity to murder and rapine stretches back 1,000 years. You should atone for the blood on your hands first.


What blood is that? Not that is relevant to the situation of course.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I think you'll find that the US vessels in question did not leave Iranian territorial waters as they were required to do. If they'd left the Iranians would have found it very hard to arrest them. The fact that they didn't leave as required enabled the arrest to take place. What would you rather had happened? Are you suggesting that US Navy vessels violating another country's territorial waters, whether willfully or through incompetence, should be entitled to do so? Would doing so prove that the US is "great"?
> 
> Yet that hasn't stopped the US from taking military action against Iranian civilians. Is this kind of thing what makes a country "great"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655


They were not warned, as far as I can tell from the reports, as would be customary. If the ship could not leave because it was disabled then it should have been towed out and left there for rescue by the US Navy.

I'm not going to get into a food fight with you about what is "great" and how great powers act. The fact is that there is no declared war against Iran and so the conduct was wholly unprofessional and untoward. Of course, I would expect no less from an illegitimate regime but the larger fact remains that they felt perfectly comfortable with this act because they knew we would do nothing.

Subsequent actions bore this out.

Please tell me you find the conduct of the Iranians, in this case, inapparopriate.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Way ahead in what way? Please explain....The people, or person, who describes all Mexican immigrants as rapists? That makes him good?


Just yesterday, in watching something about old business machines, it was revealed that the US was using these metal wire voice recorders and that we were amazed at the sound quality of recorded speeches the Germans did with magnetized paper. Your reference to the humane sanitary conditions provided to workers, even prisoners, is correct. In addition, they loved photographing everything because superior technology. Audio, visual, sanitation, military, what more examples of obvious truth are needed?

And you've shown yourself to be either hopelessly ignorant or a troll with the "all Mexican immigrants" when the exact sentence is ""They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people but I speak to border guards and they tell us what we are getting." The they is illegals, so automatically lawbreakers, but he's willing to admit some are otherwise good people. How do people not follow a simple sentence??


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> But where are the walls? Whatever Wiki says, there are no walls surrounding the place, no gates, no border guards, no passport control, but, most importantly, there are no walls. Nation? You don't seem to have responded to that, or your confusion over your identity. Are you American or Irish?


Stop being wrong. I suspect you do it on purpose.
The Vatican also has NO IMMIGRANTS! The Leonine Wall was built to repel Muslim invaders, and is seven stories tall, exists. The Vatican Swiss guard may allow vistors,, but nobody moves in. I presume you'll say that the armed guards stationed at entrances are purely ornamental.
Have fun detailing the distinction between a sovereign state with it's own military. As someone unable to understand that America is full of Micks, aka Irish-Americans, aka American citizens of Irish ancestry, I'm sure you are truly confused. Keep looking at trees and ignoring the forest, you don't live or vote here. Do vote out of the EU if you can though.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Just yesterday, in watching something about old business machines, it was revealed that the US was using these metal wire voice recorders and that we were amazed at the sound quality of recorded speeches the Germans did with magnetized paper. Your reference to the humane sanitary conditions provided to workers, even prisoners, is correct.


These are humane sanitary conditions?









Tempest said:


> In addition, they loved photographing everything because superior technology. Audio, visual, sanitation, military, what more examples of obvious truth are needed?


Obviously superior military technology?



Tempest said:


> And you've shown yourself to be either hopelessly ignorant or a troll with the "all Mexican immigrants" when the exact sentence is ""They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people but I speak to border guards and they tell us what we are getting." The they is illegals, so automatically lawbreakers, but he's willing to admit some are otherwise good people. How do people not follow a simple sentence??


Sorry. I meant his speech when he referred to Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists. He didn't say that some Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists, but, as you've so kindly pointed out "they're rapists". Not "some of them are rapists". So, can I assume that you agree with Trump in this? That you believe that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists?


----------



## SG_67

^ I don't think illegal immigrants needs to be further qualified with terms like "rapist, "murderer" or anything else. 

The fact that they are here illegally should be enough. 

You who are so keen to justify the capture and exploitation of a handful of sailors due to there venturing into territorial waters seem equally as eager to ignore our need to protect our own borders from those coming over without any vetting.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Sorry. I meant his speech when he referred to Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists. He didn't say that some Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists, but, as you've so kindly pointed out "they're rapists". Not "some of them are rapists". So, can I assume that you agree with Trump in this? That you believe that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists?


That's very disingenuous.

I feel so bad for your students.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Dmontez said:


> That's very disingenuous.


Agreed. Simply reading the quote in context makes that 100% clear. I am one longstanding Republican who will not vote for Trump, but truth is not advanced by diningenuous accusations.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Stop being wrong. I suspect you do it on purpose.
> The Vatican also has NO IMMIGRANTS! The Leonine Wall was built to repel Muslim invaders, and is seven stories tall, exists. The Vatican Swiss guard may allow vistors,, but nobody moves in. I presume you'll say that the armed guards stationed at entrances are purely ornamental.


The Leonine wall exists in part. It is not a wall surrounding the Vatican City in the sense of a barrier to stop entry any more than the walls of York are. Have you visited the Vatican City? One is as free to enter the Vatican as any other city in Italy. Armed police exist in all Italian cities. Just because armed police, or even armed soldiers, exist doesn't mean that they are border guards. One's passport isn't checked, there is no need for a visa, no need for an entry permit. 
Here is an entrance to the Vatican City. Where is the border? Where are the border guards? Where is the wall?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.9...4!1swui9sc6wYAu6h-nUgGAS_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Spin the viewpoint around and tell me where the wall is, and where the armed soldiers guarding the city are.


Tempest said:


> Have fun detailing the distinction between a sovereign state with it's own military.


I'm afraid that this doesn't make grammatical sense. However, on the assumption that what you are trying to say is that the Vatican is a sovereign state, then you are correct. However, what you said earlier, which I challenged, in post number 317 was "*a small walled-in nation*". A sovereign state isn't necessarily a nation, and, as I've shown, it isn't walled-in.



Tempest said:


> As someone unable to understand that America is full of Micks, aka Irish-Americans, aka American citizens of Irish ancestry, I'm sure you are truly confused. Keep looking at trees and ignoring the forest, you don't live or vote here. Do vote out of the EU if you can though.


You said yourself that you were "a Mick". A "Mick" is, in English, an expression for an Irishman. I assumed that, as you were describing yourself as an Irishman, and, given that your nationality appears to be American, there was a certain amount of confusion. It is curious, however, that you see yourself as both American and Irish. How can you be of two different nationalities? Surely your view of America and Americanness is one that would condemn hyphenated Americans as being un-American? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> That's very disingenuous.


No, it isn't. Would it be acceptable to say "Legal Mexican immigrants are rapists"? Or "Americans of Mexican descent are rapists"? I'm sure that some legal Mexican immigrants have been rapists, and some Americans of Mexican descent are rapists, but that doesn't mean that one can say either of those two things.



Dmontez said:


> I feel so bad for your students.


I'll let them know.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed. Simply reading the quote in context makes that 100% clear. I am one longstanding Republican who will not vote for Trump, but truth is not advanced by diningenuous accusations.


I saw and heard the speech, and read the transcript. It is disingenuous to suggest that he didn't mean what he clearly said.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> They were not warned, as far as I can tell from the reports, as would be customary. If the ship could not leave because it was disabled then it should have been towed out and left there for rescue by the US Navy.
> 
> I'm not going to get into a food fight with you about what is "great" and how great powers act. The fact is that there is no declared war against Iran and so the conduct was wholly unprofessional and untoward. Of course, I would expect no less from an illegitimate regime but the larger fact remains that they felt perfectly comfortable with this act because they knew we would do nothing.
> 
> Subsequent actions bore this out.
> 
> Please tell me you find the conduct of the Iranians, in this case, inapparopriate.


No declared war against Iran, but USS Vincennes was quite happy to shoot down an Iranian passenger aircraft flying in Iranian airspace, as I pointed out earlier. Which is, in your opinion, the worst action?


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> The Leonine wall exists in part. It is not a wall surrounding the Vatican City in the sense of a barrier to stop entry any more than the walls of York are. Have you visited the Vatican City? One is as free to enter the Vatican as any other city in Italy. Armed police exist in all Italian cities. Just because armed police, or even armed soldiers, exist doesn't mean that they are border guards. One's passport isn't checked, there is no need for a visa, no need for an entry permit.
> Here is an entrance to the Vatican City. Where is the border? Where are the border guards? Where is the wall?
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.9...4!1swui9sc6wYAu6h-nUgGAS_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> Spin the viewpoint around and tell me where the wall is, and where the armed soldiers guarding the city are.
> 
> I'm afraid that this doesn't make grammatical sense. However, on the assumption that what you are trying to say is that the Vatican is a sovereign state, then you are correct. However, what you said earlier, which I challenged, in post number 317 was "*a small walled-in nation*". A sovereign state isn't necessarily a nation, and, as I've shown, it isn't walled-in.
> 
> You said yourself that you were "a Mick". A "Mick" is, in English, an expression for an Irishman. I assumed that, as you were describing yourself as an Irishman, and, given that your nationality appears to be American, there was a certain amount of confusion. It is curious, however, that you see yourself as both American and Irish. How can you be of two different nationalities? Surely your view of America and Americanness is one that would condemn hyphenated Americans as being un-American? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American


As I recall, last time I was visiting Rome, one may pay to enter the vatican museums and St. Peter's church but everywhere else is strictly off limits.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> I saw and heard the speech, and read the transcript. It is disingenuous to suggest that he didn't mean what he clearly said.


As amplified a bit below, I "suggested" no such thing.

Here is your entire quote:

"Sorry. I meant his speech when he referred to Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists. He didn't say that some Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists, but, as you've so kindly pointed out "they're rapists". Not "some of them are rapists". So, can I assume that you agree with Trump in this? That you believe that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists?"

Here is Trump's quote:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best," he said during the announcement. "They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."

Given Trump's assumption that some Mexican immigrants are "good people," a literate person cannot fairly interpret Trump as saying all (as opposed to "some") Mexican immigrants are rapists, which is the interpretation that you proffered above. Since you are plainly literate, I can only infer that you are being disingenuous.

Contrary to your entirely fabricated assertion as to what I "suggested," I have no idea whether Trump means what he says, but I certainly think it's reasonable to fear that he usually does. In this instance, a much fairer (though possibly somewhat charitable) interpretation would be that Trump was asserting that a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants engage in criminal acts in the US. This is highly debatable, and there certainly is some evidence to suggest such an assertion might be incorrect, or at least highly misleading. One might even fairly interpret Trump as saying most such immigrants are rapists or other serious criminals, which is outrageously incorrect -- like other things the man has said.

It is not hard to criticize Trump -- IMO he deserves it. But one should not be disingenuous with the facts to do so.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> No, it isn't. Would it be acceptable to say "Legal Mexican immigrants are rapists"? Or "Americans of Mexican descent are rapists"? I'm sure that some legal Mexican immigrants have been rapists, and some Americans of Mexican descent are rapists, but that doesn't mean that one can say either of those two things.
> 
> I'll let them know.


You are still being either illiterate when you read his quote, or you are comprehending only what you want out of the actual quote. Either way you should be a little bit more open minded, instead of "everything conservative is bad, everything liberal progressive is great"


----------



## Balfour

My friends, you are not dealing with someone logical or reasonable. It does you credit that you seek to debate him, but the fundamental predicate of debate (rationality) is lacking on his side. I pity the schoolchildren in his indoctrina ... er ... care.


----------



## Tempest

I'm truly unsure if I am dealing with a "literal Larry" (which is a polite way to say... not neurotypical...) or a sophist. 
It seems to me that someone that had chosen to look up "Mick" would land here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick


> *Mick* is a derogatory term for a person of Irish descent.


But to address the question, yes, I do believe that assimilated hyphens are not Americans. I use Mick jokingly, and because I have a McName. Fun fact: blacks are overwhelmingly called African-Americans over here by the government and media. But then illegal aliens are called "undocumented immigrants" and the crazies are trying to drop the first part of that. 
So if I said "The AAAC crowd are clothing enthusiasts" would one bemoan that many members are not?

More importantly, I'd prefer to mention what I heard on the radio this morning from Roger Stone. He noted that the majority of Repubicans, those voting for Trump, Cruz, or Carson, are anti-establishment. The establishment he defined as the GW Bush Jr. policies on war, trade, fiscal policy, etc. and noted that they are essentially identical to Obama's policies. That is what people are rebelling against, as it is such horrid failure that even the less intelligent can see it by now. And that is why things are as they are.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> No declared war against Iran, but USS Vincennes was quite happy to shoot down an Iranian passenger aircraft flying in Iranian airspace, as I pointed out earlier. Which is, in your opinion, the worst action?


You're engaging a red herring. I would have expected more from you.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> I would have expected more from you.


You are a generous soul.


----------



## FLMike

Chouan said:


> ..... You don't seem to have responded to that, or your confusion over your identity. Are you American or Irish?.....


Reading through this thread, you are a truly dense individual. I mean, if you want to hate on America and Americans, that's fine, have at it. We're used to it. The ignorance, however, is astounding. Do you really not know that America is a land of immigrants....that aside from the few remaining Native Americans, we all have ancestors from some other nationality? Irish Americans, as an example. There was no amount of confusion, except by you. Which seems to be the case in general.


----------



## Balfour

FLC, it's really not worth it. Believe me. Chouan has a practised schtick - lots of prejudice dressed up as 'Socratic' interrogation of those who dare to demur from USSR doctrine. The sad thing is that a fellow traveller of his has managed to ride his way to become the leader of a major political party in the UK in a leftish equivalent to the Trump insurgency (although the extreme left and extreme right always had far more in common than their more centrists counterparts, in my view).


----------



## FLMike

SG_67 said:


> You're engaging a red herring.* I would have expected more from you*.


Why??


----------



## Balfour

Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.1.08:


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> As I recall, last time I was visiting Rome, one may pay to enter the vatican museums and St. Peter's church but everywhere else is strictly off limits.


Indeed? I walked freely about the streets. There were considerable queues outside the museum, and queues to enter St.Peter's, but the streets of the city were otherwise accessible. Obviously official buildings and areas were restricted, but one can't enter Downing Street freely either.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> You're engaging a red herring. I would have expected more from you.


Red herring? It was you that first mentioned Iran and the issue of American/Iranian relations. Indeed, you condemned Iran for it's actions, as if it were in a vacuum. Having raised a topic one can hardly then condemn it as a red herring! Of course, it is a useful get out if the conversation takes a turn that you find distasteful. I don't blame you, after all the Flight 655 episode is very distasteful!


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> FLC, it's really not worth it. Believe me. Chouan has a practised schtick - lots of prejudice dressed up as 'Socratic' interrogation of those who dare to demur from USSR doctrine. The sad thing is that a fellow traveller of his has managed to ride his way to become the leader of a major political party in the UK in a leftish equivalent to the Trump insurgency (although the extreme left and extreme right always had far more in common than their more centrists counterparts, in my view).


Oh look, personal remarks from Balfour, what a surprise.....


----------



## Chouan

FLCracka said:


> Reading through this thread, you are a truly dense individual. I mean, if you want to hate on America and Americans, that's fine, have at it. We're used to it. The ignorance, however, is astounding. Do you really not know that America is a land of immigrants....that aside from the few remaining Native Americans, we all have ancestors from some other nationality? Irish Americans, as an example. There was no amount of confusion, except by you. Which seems to be the case in general.


But surely, by emigrating to America one would wish to become American? If one adopts a nation as one's own, why would one wish to be known as something else? As your president suggested, by wishing to be identified differently, surely one is wishing to not be identified as an American?

I don't know where you get your perception of hate from. Perhaps it is a prejudice that you have?


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> As I recall, last time I was visiting Rome, one may pay to enter the vatican museums and St. Peter's church but everywhere else is strictly off limits.


Here is St.Peter's https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.9...4!1s1JE8VptwUzgkJOzXvrT1gw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 the panoramic view through google maps shows that access to the Vatican City is freely obtained. There is no wall and no border guards, no passport control. If you wished to enter the area of Church and government administration, of course, controls are in place, as they would be in any such area.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Here is St.Peter's https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.9...4!1s1JE8VptwUzgkJOzXvrT1gw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 the panoramic view through google maps shows that access to the Vatican City is freely obtained. There is no wall and no border guards, no passport control. If you wished to enter the area of Church and government administration, of course, controls are in place, as they would be in any such area.


It reveals a uniformly lamentable standard of dress, perhaps suitable for a day at the beach, chosen for a trip to the Vatican; pathetic really.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Here is St.Peter's https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.9...4!1s1JE8VptwUzgkJOzXvrT1gw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 the panoramic view through google maps shows that access to the Vatican City is freely obtained. There is no wall and no border guards, no passport control. If you wished to enter the area of Church and government administration, of course, controls are in place, as they would be in any such area.


Bearing in mind that the Vatican is a small area, thus the controls apply to a significant proportion of the enclave.

Try setting up a tent in the gardens or attempting to sleep overnight in the church and the illusion of freedom would soon dissipate.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> It reveals a uniformly lamentable standard of dress, perhaps suitable for a day at the beach, chosen for a trip to the Vatican; pathetic really.


Indeed. What is it that compels such revolting people to display their bodies? Any non-human animal that had degenerated to such poor condition would be euthanased by a vet out of kindness.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Bearing in mind that the Vatican is a small area, thus the controls apply to a significant proportion of the enclave.
> 
> Try setting up a tent in the gardens or attempting to sleep overnight in the church and the illusion of freedom would soon dissipate.


Indeed, but what I was seeking to show is that the Vatican isn't walled-in. I don't think that anybody would describe it as a liberal state.


----------



## Shaver

^ Ah. OK, slight cross-purposes.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Indeed. What is it that compels such revolting people to display their bodies? Any non-human animal that had degenerated to such poor condition would be euthanased by a vet out of kindness.


Yes, that is certainly the compassionate conclusion that first comes to mind.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> But surely, by emigrating to America one would wish to become American? ....


No, I don't think that always follows. Plenty of Brits who move abroad have no desire at all to change, in fact they sometimes just remain the same but more so, scorning those who do adapt to local mores for 'going native' or 'going tropo'.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Indeed. What is it that compels such revolting people to display their bodies? Any non-human animal that had degenerated to such poor condition would be euthanased by a vet out of kindness.


I paid off a ship in Manfredonia in the late '80's in summer at about 0600. Travelling through the town towards the road to the airport at Bari, we passed many men on their way to work. Many were wearing swimming trunks and sandals, carrying other items of clothing. They were mostly walking in the exaggerated style of body builders, whilst looking about themselves for admiring glances.....


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> No, I don't think that always follows. Plenty of Brits who move abroad have no desire at all to change, in fact they sometimes just remain the same but more so, scorning those who do adapt to local mores for 'going native' or 'going tropo'.


But expats usually view themselves as Brits living abroad, and very rarely become citizens of their adopted country.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> ^ Ah. OK, slight cross-purposes.


No problem.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> But expats usually view themselves as Brits living abroad, and very rarely become citizens of their adopted country.


Expats/immigrants, what the difference? That was my point - often they cling more strongly than ever to their original identity, or to aspects of it. Do you think all the Jamaicans and Pakistanis who came to make their lives here suddenly abandoned their original identities - religion, dreadlocks, chapatis etc, so they could become English?


----------



## FLMike

Chouan said:


> But surely, by emigrating to America one would wish to become American? If one adopts a nation as one's own, why would one wish to be known as something else? As your president suggested, by wishing to be identified differently, surely one is wishing to not be identified as an American?
> 
> I don't know where you get your perception of hate from. Perhaps it is a prejudice that you have?


It's clear you just like to argue for sport, without regard to logic or reason, or even basic understanding. Again, it seems beyond your small sphere of comprehension that one could be patriotic and proud of one's country, while at the same time proud of one's heritage and roots. It really ain't that complicated.


----------



## vpkozel

FLCracka said:


> It's clear you just like to argue for sport, without regard to logic or reason, or even basic understanding. Again, it seems beyond your small sphere of comprehension that one could be patriotic and proud of one's country, while at the same time proud of one's heritage and roots. It really ain't that complicated.


What is so humorous is that he fails to see the glaring hole in his logic that invalidates most of his other posts.


----------



## Shaver

In other news - now that Jeb has pulled out of the race how clear a field does this leave for Trump? 

Boris Johnson as British PM and Donald Trump as POTUS..........?


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Boris Johnson as British PM and Donald Trump as POTUS..........?


I wonder who would win the crazy hair competition?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I wonder who would win the crazy hair competition?


Which one is which?


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Which one is which?


At least one of them is a species of alpaca.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Expats/immigrants, what the difference? That was my point - often they cling more strongly than ever to their original identity, or to aspects of it. Do you think all the Jamaicans and Pakistanis who came to make their lives here suddenly abandoned their original identities - religion, dreadlocks, chapatis etc, so they could become English?


Indeed, but I would suggest that if a person in Britain, or America, clings on to their identity, be it British-Pakistani or Irish-American, then they aren't assimilating to their country of adoption, which is not a good thing. I don't mind people enjoying the food of their heritage, even other aspects of their heritage, but I would expect them to think of themselves as British, not necessarily English, first and, after a couple of generations, as British last as well.


----------



## jd202

Bush's departure should help Rubio more than it helps Trump, but then again, nothing that should have happened has actually happened in this crazy race.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Indeed, but I would suggest that if a person in Britain, or America, clings on to their identity, be it British-Pakistani or Irish-American, then they aren't assimilating to their country of adoption, which is not a good thing. I don't mind people enjoying the food of their heritage, even other aspects of their heritage, but I would expect them to think of themselves as British, not necessarily English, first and, after a couple of generations, as British last as well.


I don't know about how things are in the UK or in Europe, but in the states this issue pretty much becomes moot within 1-2 generations. I can speak of this from personal experience.


----------



## Chillburgher

jd202 said:


> Bush's departure should help Rubio more than it helps Trump, but then again, nothing that should have happened has actually happened in this crazy race.


The latest national aggregate polling averages taken right before Bush dropped out were roughly:

Trump: 37%
Cruz: 18%
Rubio: 15%
Bush: 6%

So if each and every Bush supporter joined Rubio's camp, that's not nearly enough to catch Trump.

As long as the field doesn't winnow into Trump and a single non-Trump candidate (which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon), it's hard to see how Trump fails to win at the very least a plurality of all delegates.


----------



## FLMike

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've said it before in this thread and I will continue to state it; Donald Trump WILL NOT be the nominee. I will eat my words otherwise.
> 
> There are too many other options right now. * Once the field gets narrowed a bit more and the conversation more focused, the electorate will coalesce around an establishment candidate*.


I wonder when this is going to happen.


----------



## FLMike

32rollandrock said:


> I absolutely, positively guarantee that Trump won't be a candidate (except, perhaps, in his own mind) come the convention. No way, no how. *If Trump gets more than 1 percent of the delegate vote at the Republican convention, I will wear nothing but Donald Trump ties and Donald Trump shirts for the rest of my life and beyond--I will be cremated in Trump-wear. You have my word on it*.


We may get to see how good someone's word is......


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've said it before in this thread and I will continue to state it; Donald Trump WILL NOT be the nominee. I will eat my words otherwise.
> 
> There are too many other options right now. Once the field gets narrowed a bit more and the conversation more focused, *the electorate will coalesce around an establishment candidate*.


There are precisely 2 "establishment" candidates remaining in the field, Rubio and Kasich. They are currently polling at 24% -- combined.


----------



## vpkozel

Chillburgher said:


> There are precisely 2 "establishment" candidates remaining in the field, Rubio and Kasich. They are currently polling at 24% -- combined.


From what I have seen so far, I could absolutely see myself voting for Kasich. I need to do more research on him though. Maybe I could talk myself into Rubio.

Otherwise it looks like I'll be voting Libertarian again.


----------



## Chillburgher

vpkozel said:


> Otherwise it looks like I'll be voting Libertarian again.


As a Democrat, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.


----------



## Tempest

There is a parallel establishment vs. anti-establishment fight over in Democratland. The difference is that Trump is a smart businessman used to reading contracts that know math. He did his homework and is racking up delegates. Sanders is an ineffective hapless ideologue that is doing decently with meaningless popular votes. 

I must say that I've been a third part voter on the national level for at least this millennium. The GOP had left me and put up unworthy turncoat candidates. But I'm swallowing my pride in opposition to the Republican party in hopes that it has actually been saved by ousting the last vestiges of the Bush regime neocons and other wrongheadedness.


----------



## jd202

Chillburgher said:


> The latest national aggregate polling averages taken right before Bush dropped out were roughly:
> 
> Trump: 37%
> Cruz: 18%
> Rubio: 15%
> Bush: 6%
> 
> So if each and every Bush supporter joined Rubio's camp, that's not nearly enough to catch Trump.
> 
> As long as the field doesn't winnow into Trump and a single non-Trump candidate (which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon), it's hard to see how Trump fails to win at the very least a plurality of all delegates.


True, but the support for the candidates you listed comes to only 76%. If the vast majority of the 30% Bush-or-other-or-undecided voters break for Rubio, he would beat trump.

I'm not saying it WILL happen, just that Trump hasn't won this thing yet.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> There are precisely 2 "establishment" candidates remaining in the field, Rubio and Kasich. They are currently polling at 24% -- combined.


Kasich will drop out after next week and Carson is all but burnt toast at this point. The party is slowly starting to rally around Rubio and he will continue to gather momentum.

I have to say though, even IF Trump is the eventual nominee, I'm not sure what the Dems are cheering about. Hillary can't even put away a 74 y/o socialist from Vermont! Her answer to a soft ball question about telling the truth was screwed up by her. People not only don't like her, they don't trust her.

She's not accomplished anything really in her life except get hitched to a guy who went on to become President who will forever be remembered for receiving fellatio in the Oval Office.

There's not a single bill of substance introduced by her in the 8 years she was a senator. She delivered nothing and added no value to the Obama administration as SOS. All of the positions she is taking on fair this and that, were not championed by her during her legislative career.

She's accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street bankers and the 1%'ers and now is on a crusade against them.

She is a deeply, deeply flawed candidate and she has tepid support at best, my guess is that she'll go down 55% to 45% against whomever the eventual GOP nominee will be.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> The latest national aggregate polling averages taken right before Bush dropped out were roughly:
> 
> Trump: 37%
> Cruz: 18%
> Rubio: 15%
> Bush: 6%
> 
> So if each and every Bush supporter joined Rubio's camp, that's not nearly enough to catch Trump.
> 
> As long as the field doesn't winnow into Trump and a single non-Trump candidate (which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon), it's hard to see how Trump fails to win at the very least a plurality of all delegates.


Another way to look at it is that Trump has 37% support, meaning there are 63% of voters out there who aren't supporting him, at least now.

He's not been able to break beyond that. Trump is not the type of candidate people dither about. Much like Hillary, he pretty much has 100% name recognition so it's not as though he's "being introduced" to the public. He was shot out of a cannon which has it's upside of massive poll numbers early on, but then a struggle to garner more support.

It's very doubtful that many of those 63% are just "not really sure" yet about Trump. So there's plenty of time and space for an establishment candidate to fill that gap.


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> There's not a single bill of substance introduced by her in the 8 years she was a senator...She's accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street bankers...


I'm not sure how this differs from the opposite aisle (name only) party establishment candidate, Boy Wonder Rubio. He seems to be a young Cubano Mitt Romney minus the integrity and experience. 
Jeb! dropping out wasn't enough to propel Rubio to 2nd place, but the true believers still think he's the chosen one. Hillary was the presumed chosen one in 2008. But electability.

The donor class of the GOP loves Rubio, as he can very much be bought. But the voters want Trump, maybe Cruz. One in six like Rubio because of all the establishment endorsement, while the other five want anyone else because he represents the status quo.


----------



## Odradek

It's increasingly rare to find a good article in The Spectator these days, but part from the mis-spelling of _póg mo thóin_, this comes close.
From Trumpmania to Euroscepticism: Revenge of the Plebs


----------



## Balfour

Langham said:


> I wonder who would win the crazy hair competition?




[text added to post]


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> Another way to look at it is that Trump has 37% support, meaning there are 63% of voters out there who aren't supporting him, at least now.


That 37% is greater than the support enjoyed by his next two closest competitors -- combined. 37% in a field this large is impressive, and one cannot assert that his ceiling can't go higher in a smaller field. There is no evidence to support that.

Let's try some math. For argument's sake, let's say it winnows down to Trump (currently polling at 37%) and Rubio. (at 16%). That leaves 46% in other camps. If Trump can pull in just 30% of that 46%, that brings him up to 51%, a majority. And given that Cruz's supporters make up the largest chunk of the non-Trump/non-Rubio supporters and given that it's a safe assumption most of them will break for Trump, that seems quite attainable.

Also consider further that the field _isn't_ winnowing down to just Trump and Rubio (or any other non-Trump) for at least a few weeks. And that by March 15th some 60% of delegates will be awarded. And that lots of big states coming up apportion their delegates on a winner-take-all basis, meaning Trump can collect all of them in these states by winning with just a plurality, not needing an outright majority.

That, my friend, tells me that time is running out very quickly for "establishment" candidates.


----------



## SG_67

^ That assumes the current preferences are static. 

You have to ask yourself this; Are people going to give Trump a second look? Are there people out there who would vote for Kasich, Jeb or Cruz who would then all of a sudden find a champion in Trump? 

That's a good question for strategists. I'm not sure. I realize it was and still is somewhat of a crowded field, but peoples allegiances are an odd thing. I mean, look at Kasich and Carson. They are both in the low single digits and in the case of Carson, he's actually lost a lot of ground. 

Who are these people and what compels them to hang in there with someone who is by all accounts not going anywhere. 

I see Trump and he's really not moving in the polls. He's got a lead but it's somewhat static. 

The current RCP average has Trump with a 13.2% lead over his nearest competitor, Ted Cruz. At the end of December, Trump had nearly a 20% lead over Ted Cruz in the same poll. He's leading because it's a wide and fluid field still but he can't close it out.


----------



## Tempest

And two weeks ago, Trump led Cruz by under 9%...
My assessment based on nothing is that in order of least "establishment" to most is
Trump
Cruz
Carson
Kasich
Rubio

So assuming that people shift to the closest candidate when their favorite leaves, Rubio gets crumbs and Trump gets the big slice of the pie. I'd be eager to hear an alternate policy stance hierarchy.


----------



## jd202

Tempest said:


> And two weeks ago, Trump led Cruz by under 9%...
> My assessment based on nothing is that in order of least "establishment" to most is
> Trump
> Cruz
> Carson
> Kasich
> Rubio
> 
> So assuming that people shift to the closest candidate when their favorite leaves, Rubio gets crumbs and Trump gets the big slice of the pie. I'd be eager to hear an alternate policy stance hierarchy.


I don't think it's quite so linear. For one thing, Rubio may be more "establishment-preferred" than Kasich, but he's certainly not less conservative.

Policy and resume-wise, Rubio is actually pretty darned close to Cruz, based on stated positions and senate votes. They differ quite a bit in personal style and tactics, and Cruz has tried pretty hard to show a gap between himself and Rubio on immigration, but certainly in all other areas Rubio is more aligned with Cruz than either are with Trump. If you assume Cruz supporters are hard-right conservatives, evangelical Christians, deficit hawks, etc., there's at least an argument to be made that a Cruz drop-out would favor Rubio rather than Trump.

Trump is just so unlike any prior front-runner, it's hard to say where things would go.


----------



## Odradek

Langham said:


> I wonder who would win the crazy hair competition?


Boris is apparently losing his. Hence a new, shorter cut.
As for his recent antics, well Boris is just out for himself.
Doesn't really want Brexit, but wants to get a "better deal" than Cameron.
Approach with caution.


----------



## Mike Petrik

jd202 said:


> I don't think it's quite so linear. For one thing, Rubio may be more "establishment-preferred" than Kasich, but he's certainly not less conservative.
> 
> Policy and resume-wise, Rubio is actually pretty darned close to Cruz, based on stated positions and senate votes. They differ quite a bit in personal style and tactics, and Cruz has tried pretty hard to show a gap between himself and Rubio on immigration, but certainly in all other areas Rubio is more aligned with Cruz than either are with Trump. If you assume Cruz supporters are hard-right conservatives, evangelical Christians, deficit hawks, etc., there's at least an argument to be made that a Cruz drop-out would favor Rubio rather than Trump.
> 
> Trump is just so unlike any prior front-runner, it's hard to say where things would go.


Trump is proving to be a very formidable politician. My sense is that his core constituency is slowly growing beyond his initial base (white males with 12th grade education or less). His positions are pretty much limited to making deals such as building the wall and making the Mexicans pay for it. He is not a conservative in any meaningful sense, but he is tapping into a resurgent populism that is based on a broad sense of grievance, which is gradually becoming our nation's past time. We are being reduced to a people who argue over who has been the most wronged. Americans who never thought of themselves as progressives are taking a page out of the progressive playbook. Sad to see, but predictable in a way, I think.


----------



## Balfour

Odradek said:


> ...
> As for his recent antics, well Boris is just out for himself.
> Doesn't really want Brexit, but wants to get a "better deal" than Cameron.
> Approach with caution.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> Trump is proving to be a very formidable politician. My sense is that his core constituency is slowly growing beyond his initial base (white males with 12th grade education or less). His positions are pretty much limited to making deals such as building the wall and making the Mexicans pay for it. He is not a conservative in any meaningful sense, but he is tapping into a resurgent populism that is based on a broad sense of grievance, which is gradually becoming our nation's past time. We are being reduced to a people who argue over who has been the most wronged. Americans who never thought of themselves as progressives are taking a page out of the progressive playbook. Sad to see, but predictable in a way, I think.


The question is going to be whether these people will vote for him. They just might.

I mean, up to now he's insulted the disabled, said "Bush lied, kids died", got into a tiff with the Pope, insulted women, cursed and has called his opponents crazy and losers. Most other pols would have already died an agonizing death, but he's actually thrived.

He has definitely defied convention so at least up to now the laws of physics haven't applied to him.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> The question is going to be whether these people will vote for him. They just might.
> 
> I mean, up to now he's insulted the disabled, said "Bush lied, kids died", got into a tiff with the Pope, insulted women, cursed and has called his opponents crazy and losers. Most other pols would have already died an agonizing death, but he's actually thrived.
> 
> He has definitely defied convention so at least up to now the laws of physics haven't applied to him.


Agreed on all counts. Disturbing.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Trump is proving to be a very formidable politician. *My sense is that his core constituency *[is slowly growing beyond his initial base] *(white males with 12th grade education or less)*. His positions are pretty much limited to making deals such as building the wall and making the Mexicans pay for it. He is not a conservative in any meaningful sense, but he is tapping into a resurgent populism that is based on a broad sense of grievance, which is gradually becoming our nation's past time. We are being reduced to a people who argue over who has been the most wronged. Americans who never thought of themselves as progressives are taking a page out of the progressive playbook. Sad to see, but predictable in a way, I think.


Evidence please.


----------



## Shaver

Odradek said:


> It's increasingly rare to find a good article in The Spectator these days, but part from the mis-spelling of _póg mo thóin_, this comes close.
> *From Trumpmania to Euroscepticism: Revenge of the Plebs*


Thanks Odders, a very enjoyable read.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> *Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.*
> 
> 1.08:


Forgive me my tardiness, but are we insinuating that brother Chouan wishes to see the world burn?

At any rate the statement made by Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred, is wholly at odds with reality. It is the worshippers of money (logical or otherwise) who are more than happy to bring the kindling or light the pyre or sit idly by and watch the conflagration.


----------



## Shaver

Odradek said:


> It's increasingly rare to find a good article in The Spectator these days, but part from the mis-spelling of _póg mo thóin_, this comes close.
> *From Trumpmania to Euroscepticism: Revenge of the Plebs*


This amusing article is also hosted on the Spectator website. The Cry-Bully, the increasingly prevalent personality profile of our Epoch.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/meet-the-cry-bully-a-hideous-hybrid-of-victim-and-victor/


----------



## Odradek

Shaver said:


> Thanks Odders, a very enjoyable read.


Some mystery blog I stumbled across this morning, but the guy nails it.

https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=6566



> One of the interesting things about what's happening in American politics is how the chatter skulls are struggling to understand it. In fact, they are not really trying understand it. Their efforts are much closer to denial than genuine interest. They feel threatened, so they try to jam the bad news into a box they have labeled "bad think" hoping that will make it go away. At least it fits into their comfortable worldview, even if it is still stinking up the place.....


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Evidence please.


https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/05/heres-the-lowdown-on-who-supports-donald-trump/

Next time please have the courtesy to just Google it yourself.


----------



## Shaver

Odradek said:


> Some mystery blog I stumbled across this morning, but the guy nails it.
> 
> https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=6566


Very reminiscent of the Southpark episode and no less accurate.






Those, whom we have seen upthread, who sneer at the electorate as being thick are about to receive their comeuppance.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> https://thefederalist.com/2015/08/05/heres-the-lowdown-on-who-supports-donald-trump/
> 
> Next time please have the courtesy to just Google it yourself.


Ah! I see Mikey, that's how debate goes now is it? Well done. Another victory for the well educated, eh?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Ah! I see Mikey, that's how debate goes now is it? Well done. Another victory for the well educated, eh?


That is quite the non-sequitur, Shavey.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> That is quite the non-sequitur, Shavey.


It is? I doubt that those pithy exclamations could fulfil the basic requirement in order to be considered a logical fallacy of any species. However, ol' Shavey has faith in you, no one would be more delighted than I to see you best me in debate, so please do give it your very best shot.

I'm rooting for you.


----------



## eagle2250

Shaver said:


> Very reminiscent of the Southpark episode and no less accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those, whom we have seen upthread, who sneer at the electorate as being thick are about to receive their comeuppance.


An animated production for sure, but instructional, nonetheless...Perhaps the most accurate prediction, in this thread, of the choice we will be faced with in this upcoming election cycle!


----------



## tocqueville

The text of trumps speech. Read it.

https://qz.com/623640/i-love-the-poorly-educated-read-donald-trumps-full-nevada-victory-speech/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> The text of trumps speech. Read it.
> 
> https://qz.com/623640/i-love-the-poorly-educated-read-donald-trumps-full-nevada-victory-speech/
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Done.

And?


----------



## Tempest

tocqueville said:


> The text of trumps speech. Read it.
> https://qz.com/623640/i-love-the-poorly-educated-read-donald-trumps-full-nevada-victory-speech/


Wow, what an example of the lugenpresse burying the lede. Trump won against a near majority of Hispanic votes against Cruz and Rubio, and they focus in on the "poorly educated" aside. 


> _We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people, and you know what I'm happy about? Because I've been saying it for a long time. 46% were the Hispanics-46%, number one with Hispanics. I'm really happy about that. _


He's dead right here:


> _So tonight we had 45 to 46%, and tomorrow you'd hear them say you know if they could just take the other candidates and add them up, and if you could add them up because you know the other candidates amount to 55%. So if they could-they keep forgetting that when people drop out we're going to get a lot of votes. You know they keep forgetting._


BTW...here is video of people walking out of a Cruz rally to hear future President Trump.


----------



## Chillburgher

Predictwise (an aggregate of prediction/betting markets and polling data) is now of winning the nomination.


----------



## SG_67

^ You have to hand it to him; he's got cojones!!

The guy is not afraid of speaking his mind or going for the throat. He went right at Bill and Hillary when they tried to play the sexist card against him and they both shut up pretty quickly.

I think with Trump, he has a life outside of politics so he really has nothing to lose. Politicians really don't have a life outside of the political process whether in it or looking in from the outside as a lobbyist. For them, running for office is a career move. Trump can always go back to real estate and his many other ventures.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Done.
> 
> And?


It's a hell of a platform: Let's fill Gitmo, build a wall, make Mexico pay for it. I guess that will make America great again, right?


----------



## tocqueville

I am curious about the Hispanic vote claim. If true, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Will dig deeper.

Here's some exit poll data. Fascinating. I don't really know enough about exit polling to know what, precisely, this all tells us.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/NV


----------



## Chillburgher

tocqueville said:


> I am curious about the Hispanic vote claim. If true, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Will dig deeper.


There aren't a lot of (non-Cuban) Hispanic Republicans. So while it's curious that he apparently performed this well in the Nevada caucuses, you can be sure he won't draw anywhere remotely near that kind of support from Hispanics in the general election, should he be the nominee.


----------



## Elmer Zilch

SG_67 said:


> ^ You have to hand it to him; he's got cojones!!
> 
> The guy is not afraid of speaking his mind or going for the throat. He went right at Bill and Hillary when they tried to play the sexist card against him and they both shut up pretty quickly.
> 
> I think with Trump, he has a life outside of politics so he really has nothing to lose. Politicians really don't have a life outside of the political process whether in it or looking in from the outside as a lobbyist. For them, running for office is a career move. Trump can always go back to real estate and his many other ventures.


This is one of the biggest fallacies among the chattering classes, that Trump is "speaking his mind." Really, he's just telling the low-information bigots who inhabit the lower rungs of the Republican party what they want to hear. When he gets positive feedback, he amps up his rhetoric. I don't think that anyone knows what Trump really believes beyond he's a "winner" and anyone who doesn't like him is a "loser." A recent poll revealed that 20% of Trump supporters think that freeing the slaves was a bad idea. If that number was up around 50% Trump would be calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Tempest

Yes, Trump is willing to do the will of the people, as opposed to catering to the wealthy and foreign interests. Only the elitist anti-Americans see this as a bad thing. Because they know so much better :laughing:


----------



## tocqueville

Chillburgher said:


> There aren't a lot of (non-Cuban) Hispanic Republicans. So while it's curious that he apparently performed this well in the Nevada caucuses, you can be sure he won't draw anywhere remotely near that kind of support from Hispanics in the general election, should he be the nominee.


Right. He did well among those Hispanics who caucused, which tells us little about the overall Hispanic voting population. I'm very confident that those who caucused represent a tiny minority, but that's just my guess.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> It is? I doubt that those pithy exclamations could fulfil the basic requirement in order to be considered a logical fallacy of any species. However, ol' Shavey has faith in you, no one would be more delighted than I to see you best me in debate, so please do give it your very best shot.
> 
> I'm rooting for you.


You seem to think we are in the midst of a debate. If so, would you mind sharing the proposition and what you think my position is?


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> It's a hell of a platform: Let's fill Gitmo, build a wall, make Mexico pay for it. I guess that will make America great again, right?


Who was president when Gitmo was commissioned? How many presidential terms have run since then? It's rather rich to criticise Trump in this matter.

As to nations protecting their borders? You disapprove?


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> You seem to think we are in the midst of a debate. If so, would you mind sharing the proposition and what you think my position is?


It seems my faith was wholly unwarranted on this occasion. Still I am ever the optimist.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> It seems my faith was wholly unwarranted on this occasion. Still I am ever the optimist.


A simple "yes" would have sufficed.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Who was president when Gitmo was commissioned? How many presidential terms have run since then? It's rather rich to criticise Trump in this matter.
> 
> As to nations protecting their borders? You disapprove?


Gitmo's been around since the war with Spain, I guess, but it became notorious only much later, and of course there was its conversion into a detention facility for "enemy combatants" under G.W. Bush post-9/11, which among other things was a way to circumvent the tedious requirements of the Geneva Convention as well as those associated with detaining and trying people within the U.S. legal system, something that requires due process, evidence, law, etc. etc. Rightly or wrongly, Gitmo was also associated with things like the torture program (although I don't think that stuff took place there). It became an icon for U.S. disregard for international standards (justice, Geneva Convention). Obama, and I think even G.W.B at the end, tried to close that part of the Gitmo detention facility by transferring the remaining detainees to the U.S. and perhaps even to the U.S. federal prison system. Congress and local governments in a fit of "not in my back yard"-ism have fought the effort tooth and nail, which is why Gitmo remains unresolved.

Remember, the whole point of putting "enemy combatants" in Gitmo is that it's not recognized by international law as sovereign U.S. territory...it's a legal no-man's land. So the US isn't required to apply US legal standards to them. Also, the US refused to grant them POW status, enabling it to ignore the Geneva Convention. Hence the euphemism, "enemy combatant." That is, not a POW, and not even a prisoner in US custody.

It isn't at all rich to criticize Trump on this: he and others on the right like to brandish Gitmo and all it represents, which to them is above all 1) disregard for international opinion, and 2) disregard for niceties like international law or the Geneva convention, all in the name of "security." I'm all for security, but given that bringing the detainees to the Continental US does not represent a security risk, and given that the spectacle of Gitmo as an international icon of U.S. disregard for its own alleged values arguably undermines US security by making us all look bad, it seems to me to be the obvious choice to just close it down.

I don't disapprove of protecting borders. I think his fence thing is idiotic, and I find disturbing the conviction that illegal immigration across the Mexican border is imperiling us all to the point where it's on the top of the agenda and a major rallying cry.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Elmer Zilch said:


> A recent poll revealed that 20% of Trump supporters think that freeing the slaves was a bad idea. If that number was up around 50% Trump would be calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment.


I'm hardly a Trump supporter, but I think a closer look at the survey question is in order. The survey asked respondents if they approved or disapproved of "the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government." Given the current Administration's controversial use of "executive orders", it is hard to disentangle respondent displeasure with executive orders (a hot button issue for Trump supports for sure) from respondent disagreement with freeing the slaves. My own opinion is that it is no accident that the survey question used the words "executive order" rather than Emancipation Proclamation. There is other "noise" embedded in the survey question that further complicates the fair unpacking of responses. In my opinion if the survey question had instead simply asked respondents if they approved or disapproved of the freeing of the slaves the percentage of disapprovals would have been very tiny indeed. Again, no accident.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> A simple "yes" would have sufficed.


As would a credible explanation of your accusation of non sequitur. We don't always get that which we desire, do we?


----------



## Tempest

I'm a total Trump supporter, but I strongly disagree with his support for continuing the failed Bush/Obama policy of kidnapping people that you have insufficient evidence to try and keeping them locked up forever as prisoners guilty of no crime that will never get a trial. Toqueville is absolutely correct on this unethical standard-ducking.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> As would a credible explanation of your accusation of non sequitur. We don't always get that which we desire, do we?


Sorry, Shaver. I thought it was self-explanatory.

At your request I posted an article corroborating my assertion as to the demographic composition of Trump's initial core supporters. You responded:

"Ah! I see Mikey, that's how debate goes now is it? Well done. Another victory for the well educated, eh?"

Your response referenced a "debate" that I was not a part of, punctuated by a mysterious "well done" and equally mysterious reference to a "victory for the well educated." Hence my characterization of "non sequitur."

Of course, it would be out of character for you to agree with my "explanation," but perhaps you will at least find it "credible."


----------



## Acct2000

Just a vague general reminder to no one in particular, but everyone in general that the AAAC rules do apply to the interchange and even this thread.


----------



## Shaver

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Just a vague general reminder to no one in particular, but everyone in general that the AAAC rules do apply to the interchange and even this thread.


Sorry. I am rather rising to the bait, meagre as it may be. You might imagine that I had better things to do with my time but apparently not. Anyway, I promise to forthwith engage only with those who are able to overcome their mystification.


----------



## SG_67

Elmer Zilch said:


> This is one of the biggest fallacies among the chattering classes, that Trump is "speaking his mind." Really, *he's just telling the low-information bigots who inhabit the lower rungs of the Republican party what they want to hear. When he gets positive feedback, he amps up his rhetoric*. I don't think that anyone knows what Trump really believes beyond he's a "winner" and anyone who doesn't like him is a "loser." A recent poll revealed that 20% of Trump supporters think that freeing the slaves was a bad idea. If that number was up around 50% Trump would be calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment.


How is that really different from any other pol? Our current POTUS or any of the other candidates, on either side of the aisle?

The only difference is that he's perhaps not as artful as others.


----------



## Tempest

Well, for a couple decades the GOP has been telling the voters what the campaign donors wanted to hear ("free trade", open immigration, war, war, war). Oddly it took a billionaire to figure out what people truly wanted instead of listening only to the multi-millionaires.


----------



## Elmer Zilch

SG_67 said:


> How is that really different from any other pol? Our current POTUS or any of the other candidates, on either side of the aisle?
> 
> The only difference is that he's perhaps not as artful as others.


The difference is that Obama is an intelligent, thoughtful man who I truly believe has the best interests of the country at heart. Trump is a grifter who has been working the long con for decades. He is nothing but bluster and ego. That Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee doesn't speak well for the GOP or its principles (whatever they may be, I'm never sure), although there is a certain "chickens coming home to roost" quality to it.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Elmer Zilch said:


> Trump is a grifter who has been working the long con for decades. He is nothing but bluster and ego. That Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee doesn't speak well for the GOP or its principles (whatever they may be, I'm never sure), although there is a certain "chickens coming home to roost" quality to it.


Substitute "Hillary" for "Trump" and "Democrat" for "Republican/GOP," and you'll have an equally true and simplistic portrait.


----------



## SG_67

Elmer Zilch said:


> The difference is that Obama is an intelligent, thoughtful man who I truly believe has the best interests of the country at heart. Trump is a grifter who has been working the long con for decades. He is nothing but bluster and ego. That Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee doesn't speak well for the GOP or its principles (whatever they may be, I'm never sure), although there is a certain "chickens coming home to roost" quality to it.


Obama is intelligent? Why? Because he "talks pretty". I get it that he's an Ivy League guy but so are a lot of other people. Trump went to Wharton. That's also Ivy League.

He's thoughtful? How so? Has his thoughtfulness made us safer or made the world a better place? Are we better off now as a country thanks to him?

He has an idea of how he thinks the country should look and operate but that is at odds with the way the country really looks and operates.

I'm not a Trump supporter but I also take issue with people who outright dismiss him because of his bluster. I am not now, nor was I ever, impressed with BHO. He's the accidental president and the overall mood of the country and turmoil overseas is representative of this.

As for who will be nominated, is Hillary any better and what does it say about the Dems? The list of flaws with her are legion and too long to list.

There are probably tons of really talented Dems out there kicking themselves for being afraid to take her on. I mean, if a socialist from Vermont is giving her a run for her money, imagine what others could have done.

Of the issues that Hillary is so "passionate" about, which of those during her time as a Senator or private citizen did she champion. Bernie was dragged off to jail in Chicago protesting and standing up for minority rights. What was Hillary doing?

There is little room in our current politics for truly enlightened and talented people to rise. This is true on both sides and quite lamentable. But to suggest that Trump is somehow unique in his obsequiousness to the passions of the masses is ridiculous as they all engage in it.


----------



## Tempest

So Obama is simply inept, not evil. I wondered the same of his predecessor. Neither means that a good job was done. And that's why Trump...


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tempest said:


> So Obama is simply inept, not evil. I wondered the same of his predecessor. Neither means that a good job was done. And that's why Trump...


I think that is pretty much right. Neither Bush nor Obama is a villain, and neither man is exceptionally talented. The errors of both men are grounded in the same problem -- a disordered understanding of American exceptionalism. Bush's, informed by his patriotism, was too grand, seeing the US as an almost infallible force for international good; Obama's, informed by his anti-colonialism, has been too hostile, seeing the US as the chief source of world problems. Which view AA posters see as more right or more wrong depends on many factors of course, and won't be resolved on this thread. But I agree that the mistakes of both Bush and Obama have paved the way for Trump -- for better (Tempest's view) or worse (mine).


----------



## tocqueville

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." — H. L. Mencken


----------



## Elmer Zilch

tocqueville said:


> As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken


Mencken, as ever, a prophet.


----------



## Elmer Zilch

SG_67 said:


> Obama is intelligent? Why? Because he "talks pretty". I get it that he's an Ivy League guy but so are a lot of other people. Trump went to Wharton. That's also Ivy League.
> 
> He's thoughtful? How so? Has his thoughtfulness made us safer or made the world a better place? Are we better off now as a country thanks to him?
> 
> He has an idea of how he thinks the country should look and operate but that is at odds with the way the country really looks and operates.


Careful! Obama Derangement Syndrome may lead to painful swelling and possible use of the phrase "But I have a black friend!"

Listen. This is the internet. Nothing I say is going to convince you of anything, and nothing you say is going to convince me of anything. I'd hate to go around and around with a fellow resident of the Big Windy--and, boy, is it windy today--so let's just agree that Mayor Rahm is a bastard and move on.

One last thing, though: The Wall Street Journal wrote today that, faced with an obstructionist Senate filled with recalcitrant "whatever Obama is fer, I'm agin it" children, Obama is vetting Republican Nevada governor Brian Sandoval for the short list of candidates to take Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. Gamesmanship! Frankly I'm disappointed that Obummer didn't finally reveal his true colors by nominating an imam with a long beard, but whatever.


----------



## SG_67

Elmer Zilch said:


> Careful! Obama Derangement Syndrome may lead to painful swelling and possible use of the phrase *"But I have a black friend!"*


Do you have a point to make? If you do, I ask that you come straight out and not hint at it.

The attitude you espouse is exactly what is wrong with our politics and while you claim that Trump is a bigot, your comment and insinuation is just as bigoted and racist.

So I'll ask again, are you implying something and if so, come straight out and say it and don't pussyfoot around it.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Elmer Zilch said:


> Careful! Obama Derangement Syndrome may lead to painful swelling and possible use of the phrase "But I have a black friend!"


This kind of cheap slur is really out of line, and is exactly the kind of stuff that makes reasoned discourse so difficult.


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> I think that is pretty much right. Neither Bush nor Obama is a villain, and neither man is exceptionally talented. The errors of both men are grounded in the same problem -- a disordered understanding of American exceptionalism. Bush's, informed by his patriotism, was too grand, seeing the US as an almost infallible force for international good; Obama's, informed by his anti-colonialism, has been too hostile, seeing the US as the chief source of world problems. Which view AA posters see as more right or more wrong depends on many factors of course, and won't be resolved on this thread. But I agree that the mistakes of both Bush and Obama have paved the way for Trump -- for better (Tempest's view) or worse (mine).


The judgment of history will be kinder to W than Obama. I agree with what you say about the parlous state of politics in the US (and for that matter the UK) and that Trump and Corbyn insurgencies (so extreme that their dogma meets up together) are not the answer.

If only Romney and Ryan had taken the White House in 2012. Indeed, a sorry state of affairs that Romney is not the Republican nominee in 2016. Of course I favour a Cheney insurgency!


----------



## Balfour

Elmer Zilch said:


> Careful! Obama Derangement Syndrome may lead to painful swelling and possible use of the phrase "But I have a black friend!"





Mike Petrik said:


> This kind of cheap slur is really out of line, and is exactly the kind of stuff that makes reasoned discourse so difficult.


Quite. A risible debating tactic.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Balfour said:


> The judgment of history will be kinder to W than Obama. I agree with what you say about the parlous state of politics in the US (and for that matter the UK) and that Trump and Corbyn insurgencies (so extreme that their dogma meets up together) are not the answer.
> 
> If only Romney and Ryan had taken the White House in 2012. Indeed, a sorry state of affairs that Romney is not the Republican nominee in 2016. Of course I favour a Cheney insurgency!


Not surprisingly, we are in agreement my friend (except for the Cheney insurgency -- although a genuine patriot, I think he was wrong on many things). In fact, just this afternoon I commented on how our nation would be in so much better shape in so many different ways if we'd only elected Romney and Ryan.
As for Trump, I don't perceive a dogma -- just a man whose self-confidence wildly exceeds his intelligence (which is not inconsiderable) and who confuses debate with sophomoric ridicule. A man who who publicly ridicules his female opponent's looks is of a timber that is less than presidential. Far less.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Forgive me my tardiness, but are we insinuating that brother Chouan wishes to see the world burn?
> 
> At any rate the statement made by Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred, is wholly at odds with reality. It is the worshippers of money (logical or otherwise) who are more than happy to bring the kindling or light the pyre or sit idly by and watch the conflagration.


Indeed. It is a curious conclusion to have reached. On the other hand, friend Balfour has suggested elsewhere that I take my orders from the USSR (or words to that effect) which rather shows the extent of his imagination!


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Quite. A risible debating tactic.


It would not be the first (nor the worst) in this thread, however. 

.
.
.
.

.
.


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> Not surprisingly, we are in agreement my friend (except for the Cheney insurgency -- although a genuine patriot, I think he was wrong on many things). In fact, just this afternoon I commented on how our nation would be in so much better shape in so many different ways if we'd only elected Romney and Ryan.
> As for Trump, I don't perceive a dogma -- just a man whose self-confidence wildly exceeds his intelligence (which is not inconsiderable) and who confuses debate with sophomoric ridicule. A man who who publicly ridicules his female opponent's looks is of a timber that is less than presidential. Far less.


Yes, I agree. I also acknowledge Cheney's mistakes (although I share his instincts and have great respect for him).

Dogma may have been the wrong word for Trump (although certainly not for Corbyn). It is truly alarming to see someone so effectively exploit the politics of fear.


----------



## SG_67

Balfour said:


> Yes, I agree. I also acknowledge Cheney's mistakes (although I share his instincts and have great respect for him).
> 
> Dogma may have been the wrong word for Trump (although certainly not for Corbyn). It is truly alarming to see someone so effectively exploit the politics of fear.


Again, to play Devil's Advocate, please find another pol who doesn't try to exploit the fears and concerns of the electorate, who doesn't obfuscate and who doesn't pander in order to garner votes.

This is not unique to The Donald.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Again, to play Devil's Advocate, please find another pol who doesn't try to exploit the fears and concerns of the electorate, who doesn't obfuscate and who doesn't pander in order to garner votes.
> 
> This is not unique to The Donald.


Race baiting, however, is a Republican speciality.

Anyway, this is getting interesting:


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> Race baiting, however, is a Republican speciality.
> 
> Anyway, this is getting interesting:


No, it is a Dem specialty. And your post above is a prime example.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Race baiting, however, is a Republican speciality.
> 
> Anyway, this is getting interesting:


You're kidding right?



Mike Petrik said:


> No, it is a Dem specialty. And your post above is a prime example.


----------



## Tempest

Mike Petrik said:


> Anyway, this is getting interesting:


Ugh, the wrongheadedness of the GOP powerbrokers. They worry about not having ideals when they have a winner, but where were they when subjecting us to severely compromised candidates for the last couple decades that were far, far from hardline conservatives? It wasn't a problem when it was their boy, their puppet, was it?


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Race baiting, however, is a Republican speciality.
> 
> Anyway, this is getting interesting:


What happened to voter's rights and every vote being sacred?

Guess that is only important if you agree with the person.

And does anyone really want to bring up qualifications given who currently sits in the WH?


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Race baiting, however, is a Republican speciality


This is quite funny coming from someone who maintains that much of the criticism of Obama is solely because of his race.


----------



## SG_67

Perhaps it's the contrarian in me but I'm starting to come around on my thinking of Trump. 

For about the past 20 years, the GOP has been hijacked by a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism and populism reaching it's peak, or perhaps it's nadir, with the rise of the likes of Sarah Palin. 

Trump takes me back to a type of republican who appeals to my sensibilities. I don't want a President who is constantly fighting a culture war and on the losing side. 

He may just save the GOP from this bunch and broaden the appeal. He's certainly not the only person in the party who thinks this way on many issues, but he is running and he is vocal and unafraid to say so.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> This is quite funny coming from someone who maintains that much of the criticism of Obama is solely because of his race.


Exactly right. The charge is an easy smear that is grounded in a transparent hypocrisy, however sincerely clueless.


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> For about the past 20 years, the GOP has been hijacked by a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism and populism reaching it's peak, or perhaps it's nadir, with the rise of the likes of Sarah Palin.


There's a reason Trump coveted Palin's endorsement and made such a big deal of trumpeting it.

Do you actually believe Trump represents _a break_ from anti-intellectualism and populism? Seriously??? Wow.


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> This is quite funny coming from someone who maintains that much of the criticism of Obama is solely because of his race.


I don't understand your point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps it's the contrarian in me but I'm starting to come around on my thinking of Trump.
> 
> For about the past 20 years, the GOP has been hijacked by a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism and populism reaching it's peak, or perhaps it's nadir, with the rise of the likes of Sarah Palin.
> 
> Trump takes me back to a type of republican who appeals to my sensibilities. I don't want a President who is constantly fighting a culture war and on the losing side.
> 
> He may just save the GOP from this bunch and broaden the appeal. He's certainly not the only person in the party who thinks this way on many issues, but he is running and he is vocal and unafraid to say so.


I will not come around to Trump, whom I regard as a blowhard man-child with a penchant for bullying. But I fully appreciate and respect your reasoning nonetheless.
As for the culture war, I think it is a mistake to assume it can be easily separated from fiscal issues. Our federal government will never again operate on libertarian assumptions. We are a welfare state, and only the degree is at issue. The combination of a 50% divorce rate and a 40%+ illegitimacy rate is not unrelated to the emergence of a nation where single-parent households vulnerable to poverty and related social pathologies are increasingly the norm. In the end it is doubtful that a libertarian social order and a generous welfare state can be made fiscally compatible and therefore sustainable. While seldom expressed, this is the real motivation for the Left's wish to diminish our international responsibilities. They believe that the resulting reduction in military budget will render the combination described above more sustainable. Whether the Left is correct or not is hard to know with confidence, of course, but as you might expect I'm very skeptical.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> There's a reason Trump coveted Palin's endorsement and made such a big deal of trumpeting it.
> 
> Do you actually believe Trump represents _a break_ from anti-intellectualism and populism? Seriously??? Wow.


All politicians are populists. I'm referring to a specific strain that embraces ignorance and makes it a virtue.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Me: "Exactly right. The charge is an easy smear that is grounded in a transparent hypocrisy, however sincerely clueless."



tocqueville said:


> I don't understand your point.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I rest my case.


----------



## tocqueville

Chillburgher said:


> There's a reason Trump coveted Palin's endorsement and made such a big deal of trumpeting it.
> 
> Do you actually believe Trump represents _a break_ from anti-intellectualism and populism? Seriously??? Wow.


I have to agree with that. Trump is not a break from Palin (although I see SG's point abut social wars).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> There's a reason Trump coveted Palin's endorsement and made such a big deal of trumpeting it.
> 
> Do you actually believe Trump represents _a break_ from anti-intellectualism and populism? Seriously??? Wow.


I'm not sure he sought it, of course I have no way of knowing empirically.

More likely, it's her way of keeping herself relevant.


----------



## tocqueville

Mike Petrik said:


> Me: "Exactly right. The charge is an easy smear that is grounded in a transparent hypocrisy, however sincerely clueless."
> 
> I rest my case.


You have failed to make any case. Hypocrisy? Explain.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> I'm not sure he sought it, of course I have no way of knowing empirically.
> 
> More likely, it's her way of keeping herself relevant.


I am a big fan of McCain, by the way. He made an awful choice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> I don't understand your point.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The point is quite simple. When you disagree with someone or if that person disagrees with someone you support or agree with then he must be doing so because of race.


----------



## tocqueville

Really? If I point out that someone is race baiting, it's me projecting? They are not actually race baiting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Really? If I point out that someone is race baiting, it's me projecting? They are not actually race baiting?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's an easy and lazy charge to throw out. Please point out how someone is "race baiting".

So far you and only one other person on here have mentioned race. Interestingly, you have both done it with the insinuation that some of us critical of the current administration or supporting certain GOP candidates are harboring racist tendencies.


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> Really? If I point out that someone is race baiting, it's me projecting? They are not actually race baiting?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Exactly.


----------



## tocqueville

Um, Trump and his anti-Mexican rants? What's that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> All politicians are populists.


Would you like to take a mulligan on that one?


----------



## Tempest

Mike Petrik said:


> I will not come around to Trump, whom I regard as a blowhard man-child with a penchant for bullying.


You say this as if it is a bad thing. 
People don't like bullies when they are on the other side.
I want a bully on my side, not a meek ineffective appeaser. Hillary and Sanders will surely bully me, as Obama pusillanimously did with his sniveling remarks. I want Trump in my corner fighting hard for the nation and the working people, the people that want to work.


----------



## Tempest

tocqueville said:


> Um, Trump and his anti-Mexican rants? What's that?


Mexican is a nationality, not a race.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Really? If I point out that someone is race baiting, it's me projecting? They are not actually race baiting?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course not.

But if you post that much of the criticism of the current president is strictly based on race, then you are in fact race baiting. But you don't see it that way because you are "enlightened" No different than portraying your Trump supporting relatives as simpleminded folks afraid of "the others".

You dismiss ideas out of hand on terms of racial, sexual, or some other discrimination. That way you don't ever have to confront the actual facts behind the point. You are not at all alone in this regard, from either side of the aisle.


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> You have failed to make any case. Hypocrisy? Explain.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sure. Unfounded and unfair accusations of race-baiting are in fact race-baiting.


----------



## tocqueville

Oh, I forgot that right wingers believe that when people complain of racism, it is the complainer who is guilty of race baiting, or worse, racism. A quick Google search reveals that many think Obama is race baiting, for example, when he speaks of, say, Ferguson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> Would you like to take a mulligan on that one?


Why would I? In the political process, politicians are by necessity populists. Look what happens when one of them tries to tell the truth.

Chris Christie tried to say that we have to raise the SS retirement age and he was pilloried.

I'm not completely enamored with Trump. I think we have far more talented members of the GOP that would have been great candidates. I'm not talking about the current field either.

Let's see what happens when the debate and the field becomes more focused. The interesting thing that is now happening is that the fight in the GOP is to try to narrow the field to just one and Trump.

Let's see what happens. It is amusing though that Trump defies the CW. He's certainly tapping into something.

For those who are disturbed by the popularity of Donald Trump, however, are you equally disturbed by the popularity of a Socialist?


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Oh, I forgot that right wingers believe that when people complain of racism, it is the complainer who is guilty of race baiting, or worse, racism. A quick Google search reveals that many think Obama is race baiting, for example, when he speaks of, say, Ferguson.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wrong. It's just that you're quick to resort to racism as an explanation.

As for Obama speaking about Ferguson, in and of itself it was a seminal event in the country and as President, he needed to talk about it.

I don't think anyone was accusing him of race bating with that. Even some of the right wing pundit class said that he was quite sober in his assessment.

As a whole, however, he has a long history of knee jerk reactions to matters involving race.

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly."

"If I had a son, he would look like Treyvon."

The comment about not looking like the other Presidents on dollar bills.

The fact that he was perfectly comfortable going to Jeremiah Wright's church.


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> Why would I? In the political process, politicians are by necessity populists.


Dictionary.com:
_ 1.the political philosophy of the People's party. _[I.e., there was an actual political party called the "Populists" who also went by "the People's Party."] 
_ 2. (lowercase) *any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan **ideologies*. 
_
_ 3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. 
_
_ 4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: _


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Oh, I forgot that right wingers believe that when people complain of racism, it is the complainer who is guilty of race baiting, or worse, racism. A quick Google search reveals that many think Obama is race baiting, for example, when he speaks of, say, Ferguson.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you for proving my point.

You jump directly to a race based issue where the facts showed that race was not actually the cause and that the policeman did nothing illegal. I would say did nothing wrong, but don't want to turn this into a debate over the instances when shooting someone is "not wrong".


----------



## tocqueville

Good study of "race baiting" as used by the Right:

https://mediamatters.org/research/2015/05/11/right-wing-media-accuse-angry-michelle-obama-of/203609


----------



## tocqueville

Tempest said:


> Mexican is a nationality, not a race.


That's precisely why Trump has always been careful to include white Mexicans in his diatribes while excluding illegal immigrants from Central America.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Good study of "race baiting" as used by the Right:
> 
> https://mediamatters.org/research/2015/05/11/right-wing-media-accuse-angry-michelle-obama-of/203609


Study? Really?

Oh wait, I must be racist and a right winger since I question that.

Crap. Nevermind.


----------



## tocqueville

Ok, not a study. Poor word choice. But's interesting to compare her speech with the reactions to it.

I like this:


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Ok, not a study. Poor word choice. But's interesting to compare her speech with the reactions to it.
> 
> I like this:


Did you read the definition of race baiting?

If so, how do you think it applies to the coverage of race in America today?


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> Dictionary.com:
> _ 1.the political philosophy of the People's party. _[I.e., there was an actual political party called the "Populists" who also went by "the People's Party."]
> _ 2. (lowercase) *any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan **ideologies*.
> _
> _ 3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
> _
> _ 4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: _


As you've so conveniently pointed out, there are many different definitions and forms which populism may take.

The likes of Sarah Palin certainly appeal to a certain anti-intellectual strain.

Trump doesn't seem to do that. In fact, he boasts about how smart he is and how he went to Wharton. He calls others stupid of course, but doesn't seem to go the route of Sarah Palin, or even Ted Cruz.

Trump is kind of hard to peg. He boasts about how rich he is and flaunts his wealth while most pols try to play it down or hide it. Trump revels in it.

I honestly don't get his appeal except that it's tapping into frustration and anger. I do agree with him that those running the government now and many in congress aren't exactly the brightest bulbs. Denizens of K Street as well as numerous correctional facilities around the country are a testament to this.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Ok, not a study. Poor word choice. But's interesting to compare her speech with the reactions to it.
> 
> I like this:


Tocquers, my friend, this is the stupidest thing I have read today- given that I've spent my time ploughing my way through research proposals it's no mean feat.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Ok, not a study. Poor word choice. But's interesting to compare her speech with the reactions to it.
> 
> I like this:


This is the problem with the internet. Niche copy for a niche audience.

By they way, it's hard to take an article seriously when there's a big "Mike's Hard Lemonade" banner adorning the top of it.


----------



## Balfour

SG_67 said:


> Again, to play Devil's Advocate, please find another pol who doesn't try to exploit the fears and concerns of the electorate, who doesn't obfuscate and who doesn't pander in order to garner votes.
> 
> This is not unique to The Donald.


For sure, but there is a spectrum. But I would struggle to associate the vitriol of Trump with Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney. (Naming names means that some smart aleck will dredge up some quotes from them to rebut this point, but the issue is not a few quotes in isolation but the overall tenure of the candidate and his or her approach to public life. The leader of a nation should, in my view, be a statesman and that could not be said of The Donald.)


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> I am a big fan of McCain, by the way. *He made an awful choice* [in selecting Palin as his running mate].
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I couldn't agree more. Had I had a vote in that election, I would have genuinely struggled with the choices presented. The proposition of Sarah Palin being within a heartbeat of being leader of the Free World was indefensible. Utter, rank irresponsibility.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> Oh, I forgot that right wingers believe that when people complain of racism, it is the complainer who is guilty of race baiting, or worse, racism. A quick Google search reveals that many think Obama is race baiting, for example, when he speaks of, say, Ferguson.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Accusations of racism are often a cheap shot and much of this goes on. Nothing would make me happier than to see a moderate black Republican like Colin Powell elected as President. The suggestion that those who criticise President Obama are closet racists is an unworthy debating tactic when applied across the board, which is not to say that I would demur from the suggestion that some opposition to him is indeed motivated by racism. But idiots exist on all sides of the political debate; that particular idiots support or oppose a particular candidate doesn't really help in any way making an assessment of the candidate's merits.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> For sure, but there is a spectrum. But I would struggle to associate the vitriol of Trump with Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney. (Naming names means that some smart aleck will dredge up some quotes from them to rebut this point, but the issue is not a few quotes in isolation but the overall tenure of the candidate and his or her approach to public life. The leader of a nation should, in my view, be a statesman and that could not be said of The Donald.)


Jeb Bush? Statesmanlike? The Jeb Bush? You're kidding, right?


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Jeb Bush? Statesmanlike? The Jeb Bush? You're kidding, right?


What's your problem with Jeb Bush? I don't want to make assumptions about your apparent hostility to him, but if they derive from W (on which, of course, we famously disagree) then he is his own man.

Do you see more statesmanlike figures in the current race (elephants or donkeys)?


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> What's your problem with Jeb Bush? I don't want to make assumptions about your apparent hostility to him, but if they derive from W (on which, of course, we famously disagree) then he is is own man.
> 
> Do you see more statesmanlike figures in the current race (elephants or donkeys)?


No problem with him at all now that he has realised that his reach had exceeded his grasp. I shan't pretend that any of the candidates are ideal but Jeb was certainly least deserving of proposal via any considerations of personal merit.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> No problem with him at all now that he has realised that his reach had exceeded his grasp. I shan't pretend that any of the candidates are ideal but Jeb was certainly least deserving of proposal via any considerations of personal merit.


A bizarre assessment, in view of some of the other runners and riders. He was an effective Governor, a centrist Republican and reached out effectively to a new constituency of Republican supporters. He didn't deserve to be President because his father and older brother were President, but that does not obscure his real qualities. While some may have decried his campaign as lacklustre, it compares much better in my mind to the bombast and politics of fear whipped up in other quarters.

I cannot believe you're serious in suggesting that Bush is the least deserving in the race. In a poor crop on both sides, he, Kasich and Rubio are the only credible presidential (former) candidates in my view.

You really have more time for Clinton or Trump or Cruz or Sanders? I know you to inform yourself about matters, but again on this occasion I do wonder whether your views are influenced unduly by your animosity to the Bush family.


----------



## Shaver

BTW, we made a solemn promise to one another not to broach the subject of W ever again. Don't be tempting me.


----------



## Balfour

^ Indeed. George W Bush is a great American who will be more kindly remembered in history. But my point here is that Jeb Bush is much more in the mould of George H W Bush than his brother. Both honourable men and with honourable political perspectives. But *not* the same - so there is not need for your hostility to 43 to inform your view of Jeb.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> ^ Indeed. George W Bush is a great American who will be more kindly remembered in history. But my point here is that Jeb Bush is much more in the mould of George H W Bush than his brother. Both honourable men and with honourable political perspectives. But *not* the same - so there is not need for your hostility to 43 to inform your view of Jeb.


B old boy, it is one thing to put a few words in someone's mouth but try not to cram them in so tightly that I can no longer breath.


----------



## Balfour

That wasn't my intention and sorry for any confusion! (My 'indeed' was to acknowledge our previous agreement but it elided into statements about 43 that I know you remain most profoundly opposed to. However, my point about Jeb Bush and 43 being different is something worth considering, no?)


----------



## Shaver

Absolutely, and I am prepared to dismiss Jeb on his own (lack of) merit. That said, these political dynasties seem ever to represent diminishing returns. From salad days to dog days till they are done.


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> Study? Really?
> 
> Oh wait, I must be racist and a right winger since I question that.
> 
> Crap. Nevermind.


I suppose you won't bother to address the substance, i.e. FLOTUS's speech and the reactions to it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

An interesting read: 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> I suppose you won't bother to address the substance, i.e. FLOTUS's speech and the reactions to it?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have already put more substance into a response than you did in your thoughts on it. And do you care to address the questions in post #502?


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Mexican is a nationality, not a race.


Indeed? But surely you thought, and asserted, that the Vatican City is a nation? I would suggest that your views on what is and isn't a nation are somewhat vague.


----------



## SG_67

^ I think people can be forgiven for using some of these terms rather loosely and not in strict adherence to custom. 

After all, many in the media as well as government confuse state and nation quite often. But we get the gist.


----------



## Tempest

I already provided established a reputable link confirming that calling a sovereign state a nation was common usage. Heads up, when people in the US talk about America, we mean the United States, not other areas of the North or South American continent.

Oh yeah, my Governor, Christopher Christie, has endorsed Trump.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I already provided established a reputable link confirming that calling a sovereign state a nation was common usage. Heads up, *when people in the US talk about America, we mean the United States, not other areas of the North or South American continent.
> *
> Oh yeah, my Governor, Christopher Christie, has endorsed Trump.


You mean there are other countries that matter?


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> You mean there are other countries that matter?


I'm not even sure we really matter anymore. Thanks Obama/Bush.
More importantly, the money honey gets it, and V. Fox is all pissed that he's being exposed. But regardless what he says, the wall will be built and Mexico will pay for it.


----------



## tocqueville

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/26/the-age-of-trump/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Indeed? But surely you thought, and asserted, that the Vatican City is a nation? I would suggest that your views on what is and isn't a nation are somewhat vague.


I am not sure why this matters, but the Vatican is a separate country. Perhaps you are playing some sort of game of semantics defining a nation differently than a country - not sure.


----------



## immanuelrx

Im sorry, but I saw this today and felt I needed to share this with as many people as possible. This seemed like the appropriate place to post it. Bravo John Oliver, Bravo.


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL.

Indeed, there is an uncomfortable dose of reality in that broadcast!


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> I am not sure why this matters, but the Vatican is a separate country. Perhaps you are playing some sort of game of semantics defining a nation differently than a country - not sure.


Not semantics, but accuracy of language. The Vatican City isn't a walled city, as I proved earlier. The definition of nation is clear. The OED defines it as "A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory" https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nation
That doesn't apply to the Vatican any more than it applies to San Marino, for example. Indeed, it is even less defined as such than San Marino! Just because a member uses a casual inaccuracy in his arguments doesn't mean that we all have to accept that inaccuracy. Either he doesn't know the difference, or, doesn't care that he is wrong.


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> Im sorry, but I saw this today and felt I needed to share this with as many people as possible. This seemed like the appropriate place to post it. Bravo John Oliver, Bravo.


I can't access it. A pity. Not available to view in the UK.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> I'm not even sure we really matter anymore. Thanks Obama/Bush.
> More importantly, the money honey gets it, and V. Fox is all pissed that he's being exposed. But regardless what he says, the wall will be built and Mexico will pay for it.


Exposed? In what way? It is curiously hypocritical for Trump to demand an apology, given his repeated public use of the word! https://thefederalist.com/2016/02/26/watch-trump-drop-the-f-bomb-5-times-in-74-seconds/


----------



## immanuelrx

Chouan said:


> I can't access it. A pity. Not available to view in the UK.


It is a pity because I really think you would enjoy it. This is the best I can do for you as I did look for another way to allow you to watch it.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-drumpf-john-oliver_us_56d40adee4b0bf0dab32a73c


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Not semantics, but accuracy of language. The Vatican City isn't a walled city, as I proved earlier. The definition of nation is clear. The OED defines it as "A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory" https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nation
> That doesn't apply to the Vatican any more than it applies to San Marino, for example. Indeed, it is even less defined as such than San Marino! Just because a member uses a casual inaccuracy in his arguments doesn't mean that we all have to accept that inaccuracy. Either he doesn't know the difference, or, doesn't care that he is wrong.


I think that you would have a very, very hard time arguing either the shared "descent, history, culture, or language" portion of that or the "inhabiting a particular state or territory". But since you only need one of the two to fit the definition, you are incrrect or playing games with semantics.

Walls do not come into play in the conversation, so being wrong about walls does not mean someone is wrong about defining the Vatican as a country, state, nation, or whatever noun descrining a separate governing entity one chooses to use.

Of course, you want to argue that the spanish word for coyote is somehow less offensive than the direct English translation, so there really is no telling where you will take things.


----------



## tocqueville

immanuelrx said:


> Im sorry, but I saw this today and felt I needed to share this with as many people as possible. This seemed like the appropriate place to post it. Bravo John Oliver, Bravo.


Brilliant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> I think that you would have a very, very hard time arguing either the shared "descent, history, culture, or language" portion of that or the "inhabiting a particular state or territory". But since you only need one of the two to fit the definition, you are incrrect or playing games with semantics.
> 
> Walls do not come into play in the conversation, so being wrong about walls does not mean someone is wrong about defining the Vatican as a country, state, nation, or whatever noun descrining a separate governing entity one chooses to use.




Your mate Mr.Tempest made his assertion in post number 317 in this thread, where he called it a "walled-in nation". I would suggest, therefore, that walls are very much come into play in this. I've shown elsewhere that it isn't "walled in". I'd be interested in how you can establish that the Vatican is, in any respect, a nation?




vpkozel said:


> Of course, you want to argue that the spanish word for coyote is somehow less offensive than the direct English translation, so there really is no telling where you will take things.


Still smarts doesn't it. There does seem to be something of a common thread in your posts on this topic, where anything disparaging written or said about Mexicans can be, explained, justified, excused or disregarded, in your view.


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> It is a pity because I really think you would enjoy it. This is the best I can do for you as I did look for another way to allow you to watch it.
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-drumpf-john-oliver_us_56d40adee4b0bf0dab32a73c


Thank you. I'll have another go.


----------



## Tempest

People are still watching John Oliver in 2016? He's unAmerican, and a wuss, so I know he's against the Trump.

I'm unsure how many nations are actually left if they are expected to have a common ethnicity, heritage, language or culture. The US certainly does not.

Oh, in the news, Senator Sessions endorses Trump, boy Rubio makes some juvenile ad hominem attacks.


----------



## immanuelrx

He could very well be a wuss, but it doesn't make him any less right. The fact the Trump is most likely going to be the republican nominee tells you what state the GOP (and our country) is in. We as a nation are smarter than this, right? I hope so. I may have to stay a few extra years in Korea if Trump becomes president.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Your mate Mr.Tempest made his assertion in post number 317 in this thread, where he called it a "walled-in nation". I would suggest, therefore, that walls are very much come into play in this. I've shown elsewhere that it isn't "walled in". I'd be interested in how you can establish that the Vatican is, in any respect, a nation?




Walls are irrelevant to its nationhood. 



> Still smarts doesn't it. There does seem to be something of a common thread in your posts on this topic, where anything disparaging written or said about Mexicans can be, explained, justified, excused or disregarded, in your view.


What smarts? The absurdity of you thinking that the Spanish word is somehow less offensive than the English one, that you didn't know that it is a term for human smugglers but speciously claimed using it was tatamount to thinking all Mexicans are animals, or both?

You mke so many mischaracterisations and inaccurate statements I need a little help in keeping them straight. TIA.


----------



## tocqueville

I love it.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> [/COLOR]
> Walls are irrelevant to its nationhood.


Then why did your mate Tempest bring the subject up? You appear to be determined to prove me wrong, but consistently ignore the part of Tempest's assertion that has been disproved.

What is it about the Vatican City that makes it a nation?


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> People are still watching John Oliver in 2016? He's unAmerican, and a wuss, so I know he's against the Trump.
> 
> I'm unsure how many nations are actually left if they are expected to have a common ethnicity, heritage, language or culture. The US certainly does not.
> 
> Oh, in the news, Senator Sessions endorses Trump, boy Rubio makes some juvenile ad hominem attacks.


No response to the use of "the f-bomb" by Trump. Does that mean that Trump can use it, but others can't?


----------



## SG_67

Christopher Hitchens once said something along the lines of Bush jokes are the jokes that even stupid people can laugh at. 

Trump jokes have now supplanted this and were the great Christopher Hitchens still alive, I have a feeling he would turn his rhetorical guns on the likes of John Oliver. 

Late night comedians are basically morons who follow popular trends. The are modern day court jesters who really offer no solutions, not that it's there function to do so, but instead criticize. There critique, however, tends to only skew one way. 

I cannot think of a more useless profession than a late night comedic talk show host. What's even scarier is that there are throngs of 20 and 30-something year olds whose politics and opinions are informed by these knaves.


----------



## tocqueville

I find it far more likely that Hitch would turn his guns in Trump. He had no patience for bullies or liars. Not to speak of anyone with a hint of fascism about him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

Doesn't talk about trump but gets his supporters right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n01/christopher-hitchens/diary

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> No response to the use of "the f-bomb" by Trump. Does that mean that Trump can use it, but others can't?


Is there audio of Trump doing this on television? Please don't cite the time Fox News bleeped a silent pause.
And stop acting like Vatican City is not a nation. 
https://bfy.tw/4Vfh


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Then why did your mate Tempest bring the subject up? You appear to be determined to prove me wrong, but consistently ignore the part of Tempest's assertion that has been disproved.


I don't know tempest and his point of view on this has about as much to do with my point as walls do to nationhood.



> What is it about the Vatican City that makes it a nation?


you posted the definition. What part of either instane does not apply to the Vatican?


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> I find it far more likely that Hitch would turn his guns in Trump. He had no patience for bullies or liars. Not to speak of anyone with a hint of fascism about him.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm sure he would find plenty to criticize Trump on as well. No doubt.

I'm no Trump fan. But what I can't stand are pygmies like John Oliver and the rest of the late night bunch sitting on the sidelines and taking pot shots.

Trump is low hanging fruit for these guys. It doesn't take much imagination, let alone courage, to criticize him.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> I'm sure he would find plenty to criticize Trump on as well. No doubt.
> 
> I'm no Trump fan. But what I can't stand are pygmies like John Oliver and the rest of the late night bunch sitting on the sidelines and taking pot shots.
> 
> Trump is low hanging fruit for these guys. It doesn't take much imagination, let alone courage, to criticize him.


Fair enough, but these days the message Oliver happens to be giving bears repetition. The more the public can see Trump for what he is, the better. I'm particularly appalled by the capacity of mainstream Republicans to consider him seriously. I heard some GOP money guy (a self-identified Jeb backer) on NPR Sunday saying he was concerned that Trump wouldn't do well in a general election, and all I could think was, "really? That's what concerns you about Trump?"

(Hitchens has some choice words for Hillary, by the way. Ouch! Believe me, I had really been hoping that one of her scandals would finally take her down and clear the path for other candidates, and I'm not talking about Sanders. Sigh.)


----------



## Balfour

Oh goodness me. When Christopher Hitchens gets prayed in aid of the argument, tocque, you actually start moving me over to the Trump campaign.


----------



## Tempest

Oh the cluelessness!
1. The more the public sees the mainstream media (whom they hate and distrust) pillory Trump, the more people love him. 
2. What is a mainstream Republican? Is that a RINO? A cuckservative? The mainstream GOP leadership hate Trump, but it appears that the membership properly hates the disrepresentative leadership. See above.
3. Are we worrying about the party or the election? Doesn't the GOP has an abysmal record with both?

I will agree that if legalities don't stop Killary soon, hopefully the Donkey party faithful will kneecap her again, realizing that she is very polarizing and largely hated by her presumed voters.


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> Oh goodness me. When Christopher Hitchens gets prayed in aid of the argument, tocque, you actually start moving me over to the Trump campaign.


SG brought him up, not me!

At least go watch Hitchens' vids on Clinton. The man had a way with words. Some of his more amusing bits, though, are his joint appearances with Andrew Sullivan. I never saw so fine a blend of mutual respect and good natured mockery.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> SG brought him up, not me!
> 
> At least go watch Hitchens' vids on Clinton. The man had a way with words. Some of his more amusing bits, though, are his joint appearances with Andrew Sullivan. I never saw so fine a blend of mutual respect and good natured mockery.


Correct I brought him up. Never have I had such a grudging respect for anyone with whom I had certain disagreements.

Hitchens was a contrarian but his rhetoric was sublime and I always enjoyed reading and listening to him. As I said, he no doubt would have gone after Trump but he would have gone after many of the pundits and those who are aghast by him.

Eh, it's all for naught. He wouldn't come straight out and repudiate an endorsement from David Duke. I think we've reach "peak Trump".


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Correct I brought him up. Never have I had such a grudging respect for anyone with whom I had certain disagreements.
> 
> Hitchens was a contrarian but his rhetoric was sublime and I always enjoyed reading and listening to him. As I said, he no doubt would have gone after Trump but he would have gone after many of the pundits and those who are aghast by him.
> 
> Eh, it's all for naught. He wouldn't come straight out and repudiate an endorsement from David Duke. I think we've reach "peak Trump".


Agreed on all points, although I am pretty sure Hitch was no stranger to the John Stewart show.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> I think we've reach[ed] "peak Trump".


You've been expressing various versions of this sentiment on this thread since July. The results from Super Tuesday tomorrow will likely disabuse you of this notion.

Predictwise.com is now giving him an 80% chance of winning the nomination. I expect by Wednesday that number will rise.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> SG brought him up, not me!
> 
> At least go watch Hitchens' vids on Clinton. The man had a way with words. Some of his more amusing bits, though, are his joint appearances with Andrew Sullivan. I never saw so fine a blend of mutual respect and good natured mockery.


Many reprehensible people 'had a way with words'. I won't Godwin the thread by expanding on that ...:devil:

But I'm all for mutual respect and good natured mockery in the face of profound disagreement - I hope we manage that when we disagree and RobertM seems cut from that cloth too.


----------



## Balfour

Chillburgher said:


> You've been expressing various versions of this sentiment on this thread since July. The results from Super Tuesday tomorrow will likely disabuse you of this notion.
> 
> Predictwise.com is now giving him an 80% chance of winning the nomination. I expect by Wednesday that number will rise.


A truly horrifying race - Trump v Clinton. Someone deleted a post which included a very apt scene from South Park illustrating such a race. Where are the wise elders - the latter day Marcus Aurelius - in this debate? For someone profoundly opposed to the current President, he has more class and statesmanship than either of the likely frontrunners in the 2016 election. And yes, facing up to that conclusion really brings home the horror of the situation that is unfolding in the race.

I'm not asking for a Bull-Moose candidate, but goodness, this race makes Secretary Kerry, Sen Lieberman, Governor Jeb Bush or Governor Romney look like Heaven sent candidates.

:icon_pale::icon_pale:


----------



## Mike Petrik

Balfour said:


> A truly horrifying race - Trump v Clinton. Someone deleted a post which included a very apt scene from South Park illustrating such a race. Where are the wise elders - the latter day Marcus Aurelius - in this debate? For someone profoundly opposed to the current President, he has more class and statesmanship than either of the likely frontrunners in the 2016 election. And yes, facing up to that conclusion really brings home the horror of the situation that is unfolding in the race.
> 
> I'm not asking for a Bull-Moose candidate, but goodness, this race makes Secretary Kerry, Sen Lieberman, Governor Jeb Bush or Governor Romney look like Heaven sent candidates.
> 
> :icon_pale::icon_pale:


Agreed, Balfour. My views are summarized herein:




__ https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/561073597391141


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> A truly horrifying race - Trump v Clinton. Someone deleted a post which included a very apt scene from South Park illustrating such a race. Where are the wise elders - the latter day Marcus Aurelius - in this debate? For someone profoundly opposed to the current President, he has more class and statesmanship than either of the likely frontrunners in the 2016 election. And yes, facing up to that conclusion really brings home the horror of the situation that is unfolding in the race.
> 
> I'm not asking for a Bull-Moose candidate, but goodness, this race makes Secretary Kerry, Sen Lieberman, Governor Jeb Bush or Governor Romney look like Heaven sent candidates.
> 
> :icon_pale::icon_pale:


I completely agree. That said, I strongly argue that Clinton is by far the lesser of the two evils, however odious she might be. If it were any other prominent GOP leader, I'd say the choice would be very different. Conservatives have their views, us liberals ours. But Trump is not about a disagreement over big or little government, health care policy, etc. Obama v. Romney was that sort of difference of views. Gore v. Bush. Carter v. Reagan. I could go on. But Trump is something else.


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> Many reprehensible people 'had a way with words'. I won't Godwin the thread by expanding on that ...:devil:
> 
> But I'm all for mutual respect and good natured mockery in the face of profound disagreement - I hope we manage that when we disagree and RobertM seems cut from that cloth too.


I'll drink to that.
:beer:


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> I completely agree. That said, I strongly argue that Clinton is by far the lesser of the two evils, however odious she might be. If it were any other prominent GOP leader, I'd say the choice would be very different. Conservatives have their views, us liberals ours. But Trump is not about a disagreement over big or little government, health care policy, etc. Obama v. Romney was that sort of difference of views. Gore v. Bush. Carter v. Reagan. I could go on. But Trump is something else.


Sadly, my friend, if I had a vote in a Trump v Clinton election, it could not be cast for Trump, a demagogue of the worst order. And you know the pain it causes me to come off the fence in that way.

In that race, you have a choice between an odious, dishonest and contemptible politician and Trump, who frankly reminds me of Greg Stillson in that old Stephen King book.


----------



## tocqueville

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed, Balfour. My views are summarized herein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/561073597391141


I hope Mr. Sasse is not alone. His assessment of Trump--from the point of view of a Conservative--is correct. He is not what Conservatives ostensibly seek (I like the phrase "ordered liberty.") Which is why I strongly suspect that darker things lie beneath some Conservatives' support for him.


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed, Balfour. My views are summarized herein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/561073597391141


Thank you for that link. Yes, a third party candidate is something to hope for (however unrealistic) should a Trump v Clinton race eventuate.


----------



## tocqueville

Although a third part candidate could take away more Hillary votes than Trump votes. Imagine if Bloomberg, for example, entered the race. Or even Jim Webb in Virginia could get just enough votes in a swing state to sway the entire thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tempest

There is much to be learned from the fact that so many "conservatives" and Republicans are cheering for someone to come in and spoil the election and hand it to the opposition rather than support the popular candidate of the people of the party. The Republicans and cuckservatives like the Democrats more than they like their own voters. Needless to say, the voters have realized this and are not happy about it.


----------



## Balfour

Tempest, old boy, we agree on much but not this. Substitute "wingnuts" for "voters" in your post and I could get behind it.


----------



## jd202

tocqueville said:


> I hope Mr. Sasse is not alone. His assessment of Trump--from the point of view of a Conservative--is correct.


It's worth reading the NYT feature on Republican "establishment" last-ditch efforts to discredit and defeat Trump, including contemplation of a strategy that, should he win, would accept his general election loss as a given and push Republican senate candidates as a necessary check on President Hillary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> I hope Mr. Sasse is not alone. His assessment of Trump--from the point of view of a Conservative--is correct. He is not what Conservatives ostensibly seek (I like the phrase "ordered liberty.") Which is why I strongly suspect that darker things lie beneath some Conservatives' support for him.


I do not know the genesis of the term "ordered liberty," but I do know that its chief currency was in "substantive due process" constitutional jurisprudence. Basically, the phrase was used as a test to determine which "liberties" required due process before a state deprivation. Examples might include the right of parents to raise their own children, for instance. Eventually, the Supreme Court abandoned this test in favor of one that looks chiefly to the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Tempest

The convervatives wingnuts are needed to balance the liberal wingnuts. Fail them and the left wins, no matter how slowly.
I cite again from Chris Tucker's piece:


> Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal*.*..
> Washington Republicans look on at this in horror, their suspicions confirmed. Beneath the thin topsoil of rural conservatism, they see the seeds of proto-fascism beginning to sprout. But that's not quite right. Republicans in the states aren't dangerous. They've just evaluated the alternatives and decided those are worse.
> Read more: https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...hocking-vulgar-and-right-213572#ixzz41ammeKQQ
> ​


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> You've been expressing various versions of this sentiment on this thread since July. The results from Super Tuesday tomorrow will likely disabuse you of this notion.
> 
> Predictwise.com is now giving him an 80% chance of winning the nomination. I expect by Wednesday that number will rise.


And I'm sticking with it.

Thank you for the edit by the way. Much appreciated.


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> He wouldn't come straight out and repudiate an endorsement from David Duke. I think we've reach "peak Trump".


People are seeing through the media tricks, as evidenced here when MSNBC tried to fan the flames and the black guy called them out on the race-baiting a tad before the minute mark.


----------



## SG_67

^ there's going to be no shortage of such tricks. The Donald had better gird his loins.


----------



## SG_67

And every time he puts his foot in his mouth, someone comes along and gives him a lifeline:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/vicente-fox-donald-trump-hitler/


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> And every time he puts his foot in his mouth, someone comes along and gives him a lifeline:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/vicente-fox-donald-trump-hitler/


I really dislike the Trump/Hitler comparison. Exaggerating doesn't help the cause. Trump is more like Berlusconi, or other clowns-cum-national leaders like a few Argentine presidents (Menem, Christina, etc.). The difference being that Trump as US President can do a lot more harm than any Italian Prime Minister.


----------



## tocqueville

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nald-trump-repudiate-the-ku-klux-klan/471345/

Interesting.


----------



## immanuelrx

Sorry, another trump themed video from a late night talk show. Not sure why late night talk shows are hated on this forum, but to each their own. We all have our own forms of entertainment I guess.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Is there audio of Trump doing this on television? Please don't cite the time Fox News bleeped a silent pause.


Look at the second link; he does it and/or similar repeatedly.



Tempest said:


> And stop acting like Vatican City is not a nation.
> https://bfy.tw/4Vfh


What a strange remark! Acting? You assert that the Vatican is a walled-in nation. I prove that it isn't walled-in, and provide a definition of nation that proves that it isn't a nation and you suggest that I'm acting! Please show me one thing that proves that the Vatican is a nation. I'll remind you of the definition: *"**a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory"*
It isn't a large body of people. The population don't have common descent, many being from many different countries. The population don't have a common history. The city itself has a history, like most cities do, as does the state, but the population is mixed. The culture is common, but it is also common to the rest of Italy, as is the language. The population inhabits a particular state I'll grant you, but that makes the Vatican City a state, not a nation. There is, of course, such a thing as a nation state, many nationalists in the 19th century in particular were very keen to establish nation states, where a nation and a state coincide, but these are very rare.


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> Sorry, another trump themed video from a late night talk show. Not sure why late night talk shows are hated on this forum, but to each their own. We all have our own forms of entertainment I guess.


They are hated by some members, not all. I think that you'll find that those that hate them share a common political and social and ideological viewpoint. Yet these same people, or most of them, complain that "the left" don't have a sense of humour.


----------



## immanuelrx

Chouan said:


> They are hated by some members, not all. I think that you'll find that those that hate them share a common political and social and ideological viewpoint. Yet these same people, or most of them, complain that "the left" don't have a sense of humour.


Are you kidding me? Some of the funniest comedians fall in the left side of the spectrum. It's unfortunate when one side can't acknowledge the other because it comes from the other side. Both sides are guilty.


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> Are you kidding me? Some of the funniest comedians fall in the left side of the spectrum. It's unfortunate when one side can't acknowledge the other because it comes from the other side. Both sides are guilty.


I think that you've misunderstood me. There are members of this forum who have complained that "the left" have no sense of humour. Those same members are the ones complaining about the remarkably funny clips that you've posted. 
You might appreciate this near contemporary British view




I may have posted it before, but it is worth watching.


----------



## Chouan

There appears to be a similar view from many of the right in Britain who, perhaps from some kind of sense of entitlement or deference, or hierarchical superiority, dislike their political idols being ridiculed or even challenged by those seen as their inferiors. Mind you, they appear to believe that they are fully entitled to ridicule those they disagree with ideologically, as many occasions in Parliament have shown. 
You might find this amusing:


----------



## immanuelrx

Chouan said:


> I think that you've misunderstood me. There are members of this forum who have complained that "the left" have no sense of humour. Those same members are the ones complaining about the remarkably funny clips that you've posted.
> You might appreciate this near contemporary British view
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may have posted it before, but it is worth watching.


There was no misunderstanding good Sir, I was not directing that to you specifically.


----------



## tocqueville

Is there good right wing satire in the US? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

Times have changed:



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153398271383775



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tempest

tocqueville said:


> I really dislike the Trump/Hitler comparison.


I don't mind it, but I'm not one that thinks "oogah boogah bad guy" but rather as seen by Lloyd George :"Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook."


tocqueville said:


> Is there good right wing satire in the US?


The left cannot be satirized as they are too outlandish already. As we saw on the Oscars, "gender confirmation surgery" lol. How can one be funnier than the left?


----------



## tocqueville

Tempest said:


> I don't mind it, but I'm not one that thinks "oogah boogah bad guy" but rather as seen by Lloyd George :"Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook."
> 
> The left cannot be satirized as they are too outlandish already. As we saw on the Oscars, "gender confirmation surgery" lol. How can one be funnier than the left?


Your sympathies for Hitler have not gone unnoticed.


----------



## Balfour

My concern about Trump is that he is more dangerous than Berlusconi, not simply by virtue of the power of the office of the POTUS but also because of his personal characteristics. Staying with Italy, I would place him somewhere between Berlusconi and Mussolini (but closer to Berlusconi). He's no Hitler, but I stick with my Greg Stillson analogy. 

It is really a profoundly regrettable state of affairs that a respectable political party (whether you are a supporter or not) seems to be turning its back on responsible politics. 

(We have this going on in the UK on the left in the leadership of the Labour Party.)


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> I don't mind it, but I'm not one that thinks "oogah boogah bad guy" but rather as seen by Lloyd George :"Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook."
> 
> The left cannot be satirized as they are too outlandish already. As we saw on the Oscars, "gender confirmation surgery" lol. How can one be funnier than the left?


Lloyd George speaking in 1936.

You may (or may not) be aware but Schicklgruber was involved in various schemes post 1936 that many people disapprove of.

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> My concern about Trump is that he is more dangerous than Berlusconi, not simply by virtue of the power of the office of the POTUS but also because of his personal characteristics. Staying with Italy, I would place him somewhere between Berlusconi and Mussolini (but closer to Berlusconi). He's no Hitler, but I stick with my Greg Stillson analogy.
> 
> It is really a profoundly regrettable state of affairs that a respectable political party (whether you are a supporter or not) seems to be turning its back on responsible politics.
> 
> (We have this going on in the UK on the left in the leadership of the Labour Party.)


I agree with you, although I confess to being unfamiliar with your Stillson analogy. I need to look that up.

Berlusconi--and even Mussolini--could not do nearly as much harm to the rest of the world a the President of the United States. Far more is at stake than just Italy's domestic situation...or the wellbeing of Albania or Abyssinia.

And truth be told, Berlusconi's personal accomplishments are far more impressive than Trump's. If I understand correctly, he didn't inherit his wealth, and he actually built things. I'd much sooner sink my money into a Berlusconi business venture than a Trump one.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Look at the second link; he does it and/or similar repeatedly.
> 
> What a strange remark! Acting? You assert that the Vatican is a walled-in nation. I prove that it isn't walled-in, and provide a definition of nation that proves that it isn't a nation and you suggest that I'm acting! Please show me one thing that proves that the Vatican is a nation. I'll remind you of the definition: *"**a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory"*
> It isn't a large body of people. The population don't have common descent, many being from many different countries. The population don't have a common history. The city itself has a history, like most cities do, as does the state, but the population is mixed. The culture is common, but it is also common to the rest of Italy, as is the language. The population inhabits a particular state I'll grant you, but that makes the Vatican City a state, not a nation. There is, of course, such a thing as a nation state, many nationalists in the 19th century in particular were very keen to establish nation states, where a nation and a state coincide, but these are very rare.


I prefer Ernest Renan's definition of a nation as a "daily plebiscite," or nothing more or less than "the clearly expressed desire to continue living together." Then there's Benedict Anderson's definition of the nation as an imagined community.

I haven't done more in the Vatican than tour the sites, but I rather suspect that it is a state rather than a nation. You'd have to interview the residents (how many are there, really?) to suss that out.


----------



## tocqueville

I have nothing against Stephen King, although I haven't read more than half of Cujo back in the day. Don't confuse me with one of those snobs who only reads "Literature." I have a penchant for YA novels for example, especially sci-fi. I've read the Hunger Games trilogy twice (could only get through Divergence once). Truth is that "Literature" these days puts me to sleep. I'm too tired to manage if I'm not being entertained. But don't worry: I'm a snob in plenty of other ways 

Having read the thing from Wiki, the Stilson comparison seems on the mark.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I prefer Ernest Renan's definition of a nation as a "daily plebiscite," or nothing more or less than "the clearly expressed desire to continue living together." Then there's Benedict Anderson's definition of the nation as an imagined community.
> 
> I haven't done more in the Vatican than tour the sites, but I rather suspect that it is a state rather than a nation. You'd have to interview the residents (how many are there, really?) to suss that out.


There are very few and most of those are clerics or functionaries of the Catholic Church or their servants, most of which are originally from elsewhere in the Catholic world. Even the Head of State isn't of "Vatican City" nationality, if such a thing existed. Even the armed forces of the State come from another country, and return to it once their term of service is over.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> It is really a profoundly regrettable state of affairs that a respectable political party (whether you are a supporter or not) seems to be turning its back on responsible politics.
> 
> (We have this going on in the UK on the left in the leadership of the Labour Party.)


In your humble opinion. In my own humble opinion, the internal political manoevring within the Tory party that has led us to this forthcoming referendum is evidence of a far less responsible attitude towards the country. A toff trying to strengthen his position within the party to preempt the political activities of a different toff has had far more effect on the country than anything the Labour party has done, and a potentially far more damaging effect than anything Corbyn could do. You think that Hunt's deliberately engineered conflict with the BMA is an example of responsible politics? 
This may be satire, but it is effective because it is so serious.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Lloyd George speaking in 1936.
> 
> You may (or may not) be aware but Schicklgruber was involved in various schemes post 1936 that many people disapprove of.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .


Mr.Tempest even argued that Nazi hygiene arrangements for prisoners were exemplary, even the showers.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> In your humble opinion. In my own humble opinion, the internal political manoevring within the Tory party that has led us to this forthcoming referendum is evidence of a far less responsible attitude towards the country. A toff trying to strengthen his position within the party to preempt the political activities of a different toff has had far more effect on the country than anything the Labour party has done, and a potentially far more damaging effect than anything Corbyn could do. You think that Hunt's deliberately engineered conflict with the BMA is an example of responsible politics?
> This may be satire, but it is effective because it is so serious.


I must confess that I love it when you guys fight over British politics. It's both entertaining and edifying, given that you all have opinions that are not just strong but, at least as far as I can tell, well informed. Carry on!


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> ... A toff trying to strengthen his position within the party to preempt the political activities of a different toff has had far more effect on the country ...]


You see, your problem - as I have adverted to elsewhere - is, despite the intellectual veneer you adopt and the 'Socratic' interrogation of your opponents that you adopt, that you are a prejudiced inverted snob who "loathes" those of the right. While you are undoubtedly a clever man, it is impossible to have any sensible discourse with you.


----------



## tocqueville

If we could tone down the ad hominem, it would be great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Balfour

Noted, although Chouan's own postings demonstrate the assessment I set out above (the loathing comment he made comes from another thread). 

I won't be responding further to Chouan - as I say, there simply isn't any point.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Mr.Tempest even argued that Nazi hygiene arrangements for prisoners were exemplary, even the showers.


Really? I should be interested in a reprise of that theme, if Mr. Tempest is wiling?


----------



## Tempest

Shaver said:


> Really? I should be interested in a reprise of that theme, if Mr. Tempest is wiling?


I don't think there is much leeway in discussing the taboo truth of the matter, sadly. Suffice it to say that the open immigration and free trade myths are not the only unsupportable narratives that people are tiring of and refusing to accept any longer.


----------



## Balfour

Tempest said:


> I don't mind it, but I'm not one that thinks "oogah boogah bad guy" but rather as seen by Lloyd George :"Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook."
> 
> The left cannot be satirized as they are too outlandish already. As we saw on the Oscars, "gender confirmation surgery" lol. How can one be funnier than the left?


I love your comment about the Oscars and many of your withering comments directed at ill-informed posters here. But you do not, seriously, believe in the first statement do you? I would be sad if that was any more than (in my view very ill-judged) polemic.


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> I don't think there is much leeway in discussing the taboo truth of the matter, sadly. Suffice it to say that the open immigration and free trade myths are not the only unsupportable narratives that people are tiring of and refusing to accept any longer.


Taboo truth?


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> You see, your problem - as I have adverted to elsewhere - is, despite the intellectual veneer you adopt and the 'Socratic' interrogation of your opponents that you adopt, that you are a prejudiced inverted snob who "loathes" those of the right. While you are undoubtedly a clever man, it is impossible to have any sensible discourse with you.


My problem? I'm not aware of having a problem. Are you suggesting that "call me Dave" _*didn't*_ provoke the referendum to disarm his opponents in the Party? That our position on Europe isn't being caused by the internal politics of the Tory party? Or are you merely name calling?


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Really? I should be interested in a reprise of that theme, if Mr. Tempest is wiling?


Page 14 of this thread is where the sanitary arrangements of the Nazis were given as exemplars for the rest of the world.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Noted, although Chouan's own postings demonstrate the assessment I set out above (the loathing comment he made comes from another thread).
> 
> I won't be responding further to Chouan - as I say, there simply isn't any point.


You never do, at least to my arguments when they involve politics.


----------



## Balfour

Tempest said:


> I don't mind it, but I'm not one that thinks "oogah boogah bad guy" but rather as seen by Lloyd George :"Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook."
> 
> The left cannot be satirized as they are too outlandish already. As we saw on the Oscars, "gender confirmation surgery" lol. How can one be funnier than the left?





Balfour said:


> I love your comment about the Oscars and many of your withering comments directed at ill-informed posters here. But you do not, seriously, believe in the first statement do you? I would be sad if that was any more than (in my view very ill-judged) polemic.


Tempest, you seem curiously reticent in providing clarification of your views on this point? Please do.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> You never do, at least to my arguments when they involve politics.


Never see the point? Yes, true, I don't. Mark Twain springs to mind when it comes to arguing with you about politics ...


----------



## Balfour

Hillary Clinton just became the next President of the United States.

It saddens me more than I can express that she is the 'least worst' option at present.

C'mon Mike, who can we have as a sensible third party candidate?

A sad day for America.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> People are still watching John Oliver in 2016? He's unAmerican, and a wuss, so I know he's against the Trump.


He clearly isn't American, but in what way is he un-American? In what way does his being a "wuss" (in your opinion, and whatever a "wuss" is) make his observations invalid in some way? Was his presentation dishonest? Did he broadcast lies?



Tempest said:


> I'm unsure how many nations are actually left if they are expected to have a common ethnicity, heritage, language or culture. The US certainly does not.


But, by the standard definition, the US is not a nation, it is a state, a country. There are nations living within it of course. The Cheyenne Nation, for example. "Nation" and "State" and "Country" are not synonymous. The concept of "Nation State" as I have explained elsewhere is a construct of 19th century nationalists, who sought to create, sometimes artificially, the idea of a country where the whole population were of the same nation, and all of that nation lived in that country. It has had tragic consequences in many parts of the world. 
Many nations exist, of course, but they don't all necessarily live in the same country. The Italians could be described as a nation (although there are those who deny their existence). However, not all Italians live in Italy, and I don't mean those Italians who have emigrated and who are now Americans, or Argentinians or citizens of any other country. There are Italians who live in Switzerland, in France, in Croatia and other Balkan states, yet are part of the Italian nation.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Never see the point? Yes, true, I don't. Mark Twain springs to mind when it comes to arguing with you about politics ...


No, you never respond to my arguments. If you don't see the point, why do you respond with the ad hom stuff, as you've done here, yet again?


----------



## immanuelrx

Glad that somebody in the party finally had the cajones to condon Trump's actions. Trump wasn't so pleased and voiced his displeasure. I am leaning more and more away from not voting to voting for Hillary. I will now have to shower because I feel dirty for typing that I would vote for Hillary.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/donald-trump-threatens-house-speaker-034600603.html


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> No, you never respond to my arguments. If you don't see the point, why do you respond with the ad hom stuff, as you've done here, yet again?


That's not actually true. I did try to have a sensible debate with you recently and as I mentioned at the time got sick of your shtick. I'm very happy to deal with shtick like that professionally but it is beyond tiresome here. So, as I repeat, when it comes to you I don't see the point. I make no apologies for the ad hom (which is warranted and accurate in my view), either, but in view of tocque's steer will leave the post there.


----------



## Tempest

immanuelrx said:


> Completely unacceptable post.
> 
> edited by forsbergacct2000


----------



## tocqueville

Dear Chouan,

I suppose the good news here is that your students are about to see some rather interesting things. None of it good for the world. But interesting.

America is about to get really, really ugly at least until the election.


----------



## Tempest

tocqueville said:


> None of it good for the world.


But great for America.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Dear Chouan,
> 
> I suppose the good news here is that your students are about to see some rather interesting things. None of it good for the world. But interesting.
> 
> America is about to get really, really ugly at least until the election.





Tempest said:


> But great for America.


That's exactly the sentiment that is driving many people into the Trump camp. Every time someone talks about what a disaster he will be for America, I have to wonder to myself what illuminates their consciousness that seems to be missing from those voting for him.

It's basically eliticism and it's really gotten us nowhere.

Were Trump to be elected president, does anyone think that it would be worse than what we've had for the last 8 years? Or worse yet, if Hillary were elected. The other candidates had their chance and they blew it. Those remaining aren't exactly the cream of the crop either. None of them can list a single achievement really and they have all talked in platitudes up to now.

Trump at least has a basic message; protect our borders, bring back jobs and make America great again. It's simple and direct, something that most pols are loathe to do as it gets them to commit.


----------



## Tempest

Exactly. Both Sanders and Trump are populist, meaning they are actually working for the people and not just rich cosmopolitan campaign donors. The "Joe the plumber" mentality, that we're all in line to be rich and thus should support policies that help the rich and ruin everything for everybody else, is going the way of the dodo. People are seeing the light.
I love seeing the last throes of the wrongheadedism. Begone, America-haters!


----------



## RogerP

Balfour said:


> Tempest, you seem curiously reticent in providing clarification of your views on this point? Please do.


He'll clarify, I'm sure, once he's done burning a fresh cross and laundering his white robes.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> He'll clarify, I'm sure, once he's done burning a fresh cross and laundering his white robes.


Is this type of personal attack necessary?

Unless you mean to say that anyone who supports Trump is also by definition a racist.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Is this type of personal attack necessary?
> 
> Unless you mean to say that anyone who supports Trump is also by definition a racist.


As Tempest has already extolled the virtues of the Nazis, their sanitary arrangements for prisoners, particularly their use of showers, and certainly hasn't distanced himself from their use of Zyklon B, I don't think that one needs to look at his support for Trump to reach that conclusion.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Those remaining aren't exactly the cream of the crop either. None of them can list a single achievement really and *they have all talked in platitudes up to now. *
> 
> Trump at least has a basic message; protect our borders, bring back jobs and make America great again. It's simple and direct, something that most pols are loathe to do as it gets them to commit.


Indeed. Now, let's get beyond the platitudes. Let's look at Trump's basic messages.
1) Protect your borders. With a wall. Paid for by Mexico. Really? How would he intend enforcing the financing of the wall by Mexico? Not vague platitudes, but how exactly is he going to force the Mexican government to build it?
2) What policies is Trump going to put in place to bring back jobs? How is he going to do this? No platitudes please, what are his practicable policies to achieve this?
3) What is he going to do that will make America great again? What exactly does he mean when he says that? What is his definition of a "great America"? Just so that we can see if he is doing what he promises, or is it just a platitude?


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> But great for America.


In what way?


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> That's not actually true. I did try to have a sensible debate with you recently and as I mentioned at the time got sick of your shtick. I'm very happy to deal with shtick like that professionally but it is beyond tiresome here. So, as I repeat, when it comes to you I don't see the point. I make no apologies for the ad hom (which is warranted and accurate in my view), either, but in view of tocque's steer will leave the post there.


You did, but, as you suggest here, you very quickly abandon debate and argument when your views are challenged and very quickly turn to ad hom. You have a very low toleration point for views that do not coincide with your own, and, rather than counter arguments, insultingly dismiss them, hence your use of "shtick". You seem to believe that views opposed to yours have been adopted to annoy you, or out of deliberate foolishness, which is a depressingly arrogant view to express.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> That's exactly the sentiment that is driving many people into the Trump camp. Every time someone talks about what a disaster he will be for America, I have to wonder to myself what illuminates their consciousness that seems to be missing from those voting for him.
> 
> It's basically eliticism and it's really gotten us nowhere.
> 
> Were Trump to be elected president, does anyone think that it would be worse than what we've had for the last 8 years? Or worse yet, if Hillary were elected. The other candidates had their chance and they blew it. Those remaining aren't exactly the cream of the crop either. None of them can list a single achievement really and they have all talked in platitudes up to now.
> 
> Trump at least has a basic message; protect our borders, bring back jobs and make America great again. It's simple and direct, something that most pols are loathe to do as it gets them to commit.


SG, I wasn't referring to Trump but rather the campaigns. Trump and Clinton both are not above playing dirty, and I think we'll see a far uglier campaign season than any we've seen recently. They'll try to eviscerate one another.


----------



## Tempest

Shaver said:


> Taboo truth?





Chouan said:


> ... their use of Zyklon B...


It was for delousing and nothing more. This is suppressed speech, of course so y'all will have to PM for anything else on the matter.

And now to address the OP's feigned ignorance.
Trump has stated, for those paying attention, that Mexico needs us more than we need them. They will build a wall with their money or sever all ties with the United States. They will choose the lesser evil, lest we limit Mexican immigration to zero, forbid all financial transfers to from US to Mexico, cut all aid etc.

Raising the minimum wage on H1-B workers alone will do tons. It is criminal that we bring in over a million unnecessary immigrants solely to suppress wages. Trump is a master negotiator, so we will not be getting schlonged on international trade deals anymore. He's essentially announced that he'd attack companies that plan to offshore their factories.

An America where more citizens actually have jobs and can buy American made products, where we are not beholden to PC silliness, where the ACA is gone, where the borders are strictly enforced, will be a greater America by far than the one we have now.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> You did, but, as you suggest here, you very quickly abandon debate and argument when your views are challenged and very quickly turn to ad hom. You have a very low toleration point for views that do not coincide with your own, and, rather than counter arguments, insultingly dismiss them, hence your use of "shtick". You seem to believe that views opposed to yours have been adopted to annoy you, or out of deliberate foolishness, which is a depressingly arrogant view to express.


Don't extrapolate or overgeneralise based on your prejudices against me. As ample posts in this forum demonstrate I am happy to engage in sensible discourse with those with whom I profoundly disagree. I'm also happy to roll up my sleeves to tackle nitwits.

It is revealing that you criticise me for resorting to ad hominem in an ad hominem post. But the humourless left were never much troubled by hypocrisy. (And despite what you've posted elsewhere I agree there are many on the left who are very humourful, but there is a trend of humourless leftist thinking that is worthy of the commissars.)


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> It was for delousing and nothing more. This is suppressed speech, of course so y'all will have to PM for anything else on the matter.....


I see.

Presumably, then, you have never conversed with anybody who was detained at Auschwitz during the latter years of the Second World War?


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> Were Trump to be elected president, does anyone think that it would be worse than what we've had for the last 8 years? Or worse yet, if Hillary were elected.


Yes. I'd venture somewhere around 55% or greater of the electorate. We shall see, come November.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> SG, I wasn't referring to Trump but rather the campaigns. Trump and Clinton both are not above playing dirty, and I think we'll see a far uglier campaign season than any we've seen recently. They'll try to eviscerate one another.


Thanks for the clarification. It seems as though every 4 years one candidate comes out and states how this or that campaign is the ugliest ever and that he will not resort to that sort of thing, followed closely thereafter by resorting to that sort of thing.

I recall Adams and Jefferson had a rather dirty campaign against one another. Of course, had we Twitter then, who knows how it would have looked. It's better to just pay reporters to plant dirty stories.

Politics is by nature dirty. Hence the reason many American northeast blue bloods stayed away from it. I recall reading that TR's family was aghast that he wanted to enter into politics.

We will be fine. To suggest that a political campaign will ruin a country is hyperbole. We've survived a civil war. Twitter insults pale in comparison.

Actually, if anyone listened to Trump's speech last night they would have found it rather toned down and, dare I say, presidential!


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Don't extrapolate or overgeneralise based on your prejudices against me. As ample posts in this forum demonstrate I am happy to engage in sensible discourse with those with whom I profoundly disagree. I'm also happy to roll up my sleeves to tackle nitwits.
> 
> It is revealing that you criticise me for resorting to ad hominem in an ad hominem post. But the humourless left were never much troubled by hypocrisy. (And despite what you've posted elsewhere I agree there are many on the left who are very humourful, but there is a trend of humourless leftist thinking that is worthy of the commissars.)


Hardly a prejudice against you, but a response to your posting style. Whether or not I agree with your views or your ideological stance isn't the issue, as far as I'm concerned. Unless you're arguing in favour of genocide, for example, I will attack your views with arguments. If you refer to my views as schtick, I will regard that as the equivalent of a child "arguing" by name-calling. If you start with ad hom, I see that as license to respond in that way. If you hadn't, repeatedly used ad hom, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to respond in like manner. 
As far as prejudice is concerned you seem to have me nicely pigeon-holed without a real clue as to who I am, or what I believe. That is a definition of prejudice, a pre-conceived or pre-judged view.
Even in the post quoted you dismiss the views that you disagree with as those of nitwits, which simply proves the point I made earlier.
To quote Jerome K Jerome* "Foolish people, by which I mean those whose views do not coincide with mine ....."*


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. It seems as though every 4 years one candidate comes out and states how this or that campaign is the ugliest ever and that he will not resort to that sort of thing, followed closely thereafter by resorting to that sort of thing.
> 
> I recall Adams and Jefferson had a rather dirty campaign against one another. Of course, had we Twitter then, who knows how it would have looked. It's better to just pay reporters to plant dirty stories.
> 
> Politics is by nature dirty. Hence the reason many American northeast blue bloods stayed away from it. I recall reading that TR's family was aghast that he wanted to enter into politics.
> 
> We will be fine. To suggest that a political campaign will ruin a country is hyperbole. We've survived a civil war. Twitter insults pale in comparison.
> 
> Actually, if anyone listened to Trump's speech last night they would have found it rather toned down and, dare I say, presidential!


Good points, although I'm still betting on high ugliness. Obama v. McCain and Obama v. Romney were rather tame affairs, with credit going to the three men involved.


----------



## Acct2000

Okay. I've just suspended someone. Please be aware that the AAAC rules DO apply even in the interchange.

Also, with some of the horrid posts here, are you sure that your are not leaving an impressive that people who appreciate tailored clothing are uncivil and uncaring about anyone who doesn't agree with them? Please think of the impression you are leaving.

Except for the obvious case of the suspended poster, this post is aimed at no one in particular and EVERYONE in general.

At this point, if you are not sure your post is appropriate, please don't post it!


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> As Tempest has already extolled the virtues of the Nazis, their sanitary arrangements for prisoners, particularly their use of showers, and certainly hasn't distanced himself from their use of Zyklon B, I don't think that one needs to look at his support for Trump to reach that conclusion.


He did no such thing. He mentioned treatment of prisoners and you took it in the direction of death camps all on your own.


----------



## Balfour

Mark Twain: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> Good points, although I'm still betting on high ugliness. Obama v. McCain and Obama v. Romney were rather tame affairs, *with credit going to the three men involved*.


I completely agree.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> Yes. I'd venture somewhere around 55% or greater of the electorate. We shall see, come November.


Voting and voter psychology is a funny thing. Around the time of the 2012 re-election of Obama, the % of Americans who thought the country was on "the right track" was hovering at around 40%. That means that 60% of the country thought otherwise in varying degrees, yet he was still re-elected.

Attitudes will likely change and party allegiance will likely win out. If Trump is the eventual nominee I will vote for him.

Is he my ideal candidate? No. Do I prefer him over Hillary Clinton? Absolutely! I doesn't matter anyway; I live in Illinois. My vote will be negated by a corpse.


----------



## tocqueville

Some remarkable prescience from The Onion, in a piece dated November 2012:

[video]https://v.theonion.com/onionstudios/video/1795/640.mp4[/video]


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> Some remarkable prescience from The Onion, in a piece dated November 2012:
> 
> [video]https://v.theonion.com/onionstudios/video/1795/640.mp4[/video]


My friend, the current front runners reflect terribly on both the left and the right. I agree that Secretary Clinton is a better candidate than Trump, through gritted teeth, but both parties are walking away from responsible politics. I think to the cheerleaders for Caesar; someone needs to find the courage of Cato.


----------



## SG_67

^ Why do we need to bring the Green Hornet into this?

How exactly is Hillary a better candidate? Trump is no worse than any of the others who were running. The packaging is different and he speaks differently, but that's all. 

It's amazing how every 4 years we all complain about how superficial politicians and political campaigns are yet we in turn always judge candidates on the most superficial terms. I suppose we can't blame them for giving us what we ask for. 

As I said, if The Donald becomes the nominee, I'll vote for him without reservation (barring some incredible revelation like he's a socialist, or handled top secret emails on a home server, or lied about visiting a war zone under sniper fire, or something crazy like that).


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> My friend, the current front runners reflect terribly on both the left and the right. I agree that Secretary Clinton is a better candidate than Trump, through gritted teeth, but both parties are walking away from responsible politics. I think to the cheerleaders for Caesar; someone needs to find the courage of Cato.


The better candidates either stayed out or failed to make a mark. Imagine if Romney had entered the race. Or, heck, Gore.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Romney I can see, but Gore? 

Actually I like Mitch Daniels of Indiana or Judd Gregg of NH. Of course neither of them would have passed muster with the religious right which is why I am for any GOP candidate who can nullify this bunch and take some of the silliness out of the GOP primary fights.


----------



## tocqueville

Keep your eyes in Governor Hogan (R) of Maryland, who seems to be doing a good job of cutting deals with the Dem-controlled legislature. He is getting things done.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Keep your eyes in Governor Hogan (R) of Maryland, who seems to be doing a good job of cutting deals with the Dem-controlled legislature. He is getting things done.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is the thing I don't understand about the appeal of Cruz. He's against "making deals" which is what politics is all about. Of all the candidates that seem dictatorial, it's not Trump that worries me, it's Cruz. Thankfully, he doesn't really stand a chance.

At least Trump is open to working with people to get things done. His appeal is that people believe that those deals will be advantageous to the US if international or the specific interests if domestic. Cruz won't cut deals, meaning he will get nothing done.

He would resort to executive action and trying to get around congress and in that sense, he really would be no different from our current POTUS.


----------



## Charles Dana

SG_67 said:


> Is [Trump] my ideal candidate? No. Do I prefer him over Hillary Clinton? Absolutely! I doesn't matter anyway; I live in Illinois. My vote will be negated by a corpse.


As a moderate Republican, I could have written almost the same thing, with the following changes:

Is Trump my ideal candidate? No. Do I prefer him over Hillary Clinton? Absolutely! It doesn't matter anyway; I live in California. My vote will be negated by the Electoral College.

(California is not a swing state. Far from it. It WILL be firmly in the Democrat column come November, which means that the Democrat candidate WILL easily accrue all of California's delegates to the Electoral College. My vote, therefore, will go nowhere, but at least I'll know that, by voting, I performed one of my civic obligations.)


----------



## tocqueville

Here we go! What if...

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271498-romney-to-hold-speech-addressing-2016-race

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> He did no such thing. He mentioned treatment of prisoners and you took it in the direction of death camps all on your own.


I mentioned sanitary conditions for prisoners, referencing the "showers", he extolled them. I mentioned Zyklon B in post 334, he continued to say that Nazi prisoners were treated well. I showed a picture taken at Dachau and he didn't distance himself from that, although he subsequently asserted that Zyklon B was only used for de-lousing. Perhaps you agree with that view?


----------



## Tiger

Charles Dana said:


> As a moderate Republican, I could have written almost the same thing, with the following changes:
> 
> Is Trump my ideal candidate? No. Do I prefer him over Hillary Clinton? Absolutely! It doesn't matter anyway; I live in California. My vote will be negated by the Electoral College. (California is not a swing state. Far from it. It WILL be firmly in the Democrat column come November, which means that the Democrat candidate WILL easily accrue all of California's delegates to the Electoral College. My vote, therefore, will go nowhere, but at least I'll know that, by voting, I performed one of my civic obligations.)


Of course I understand your point, but a minor addendum: Your vote is not negated by the electoral process as originally designed, but by the process eventually adopted by 48 of the 50 States, i.e., allowing the population to choose electors rather than State legislatures, and by utilizing a "winner take all system" in allocating those votes.

By the way, Charles, I always enjoy your posts - informative, self-effacing, and often humorous. Thank you!


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Mark Twain: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."


Sad really that you felt the need to spell it out, I'm not sure why as I would imagine that most if not all of our membership got the reference. Still name-calling ........


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> I mentioned sanitary conditions for prisoners, referencing the "showers", he extolled them. I mentioned Zyklon B in post 334, he continued to say that Nazi prisoners were treated well. I showed a picture taken at Dachau and he didn't distance himself from that, although he subsequently asserted that Zyklon B was only used for de-lousing. Perhaps you agree with that view?


As hard as you try to put words in peoples' mouths so you can then argue with those attributed points, you really are not very good at it.

But you do keep trying. I have to give you that.......


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> As hard as you try to put words in peoples' mouths so you can then argue with those attributed points, you really are not very good at it.
> 
> But you do keep trying. I have to give you that.......


Would you mind awfully were I to encourage you to provide an insight as to your own interpretation of the position tempest was advancing?


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> Of course I understand your point, but a minor addendum: Your vote is not negated by the electoral process as originally designed, but by the process eventually adopted by 48 of the 50 States, i.e., allowing the population to choose electors rather than State legislatures, and by utilizing a "winner take all system" in allocating those votes.
> 
> By the way, Charles, I always enjoy your posts - informative, self-effacing, and often humorous. Thank you!


Your appraisal of Charles meets with my hearty endorsement and, if I may, your contributions are also appreciated - a greater frequency would be a welcome treat.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> Your appraisal of Charles meets with my hearty endorsement and, if I may, your contributions are also appreciated - a greater frequency would be a welcome treat.


Your kind and generous words are much appreciated. If I could only come close to your profundity and caustic wit (and that of Balfour as well), maybe I would post more!


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Your appraisal of Charles meets with my hearty endorsement and, if I may, your contributions are also appreciated - a greater frequency would be a welcome treat.


Tiger, I was going to echo this even before I read your kind words in my direction.


----------



## Balfour

RogerP said:


> He'll clarify, I'm sure, once he's done burning a fresh cross and laundering his white robes.


Roger, that's a little harsh ... what sprung to my mind was more:






0.50 is particularly apt.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Would you mind awfully were I to encourage you to provide an insight as to your own interpretation of the position tempest was advancing?


The highlights? Sure. I didn't really delve into the minutiae though.

The Vatican is a sovereign nation
The Vatican has walls
Germany under the Nazis had a very robust economy
Germany under the Nazis was a world leader in many technologies

Somehow prisoners and Zyklon B (which in and of itself was actually quite a technological advancement developed for legitimate purposes but later found out to be quite effective at the industrial murder of humans) got brought up, but they were never more than an ancillary part of any position tempest held - at least as far as I could see.

Almost all of those things are quite true on the face of it - as long as you remove the treatment of Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and other so called non-persons of course. Which of course you can't, but no sane person would try to argue that just because there are pieces of truth to what tempest said that the was in agreement with the way that Nazis treated the Jews, Russians, Gypsies, or other "sub-humans*."

If you feel that tempest held a specific position supporting the Holocaust, might I ask you to quote it?

Oh - and he likes Trump a lot. Like a crap ton

*Note to chouhan - please do not try to say that I am advocating the use of Jews, Russians, Gypsies, etc. as sub-human. This was used to describe the people that the Nazis considered to be in that group, not peoples that I consider to be in that group.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> The highlights? Sure. I didn't really delve into the minutiae though.
> 
> The Vatican is a sovereign nation
> The Vatican has walls
> Germany under the Nazis had a very robust economy
> Germany under the Nazis was a world leader in many technologies


Interesting redefinition of your mate (I say your mate as you seem otherwise inordinately keen to defend him) Tempest's assertions.
To recap my position:
The Vatican is not a sovereign nation. It is a sovereign state. Nation and state, as I have established, are not synonymous.
Tempest asserted that the Vatican is a walled-in nation, not, as you now say Tempest said, that the Vatican has walls. That is an entirely different thing. The Vatican has walls, but is not walled-in.
Germany had a temporarily robust economy, developed in part by state seizures of private wealth, and in part by unsustainable job creation schemes, like inceasing the size of the army from just over 100000 to in excess of 5000000.
Germany was no more a world leader in technology than Britain, or the US, or the USSR was.



vpkozel said:


> Somehow prisoners and Zyklon B (which in and of itself was actually quite a technological advancement developed for legitimate purposes but later found out to be quite effective at the industrial murder of humans) got brought up, but they were never more than an ancillary part of any position tempest held - at least as far as I could see.


Extolling Nazi Germany whilst disregarding the less than savoury aspects of that regime is rather lacking in balance, and can be thought a trifle alarming.



vpkozel said:


> Almost all of those things are quite true on the face of it - as long as you remove the treatment of Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and other so called non-persons of course. Which of course you can't, but no sane person would try to argue that just because there are pieces of truth to what tempest said that the was in agreement with the way that Nazis treated the Jews, Russians, Gypsies, or other "sub-humans*."


Indeed. So we have "prisoners" who are well treated, who are entitled to be well treated, so can be given as examples of good treatment of prisoners by the Nazi regime. I would imagine that this includes categories such as British and American commissioned aircrew. Then we have other people who were prisoners, but who are to be ignored for the purposes of Tempest's assertions. So the Russian, Czech, Polish, Yugoslav and Spanish POWS, and ordinary Germans who held unwelcome political or religious views worked and starved to death can be disregarded for the purposes of Tempest's argument, as can the French and British other ranks used as slave labour on a marginally above starvation diet? 
The Nazis either treated prisoners well, or they didn't, one can't disregard millions of them because for racial or political reasons they don't fit in with one's position. 
Not that I'm suggesting that you share Tempest's view on these matters.



vpkozel said:


> If you feel that tempest held a specific position supporting the Holocaust, might I ask you to quote it?


Read it for yourself, post number 627.



vpkozel said:


> Oh - and he likes Trump a lot. Like a crap ton


Whatever that means.



vpkozel said:


> *Note to chouhan - please do not try to say that I am advocating the use of Jews, Russians, Gypsies, etc. as sub-human. This was used to describe the people that the Nazis considered to be in that group, not peoples that I consider to be in that group.


Why would you imagine that I would think that?


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> The highlights? Sure. I didn't really delve into the minutiae though.
> 
> The Vatican is a sovereign nation
> The Vatican has walls
> Germany under the Nazis had a very robust economy
> Germany under the Nazis was a world leader in many technologies
> 
> Somehow prisoners and Zyklon B (which in and of itself was actually quite a technological advancement developed for legitimate purposes but later found out to be quite effective at the industrial murder of humans) got brought up, but they were never more than an ancillary part of any position tempest held - at least as far as I could see.
> 
> Almost all of those things are quite true on the face of it - as long as you remove the treatment of Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and other so called non-persons of course. Which of course you can't, but no sane person would try to argue that just because there are pieces of truth to what tempest said that the was in agreement with the way that Nazis treated the Jews, Russians, Gypsies, or other "sub-humans*."
> 
> If you feel that tempest held a specific position supporting the Holocaust, might I ask you to quote it?
> 
> Oh - and he likes Trump a lot. Like a crap ton
> 
> *Note to chouhan - please do not try to say that I am advocating the use of Jews, Russians, Gypsies, etc. as sub-human. This was used to describe the people that the Nazis considered to be in that group, not peoples that I consider to be in that group.


Vp my friend enter the terms 'taboo truth' 'suppressed speech' and 'delousing' into your internet search engine and observe the hits which are returned.

Cryptos by definition are given to express themselves in cryptic terms.

.
.

.
.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Read it for yourself, post number 627.





Tempest said:


> It was for delousing and nothing more. This is suppressed speech, of course so y'all will have to PM for anything else on the matter.
> 
> And now to address the OP's feigned ignorance.
> Trump has stated, for those paying attention, that Mexico needs us more than we need them. They will build a wall with their money or sever all ties with the United States. They will choose the lesser evil, lest we limit Mexican immigration to zero, forbid all financial transfers to from US to Mexico, cut all aid etc.
> 
> Raising the minimum wage on H1-B workers alone will do tons. It is criminal that we bring in over a million unnecessary immigrants solely to suppress wages. Trump is a master negotiator, so we will not be getting schlonged on international trade deals anymore. He's essentially announced that he'd attack companies that plan to offshore their factories.
> 
> An America where more citizens actually have jobs and can buy American made products, where we are not beholden to PC silliness, where the ACA is gone, where the borders are strictly enforced, will be a greater America by far than the one we have now.


There it is - please post the specific section to which you refer.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> There it is - please post the specific section to which you refer.


First sentence. Do you *really* not get it? *Really*?


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Vp my friend enter the terms 'taboo truth' 'suppressed speech' and 'delousing' into your internet search engine and observe the hits which are returned.


I may, but will probably not as I really don't care all that much.



> Cryptos by definition are given to express themselves in cryptic terms.


You mean like people who want to call other Holocaust deniers without actually owning it? Or some other kind of Crypto?

And I am not here to defend someone else's opinion. I will however call out lame debate behavior where I see it - and Chouhan is a volume offender in that arena.

Now, don't you have to sort through your vaca pics to find some of the Vatican?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> First sentence. Do you *really* not get it? *Really*?


Denying its existence is not the same as supporting it. As a teacher, I would expect you to know that.

Of course, I would have expected you to know a lot of things that you apparently don't.

Edit - I honestly don't really concern myself with deniers (moon landing, holocaust, 9/11, etc.) of any type, so if these are well known code words, then I please excuse my ignorance. I was imply responding to the claims of supporting the systematic murder of more than 10 million people.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> I may, but will probably not as I really don't care all that much.
> 
> You mean like people who want to call other Holocaust deniers without actually owning it? Or some other kind of Crypto?
> 
> And I am not here to defend someone else's opinion. I will however call out lame debate behavior where I see it - and Chouhan is a volume offender in that arena.
> 
> Now, don't you have to sort through your vaca pics to find some of the Vatican?


If you do not care enough to develop an understanding of the nature of the debate then what is it that compels you to engage with it?


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> There it is - please post the specific section to which you refer.


Right there at the top.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Right there at the top.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I disagree. Saying that the Holocaust never happened is not the same thing as saying that the Holocaust was a good idea.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> If you do not care enough to develop an understanding of the nature of the debate then what is it that compels you to engage with it?


Most of the debate before it devolved into the specific realms of Holocaust and the uses of Zyklon B was interesting. The idiocy that followed is often what happens when mischaracterizations, generalizations, and extrapolation get involved. And that is what I was commenting on.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> I disagree. Saying that the Holocaust never happened is not the same thing as saying that the Holocaust was a good idea.


Were you to care enough to enhance your knowledge of the subject then you might discover that there tends to be quite a strong correlation between those who deny (or diminish) the Holocaust and those who express vociferous anti-Semitic sentiment, the two beliefs often seem to go hand in hand.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Denying its existence is not the same as supporting it. As a teacher, I would expect you to know that.


Denying its existence after having extolled the virtues of the Nazi state makes his denial a bit more significant, shall we say, than denial after condemnation of it, wouldn't you think?



vpkozel said:


> Of course, I would have expected you to know a lot of things that you apparently don't.


Indeed? Like what? An assertion like that needs some evidence to support it, otherwise it looks a bit like name-calling.



vpkozel said:


> Edit - I honestly don't really concern myself with deniers (moon landing, holocaust, 9/11, etc.) of any type, so if these are well known code words, then I please excuse my ignorance. I was imply responding to the claims of supporting the systematic murder of more than 10 million people.


Indeed? Yet you've repeatedly sought to justify Tempest's remarks regarding Nazi Germany, amongst other assertions of his that have been proven wrong.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> You mean like people who want to call other Holocaust deniers without actually owning it?


Would you mind re-writing that in English, or at least in a form of English that I can understand?



vpkozel said:


> And I am not here to defend someone else's opinion.


Aren't you? Would you like me to add up the posts that you have made defending Tempest and Tempest's position?



vpkozel said:


> I will however call out lame debate behavior where I see it - and Chouhan is a volume offender in that arena.


Am I indeed? By "lame" I assume that you mean debate behaviour that argues against the views of you and your mate Tempest?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Most of the debate before it devolved into the specific realms of Holocaust and the uses of Zyklon B was interesting. The idiocy that followed is often what happens when mischaracterizations, generalizations, and extrapolation get involved. And that is what I was commenting on.


Which mischaracterisations, generalisations and extrapolations are those?


----------



## eagle2250

Gentlemen:

It wouldn't take much of a mental stretch at this point for a reasonable person to conclude several of you are arguing moderation actions that have been taken against another member. However, even if such mental gymnastic were not taken, your conversation(s) have drifted way, way off the topic of this thread. Please get back on topic, "Donald Trump and the Republicans." and save us all the unnecessary frustration of infractions being issued and/or locked threads! Thanks to all in advance.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> Gentlemen:
> 
> It wouldn't take much of a mental stretch at this point for a reasonable person to conclude several of you are arguing moderation actions that have been taken against another member. However, even if such mental gymnastic were not taken, your conversation(s) have drifted way, way off the topic of this thread. Please get back on topic, "Donald Trump and the Republicans." and save us all the unnecessary frustration of infractions being issued and/or locked threads! Thanks to all in advance.


My apologies if I am included within this group. I had not recognised that my recent contributions might be construed as disputing a moderator's decision and was, in fact, merely attempting to illuminate vp but nevertheless I shall cease forthwith.

.
.
.
.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> My apologies if I am included within this group. I had not recognised that my recent contributions might be construed as disputing a moderator's decision and was, in fact, merely attempting to illuminate vp but nevertheless I shall cease forthwith.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .


I also apologize if that is what you took from my exchanges with Shaver. That was never my intent. And I am always up for some enlightment, so I personally took no offense at all from the exchanges this morning.


----------



## Chillburgher

This open letter on Trump from GOP national security leaders is worth reading in full. Here is the final paragraph: 
_
Mr. Trump's own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office._


----------



## Charles Dana

Tiger said:


> Of course I understand your point, but a minor addendum: Your vote is not negated by the electoral process as originally designed, but by the process eventually adopted by 48 of the 50 States, i.e., allowing the population to choose electors rather than State legislatures, and by utilizing a "winner take all system" in allocating those votes.
> 
> By the way, Charles, I always enjoy your posts - informative, self-effacing, and often humorous. Thank you!


First of all, thank you Tiger, Shaver, and Balfour for your kind comments. Wow. You have made my day.

And thank you, Tiger, for the tune-up regarding my post about the Electoral College. Yes indeed, it's not so much the Electoral College itself that's the rub--like any process that's the result of a compromise, it has advantages as well as disadvantages. The pros and cons can be discussed endlessly. Rather, it's the winner-take-all deal in every state but Maine and Nebraska that I'm not crazy about. For old time's sake, it would be nice, during presidential elections, if the Republican and Democratic nominees needed to make their case all over the place instead of just in the swing states. Living in a state that's not a swing state, I feel kinda left out.


----------



## Balfour




----------



## SG_67

^ I'm really surprised he didn't try again. Perhaps he felt like he had his shot. 

Until the last week before the election when super storm Sandy hit, he was leading. Obama got a chance to look "like Presidential and all" and coupled with the bro love between he and the corpulent governor of NJ, it pretty much sealed the deal.


----------



## Balfour

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm really surprised he didn't try again. Perhaps he felt like he had his shot.
> 
> Until the last week before the election when super storm Sandy hit, he was leading. Obama got a chance to look "like Presidential and all" and coupled with the bro love between he and the corpulent governor of NJ, it pretty much sealed the deal.


Yeah, I remember. As Mike and I said, Obama's victory in 2012 is as much to blame for the parlous state of things now as anything else. Under a counter-factual Romney Administration, things would I suspect look very different.


----------



## Chouan

Charles Dana said:


> First of all, thank you Tiger, Shaver, and Balfour for your kind comments. Wow. You have made my day.
> 
> And thank you, Tiger, for the tune-up regarding my post about the Electoral College. Yes indeed, it's not so much the Electoral College itself that's the rub--like any process that's the result of a compromise, it has advantages as well as disadvantages. The pros and cons can be discussed endlessly. Rather, it's the winner-take-all deal in every state but Maine and Nebraska that I'm not crazy about. For old time's sake, it would be nice, during presidential elections, if the Republican and Democratic nominees needed to make their case all over the place instead of just in the swing states. Living in a state that's not a swing state, I feel kinda left out.


One of the problems with any kind of first past the post system of elections is that in states, counties, constituencies where one party is particularly strong then the voters, whatever their political allegiance are, essentially, disenfranchised. 
A friend of mine was the Tory candidate (I still spoke to him) for an urban constituency in the North East of England which always returns a Labour MP. It wouldn't matter what one voted in Redcar, there would be a Labour MP, so the voters really have no say. Where I live the MP returned is always a Tory, so my vote is always irrelevant. 
Perhaps non-swing states should have their votes cancelled out, so only voters in swing states or in marginal constituencies need bother?


----------



## SG_67

^ voters still have a say, they can vote. It's just that more people feel otherwise. People can always move. 

Speaking for Chicago and its suburbs, if one lives in cook county, and certainly in Chicago, one can pretty much assume that a vote for the GOP will come to naught. 

One can choose to live in Dupage county, however, which is a GOP stronghold cote for and be represented by someone who shares a common political outlook. 

The electoral college is not a perfect system, but it usually reflects the popular will.


----------



## Chouan

The other issue is where one doesn't have a candidate whose view reflects one's own. In the last General Election I had a choice between a "Blue" Tory (a London lawyer draughted in by Conservative Central Office), a "red" Tory (a nonentity draughted in by Labour), a Lib-Dem, a 'Kipper, or a mad independent. Nobody for me to vote for at all. I still exercised my democratic right and went with my dog to the polling station, despite thinking myself to be disenfranchised.


----------



## SG_67

I may just be echoing that same sentiment this Fall if The Donald is nominated. Unlike you, I don't have a dog however to console me after I pull the lever.


----------



## eagle2250

^^At a point much earlier in this thread, as I recall, I characterized The Donald, as a "Village Idiot" and am frankly not quite ready to cast off said characterization. But he has made at least a couple of good and very valid points of late that are certainly troubling and may at some point offer some degree of perverse comfort to those of us who are not Trump fans. First is that so many Americans are so frustrated with the status-quo that lager and larger numbers of them are rushing to embrace him because he is not part of the established morass that constitutes our national political face. Secondly, while his opponents and the existing leadership of the Republican party are so quick to criticize his (Trumps) willingness to work with the "other side of the isle (those dreaded Democrats!)," it is that very type of attitude/perspective that has brought everything in Washington, DC to a grinding halt. 

The Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be unable to recognize that the "it's the my way or the highway approach" that has brought everything to a halt within the beltway. Neither party is serving our country well at this point! Can we ignore the clear frustration(s) of such a large slice of the electorat? Perhaps finding ways to work together is the better option...yes,no? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Balfour

Chouan, if your constituency reflects your location, you have a fine MP in Lucy Frazer. Who ran against her in the election for Labour?

I might add, and then would pause in horror at the possibility, that if you feel so disenfranchised you could always stand yourself!


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Chouan, if your constituency reflects your location, you have a fine MP in Lucy Frazer. Who ran against her in the election for Labour?
> 
> I might add, and then would pause in horror at the possibility, that if you feel so disenfranchised you could always stand yourself!


A Red Tory nonentity. My friend was on the Blue Tory short list, having served his time by standing in Redcar (at considerable personal expense) in the last election, but, despite living in the constituency, wasn't selected. She may well be a good MP, but as I've never seen her and she didn't campaign personally where I live, and I've no idea of what she's doing, as we're never informed, I wouldn't know. Our previous MP, Jim Paice was an excellent constituency MP, despite his Party.

I and some friends, one night whilst in "The Punchbowl" in Jesmond, having drink taken decided that I should stand in the forthcoming General Election as an Anarchist. We argued, successfully (amongst ourselves) that a spoilt ballot paper was, de facto, a vote for Anarchy and that I, therefore, would get those votes. Having decided on policies, we went home, calling in for a curry on our way home. In the morning, however, on reflection, a rather more sober (literally) conclusion was reached, and we decided against it.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^At a point much earlier in this thread, as I recall, I characterized The Donald, as a "Village Idiot" and am frankly not quite ready to cast off said characterization. But he has made at least a couple of good and very valid points of late that are certainly troubling and may at some point offer some degree of perverse comfort to those of us who are not Trump fans. First is that so many Americans are so frustrated with the status-quo that lager and larger numbers of them are rushing to embrace him because he is not part of the established morass that constitutes our national political face. Secondly, while his opponents and the existing leadership of the Republican party are so quick to criticize his (Trumps) willingness to work with the "other side of the isle (those dreaded Democrats!)," it is that very type of attitude/perspective that has brought everything in Washington, DC to a grinding halt.
> 
> The Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be unable to recognize that the "it's the my way or the highway approach" that has brought everything to a halt within the beltway. Neither party is serving our country well at this point! Can we ignore the clear frustration(s) of such a large slice of the electorat? Perhaps finding ways to work together is the better option...yes,no? :icon_scratch:


A very good point. Politics is, or should be, about compromise and negotiation. A great Tory Prime Minister (they have existed), Macmillan, argued that the Country's good was more important than ideology, and that a consensus, a negotiated policy worked for by both Parties, was better for the country than simple majority rule.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> The other issue is where one doesn't have a candidate whose view reflects one's own. In the last General Election I had a choice between a "Blue" Tory (a London lawyer draughted in by Conservative Central Office), a "red" Tory (a nonentity draughted in by Labour), a Lib-Dem, a 'Kipper, or a mad independent. Nobody for me to vote for at all. I still exercised my democratic right and went with my dog to the polling station, despite thinking myself to be disenfranchised.


What's a kipper?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Balfour

eagle2250 said:


> ^^At a point much earlier in this thread, as I recall, I characterized The Donald, as a "Village Idiot" and am frankly not quite ready to cast off said characterization. *But he has made at least a couple of good and very valid points of late* that are certainly troubling and may at some point offer some degree of perverse comfort to those of us who are not Trump fans. ...


A thoughtful post, as I would expect, Eagle.

I quote only what I think I need to respond to. A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. A sensible observation from Trump does not mean he is fit to be President. He has revealed through his observations and behaviour a character and lack of judgment that means, whatever debating points he might make, he is unfit for office.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> What's a kipper?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A derogatory term, but justifiably so, for a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (or 'UKIP'). I forget who observed that they were 'the British National Party in blazers' (a fascist organisation; and I say this as a firm advocate of centre right politics and of blazers)


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> What's a kipper?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Also a jolly tasty breakfast!


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> A thoughtful post, as I would expect, Eagle.
> 
> I quote only what I think I need to respond to. A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. A sensible observation from Trump does not mean he is fit to be President. He has revealed through his observations and behaviour a character and lack of judgment that means, whatever debating points he might make, he is unfit for office.


I agree with this whole heartedly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> ^^At a point much earlier in this thread, as I recall, I characterized The Donald, as a "Village Idiot" and am frankly not quite ready to cast off said characterization. But he has made at least a couple of good and very valid points of late that are certainly troubling and may at some point offer some degree of perverse comfort to those of us who are not Trump fans. First is that so many Americans are so frustrated with the status-quo that lager and larger numbers of them are rushing to embrace him because he is not part of the established morass that constitutes our national political face. Secondly, while his opponents and the existing leadership of the Republican party are so quick to criticize his (Trumps) willingness to work with the "other side of the isle (those dreaded Democrats!)," it is that very type of attitude/perspective that has brought everything in Washington, DC to a grinding halt.
> 
> The Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be unable to recognize that the "it's the my way or the highway approach" that has brought everything to a halt within the beltway. Neither party is serving our country well at this point! Can we ignore the clear frustration(s) of such a large slice of the electorat? Perhaps finding ways to work together is the better option...yes,no? :icon_scratch:


With Trump I can't help but think, "right message, wrong messenger".

Every one of these guys has gone to people like Trump, sniffing around for contributions. None of them, save the Governors, have really ever done anything.

I cannot think of a single piece of legislation that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio has put forth in an effort to push through some of the issues that they are championing. Neither of them has tried to build any kind of support or coalition to even get the conversation going.

For that matter, I cannot think of a single productive thing that either Bernie Sanders and certainly Hillary Clinton has done to advance their cause. Talking about something is not enough. Hillary was in the Senate for 8 years and there is not a single piece of legislation with her name on it that advances some cause that she is currently championing.

So one cannot really blame people for flocking to Trump. The rest of the field is busy talking smack and no one has really done anything.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> With Trump I can't help but think, "right message, wrong messenger".
> 
> I cannot think of a single piece of legislation that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio has put forth in an effort to push through some of the issues that they are championing. Neither of them has tried to build any kind of support or coalition to even get the conversation going.
> 
> So one cannot really blame people for flocking to Trump. The rest of the field is busy talking smack and no one has really done anything.


Rubio co-sponsored the 2013 Border Security and Immigration Act, which successfully passed a divided Senate. For his trouble he is branded as a member of the cabal known as the Gang of Eight, since, in addition to providing for much needed increased border security, the bill included a path to citizenship for qualified illegal immigrants already in the US. Rubio stated at the time that he disfavored a path to citizenship and preferred a path to legalization, but (i) it was the best he could do in exchange for the increased border security and (ii) he felt he could rely on the more conservative House to to eliminate the citizenship path. The House never took up the legislation. But Rubio's willingness to be "flexible" (the word of the moment from Mr. Trump last night) has been his single biggest albatross in this campaign. Apparently voters want things accomplished with "flexibility" rather than "compromise." We get the government we deserve, and will soon get it good and hard.


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> With Trump I can't help but think, "right message, wrong messenger".


Are these the right messages?

- Hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric
- Embrace of the expansive use of torture
- Wildly inconsistent and unmoored vision of American influence and power
- Utter misreading of, and contempt for, Mexico
- Endangering safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
- Admiration of foreign dictators
- Fundamental dishonesty

These critiques came from loyal Republicans, mind you.


----------



## Shaver

Anti-muslim? That made me chuckle. Try the even more laughable term islamophobic for full effect.


----------



## Chillburgher

Shaver said:


> Anti-muslim? That made me chuckle. Try the even more laughable term islamophobic for full effect.


I tried. I'm not laughing.


----------



## eagle2250

^^



Balfour said:


> A thoughtful post, as I would expect, Eagle.
> 
> I quote only what I think I need to respond to. A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. A sensible observation from Trump does not mean he is fit to be President. He has revealed through his observations and behaviour a character and lack of judgment that means, whatever debating points he might make, he is unfit for office.


My friend, be assured we are in complete agreement with the points you make. Perhaps a point in my original post, that I did not make clear, was that while Donald Trump continues to be fatally flawed as a Presidential candidate, he is right that a substantial portion of the electorate feels disenfranchised by the party affiliates, both Democrat and Republican, that they have elected to office and the career politicians seem eternally oblivious to that reality. That's why both Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they seem to be doing. Ignoring the reality that the masses are storming the castle is not sound policy and will eventually backfire on the powers that be! Our national leadership literally needs to wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## Shaver

Chillburgher said:


> I tried. I'm not laughing.


More's the pity.


----------



## Balfour

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> My friend, be assured we are in complete agreement with the points you make. Perhaps a point in my original post, that I did not make clear, was that while Donald Trump continues to be fatally flawed as a Presidential candidate, he is right that a substantial portion of the electorate feels disenfranchised by the party affiliates, both Democrat and Republican, that they have elected to office and the career politicians seem eternally oblivious to that reality. That's why both Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they seem to be doing. Ignoring the reality that the masses are storming the castle is not sound policy and will eventually backfire on the powers that be! Our national leadership literally needs to wake up and smell the coffee.


Indeed; & I didn't discern disagreement. In both the UK and the US we see now an antipathy to 'career politicians'. I would rather like to return a time in the UK when Members of Parliament were not career politicians, but in a rather 'soft-elbowed, having gone out and achieved something in the world' way rather than in the demagoguery of Trump, Farage or Corbyn.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> Rubio co-sponsored the 2013 Border Security and Immigration Act, which successfully passed a divided Senate. For his trouble he is branded as a member of the cabal known as the Gang of Eight, since, in addition to providing for much needed increased border security, the bill included a path to citizenship for qualified illegal immigrants already in the US. Rubio stated at the time that he disfavored a path to citizenship and preferred a path to legalization, but (i) it was the best he could do in exchange for the increased border security and (ii) he felt he could rely on the more conservative House to to eliminate the citizenship path. The House never took up the legislation. But Rubio's willingness to be "flexible" (the word of the moment from Mr. Trump last night) has been his single biggest albatross in this campaign. Apparently voters want things accomplished with "flexibility" rather than "compromise." We get the government we deserve, and will soon get it good and hard.


Rubio is the only one that's done anything remotely close to trying to fix a problem and when the heat was on, he backed off.

Yes he was branded by the right but so what. Obviously he didn't have enough passion for the issue to stick with it.

I'll give Rubio that much. At least he tried. Let him stick around the senate a bit longer and get some more experience under his belt. I don't want another BHO in office.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> Are these the right messages?
> 
> - Hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric
> - Embrace of the expansive use of torture
> - Wildly inconsistent and unmoored vision of American influence and power
> - Utter misreading of, and contempt for, Mexico
> - Endangering safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
> - Admiration of foreign dictators
> - Fundamental dishonesty
> 
> These critiques came from loyal Republicans, mind you.


Why shouldn't we have contempt for Mexico? What's so laudable about a 3rd world country where corruption is rampant, who treat their indigenous people as second class citizens and where large swathes of the country are ruled by drug lords. Where public officials are decapitated and where one can actually make a reasonable career in the kidnap and ransom industry.

As for the rest, you're free to interpret things as you wish but a few examples would be nice.


----------



## Balfour

This was a depressing read:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...d-dramatically-in-past-year-report-finds.html


----------



## jd202

SG_67 said:


> Let him stick around the senate a bit longer and get some more experience under his belt. I don't want another BHO in office.


Rubio is not running for re-election in Florida, so he's out of the senate in January no matter what. He apparently hates being in the Senate, and is desperate to be done with it. Perhaps he'll run for governor in Florida at some point, or just be done with politics entirely.

It's a shame about Rubio- when he started out, I thought he had the chance to be a real leader for the GOP and an ideological opponent i could respect, but things got weird after he was burned by the Gang of Eight thing.


----------



## immanuelrx

SG_67 said:


> Why shouldn't we have contempt for Mexico? What's so laudable about a 3rd world country where corruption is rampant, who treat their indigenous people as second class citizens and where large swathes of the country are ruled by drug lords. Where public officials are decapitated and where one can actually make a reasonable career in the kidnap and ransom industry.
> 
> As for the rest, you're free to interpret things as you wish but a few examples would be nice.


Come on now, you are better than this. 3rd world country? we should have contempt with Mexico because they are a country where corruption is rampant and who treat their indigenous people as second class citizens? So does that mean we should have contempt with the US as well?


----------



## Chillburgher

Balfour said:


> This was a depressing read:
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...d-dramatically-in-past-year-report-finds.html


Very depressing, indeed.


----------



## SG_67

immanuelrx said:


> Come on now, you are better than this. 3rd world country? we should have contempt with Mexico because they are a country where corruption is rampant and who treat their indigenous people as second class citizens? So does that mean we should have contempt with the US as well?


I'm not so sure I should know better. Mexico is hardly a good neighbor. Shake downs of American tourists traveling there. Lawlessness, kidnappings and institutionalized corruption.

This is not to cast dispersion on people from Mexico, as is the knee jerk reaction whenever someone talks of managing the influx of migrants.

There's very little to admire. It's a country rich in natural resources and a huge tourist destination. Yet the country is so corrupt and so dysfunctional that its citizens risk their lives to come here in search of work.

Donald Trump is right on one thing, Americans have taken on a bit of an aristocratic trait of shunning grunt work. Farm labor, housekeeping and back breaking work is left for immigrants.


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> Why shouldn't we have contempt for Mexico? What's so laudable about a 3rd world country...


Mexico is not a third world country. They sit right around the cut-off point of the top 1/3 of nations ranked at GDP per capita. They are a rich nation by global standards.

They are also our 3rd largest trading partner, after Canada and China.


----------



## Shaver

Mexico most assuredly is designated as a third world country.


----------



## Chillburgher

Shaver said:


> Mexico most assuredly is designated as a third world country.


Technically true if one is going by Cold War definitions, I will grant you that.


----------



## SG_67

Chillburgher said:


> Mexico is not a third world country. They sit right around the cut-off point of the top 1/3 of nations ranked at GDP per capita. They are a rich nation by global standards.
> 
> They are also our 3rd largest trading partner, after Canada and China.


Yes wonderful. I see how well it's working out for the average Mexican. Did it say anything about how much of that GDP is siphoned off by corrupt official and oligarchs? That's the problem when we talk about average. The average Mexican is likely dirt poor.


----------



## jd202

SG_67 said:


> Yes wonderful. I see how well it's working out for the average Mexican. Did it say anything about how much of that GDP is siphoned off by corrupt official and oligarchs? That's the problem when we talk about average. The average Mexican is likely dirt poor.


Mexico has significant poverty, and major governmental problems, as you point out. However, I agree with Chillburgher that it's worlds apart from what people ordinarily mean when they use the term "Third World" (assuming they aren't using the original, Cold War definition). The average/median Mexican is vastly better off than the median Sub-Saharan African, the median Indian, the median Bangladeshi, etc; even than the median Chinese, or many of Mexico's neighbors to the South.

Again, still lots of poverty, still appalling governmental dysfunction.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Balfour said:


> This was a depressing read:
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...d-dramatically-in-past-year-report-finds.html


Before getting too depressed you might do a little digging on the SPLC and then consider the source. Did you know that Ben Carson (yeah, that Ben Carson) is on their extremist watch list?


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> Before getting too depressed you might do a little digging on the SPLC and then consider the source. Did you know that Ben Carson (yeah, that Ben Carson) is on their extremist watch list?


Thanks, Mike. I will do some digging (I expected better from _The Telegraph_).

Ben Carson on an extremist watch list? Seriously?!


----------



## jd202

Balfour said:


> Thanks, Mike. I will do some digging (I expected better from _The Telegraph_).
> 
> Ben Carson on an extremist watch list? Seriously?!


To be at least a little fair, after they posted an "Extremist File" article on Carson, they published a retraction and apologized. Their point, which they reiterated in the apology, was that Carson had made various political statements that they felt condoned a certain type of right-wing extremism of the Bundy ranch protest sort, and said things like Obamacare was worse than 9/11 and regular historically inaccurate statements about Hitler, etc.

The SPLC is very much a liberal political group, advocating for minority rights from a decidedly leftist activist stance in the United States, so for sure, take what they say with that context in mind.


----------



## SG_67

jd202 said:


> Mexico has significant poverty, and major governmental problems, as you point out. However, I agree with Chillburgher that it's worlds apart from what people ordinarily mean when they use the term "Third World" (assuming they aren't using the original, Cold War definition). The average/median Mexican is vastly better off than the median Sub-Saharan African, the median Indian, the median Bangladeshi, etc; even than the median Chinese, or many of Mexico's neighbors to the South.
> 
> Again, still lots of poverty, still appalling governmental dysfunction.


Perhaps not a technical definition but in any country where large swathes of it's sovereign territory are controlled by criminals and where there is rampant and institutionalized corruption suggests more in common with a 3rd world country than a country where there is law and order.

Also, for those who consider Trump a racist or other politicians here racists, please take a look and see how the native Mexican population and, for that matter, the Mestizos are treated. They are literally frozen out of opportunities available to others and relegated to second class citizens.


----------



## Yodan731

Mexico has a per capita GDP of about $18,000. This ranks 66th of 187. 

Compare to some first world countries like the US at about $54,000, Spain at $34,000, Russia & Poland at about $24,000, or Romania at about $20,000.

Or to true third world countries like Liberia at $900, Tanzania at $2,700, Ghana at $4,000 or Nicaragua at $5,000.

Really they aren't far off countries that we consider first world and their GDP has been growing at about the same rate as the US for the past 25 years.


----------



## SG_67

^ Nearly 1/2 of Mexico's population lives in poverty. People complain of income inequality here?


----------



## eagle2250

^^Given the growing reality of our elected official's dependence on and apparent allegiance to the ever present lobbyist presence/influence within the Beltway (rather than to their electoral constituencies), is the US not doomed to in some degree repeat the experience of Mexico? It seems realization of the American Dream is becoming less of a likelihood, as time passes and our elected officials become more greedy and corrupt. :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Given the growing reality of our elected official's dependence on and apparent allegiance to the ever present lobbyist presence/influence within the Beltway (rather than to their electoral constituencies), is the US not doomed to in some degree repeat the experience of Mexico? It seems realization of the American Dream is becoming less of a likelihood, as time passes and our elected officials become more greedy and corrupt. :icon_scratch:


Except that we have a civil society that does not glorify and hero worship criminals.

It's not an accident that the U.S. has succeeded and Mexico is where it is.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Indeed; & I didn't discern disagreement. In both the UK and the US we see now an antipathy to 'career politicians'. I would rather like to return a time in the UK when Members of Parliament were not career politicians, but in a rather 'soft-elbowed, having gone out and achieved something in the world' way rather than in the demagoguery of Trump, Farage or Corbyn.


Nearly all of our current crop of politicians are career politicians, some, like the Milibands from what could be described as political dynasties, as is Johnson, who I would argue, is far more of a populist demagogue than Corbyn. In any case, Corbyn, a demagogue? Surely you've heard him speak!


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Except that we have a civil society that does not glorify and hero worship criminals.


Really? John Dillinger, Jesse James, the Mafia, gangsters in general? American popular culture is full of the glamorisation of violence and criminality!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> *Nearly all of our current crop of politicians are career politicians*, some, like the Milibands from what could be described as political dynasties, as is Johnson, who I would argue, is far more of a populist demagogue than Corbyn. In any case, Corbyn, a demagogue? Surely you've heard him speak!


This has been the case for too long. There would almost be a case for requiring MPs to have had some other form of employment for a minimum term of perhaps 10 or 15 years. I believe one of the SNP MPs was a school pupil until quite recently, it hardly seems she can have seen enough of the world to be in a position to govern it.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> This has been the case for too long. There would almost be a case for requiring MPs to have had some other form of employment for a minimum term of perhaps 10 or 15 years. I believe one of the SNP MPs was a school pupil until quite recently, it hardly seems she can have seen enough of the world to be in a position to govern it.


Indeed. there was a candidate in the last GE from Cumbria, I believe, who was aged under twenty. In one of is speeches he stated that in his election campaign, "Nothing would get in his way!". Private Eye responded with, "The nothing you know or the nothing you've done?"


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Really? John Dillinger, Jesse James, the Mafia, gangsters in general? American popular culture is full of the glamorisation of violence and criminality!


Let's talk modern times shall we. Also, the popular mythology surrounding American gangsters from the days of old is just that, mythology. The American government had and has stable institutions in place and most of these guys lived in the shadows. John Dillinger hardly controlled large expanses of territory.

And stop with the media glamorization of violence nonesense. Show me one popular TV show that glamorizes the criminal life.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Let's talk modern times shall we. Also, the popular mythology surrounding American gangsters from the days of old is just that, mythology. The American government had and has stable institutions in place and most of these guys lived in the shadows. John Dillinger hardly controlled large expanses of territory.
> 
> And stop with the media glamorization of violence nonesense. Show me one popular TV show that glamorizes the criminal life.


Why did people watch "The Sopranos"? As a morality play about the wages of sin? Or because they wanted to watch the violence? Why do you think that films that feature violent criminals are so popular?


----------



## eagle2250

SG_67 said:


> Let's talk modern times shall we. Also, the popular mythology surrounding American gangsters from the days of old is just that, mythology. The American government had and has stable institutions in place and most of these guys lived in the shadows. John Dillinger hardly controlled large expanses of territory.
> 
> And stop with the media glamorization of violence nonesense. Show me one popular TV show that glamorizes the criminal life.


In Mexico the politicians are bought and paid for by the drug cartels; in the US the politicians are largely bought and paid for by the "lobbyists." Mexico's corruption of choice insures the long term viability of those cartels and in the US our elected national leadership frequently functions in the long term best interest of the business interests each sponsored elected official is being paid by, rather than in the long term best interest of their electorate or our Country! How are the comparative situations all that different...in both cases, the common man gets screwed in the end. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Balfour

I agree that some of the media and some films / TV shows undoubtedly glamorise violence (sometimes in truly sickening ways).

I'm not sure I would give 'The Sopranos' as the lead example.

I think a key issue (or a key issue) is to the extent to which it is gratuitous. I am aware of the existence, for example, of the films (by description!) colloquially known as 'torture p*rn'.

See this review of one such 'film':

*Hostel (2006)*

*Nauseatingly vile horror film about a trio of lustful backpackers (Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson and Eythor Gudjonsson) traveling through Europe, lured off the beaten path by promises of carnal pleasures to a hostel in Slovakia, where they fall easy prey to a pair of temptresses and wind up in a chamber of horrors where wealthy sadists pay top dollar for the most depraved thrills. Packaging dehumanizing brutality as entertainment, director Eli Roth serves up a steady stream of soft-core sex and shock-value gore, as pornographically gratuitous as it is mindless. Excessive grisly violence, including bloody scenes of torture and dismemberment, strong sexual situations with nudity, lurid and erotic images, drug content, a suicide, debasement of women, pervasive rough and crude language, as well as lewd humor. O -- morally offensive.(R) 2006
Full Review

Indie film distributor Lions Gate must have made a New Year's resolution to sink to new lows in packaging dehumanizing brutality as entertainment.

From the company that made a killing by pandering to moviegoers' baser appetites with bloodbaths like "High Tension," "Saw" and "Saw II" comes "Hostel," a nauseatingly vile horror flick about a trio of sex-crazed backpackers (Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson and Eythor Gudjonsson) traveling through Europe.

Lured off the beaten path by promises of carnal pleasures, they find their way to a hedonistic hostel in Slovakia, where they fall easy prey to a pair of temptresses and wind up in a chamber of horrors where wealthy sadists pay top dollar for the most depraved thrills. 
Director Eli Roth ("Cabin Fever") serves up a steady stream of soft-core sex and hard-core gore, as gratuitously pornographic as it is mindless.

The film's stomach-churning factor is extreme by even the barrel-bottom standards of Quentin Tarantino, who is credited as one of the movie's executive producers.

"Hostel 2" is already in the works. Now that's really frightening!

The film contains excessive grisly violence, including bloody scenes of torture and dismemberment, strong sexual situations with nudity, lurid and erotic images, drug content, a suicide, the debasement of women, and pervasive rough and crude language, as well as lewd humor. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O -- morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R -- restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

https://archive.usccb.org/movies/h/hostel.shtml

*


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I agree that some of the media and some films / TV shows undoubtedly glamorise violence (sometimes in truly sickening ways).
> 
> I'm not sure I would give 'The Sopranos' as the lead example.
> 
> I think a key issue (or a key issue) is to the extent to which it is gratuitous. I am aware of the existence, for example, of the films (by description!) colloquially known as 'torture p*rn'.


I mentioned "The Sopranos" as the first title of a series glamourising violent criminals that popped up in my head.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> In Mexico the politicians are bought and paid for by the drug cartels; in the US the politicians are largely bought and paid for by the "lobbyists." Mexico's corruption of choice insures the long term viability of those cartels and in the US our elected national leadership frequently functions in the long term best interest of the business interests each sponsored elected official is being paid by, rather than in the long term best interest of their electorate or our Country! How are the comparative situations all that different...in both cases, the common man gets screwed in the end. :icon_scratch:


Indeed, one could argue that at least in Mexico they are honest about their corruption!


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Good drama or not, *it is* still the glamourisation of violence and criminality, *however much you don't want it to be*.


My recollection of 'The Sopranos' was that it did not use violence gratuitously, but to illustrate the thuggishness of the mafia that was the true underpinning the whole 'paisanos around the red-and-white tablecloth, honour code' stuff. Those with more knowledge than I say it had considerable verisimilitude. If you think it glamorised the mafia life, well that may be in the eye of the beholder. It certainly didn't glamorise it in my eyes!

Also, regarding that which is emboldened, strange that your position is usually when someone disagrees with you, you consider that to be 'his subjective opinion', but when it comes to your view on this matter (and indeed many other matters), then you consider your view absolutely correct.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> My recollection of 'The Sopranos' was that it did not use violence gratuitously, but to illustrate the thuggishness of the mafia that was the true underpinning the whole 'paisanos around the red-and-white tablecloth, honour code' stuff. Those with more knowledge than I say it had considerable verisimilitude. If you think it glamorised the mafia life, well that may be in the eye of the beholder. It certainly didn't glamorise it in my eyes!


Those whom I've heard discussing the programme have almost invariably talked about the violence rather than the social commentary. I used the Sopranos as one example, there are many others. Of course they are drama, but any production of a story that uses acting could be described as drama! I simply sought to show that there is a lot of glamourising of violence and criminality in American popular culture, whether it be film, television or literature. Simply asserting "no there isn't" in the face of overwhelming evidence doesn't really present much of an argument.



Balfour said:


> Also, regarding that which is emboldened, strange that your position is usually when someone disagrees with you, you consider that to be 'his subjective opinion', but when it comes to your view on this matter (and indeed many other matters), then you consider your view absolutely correct.


Indeed, but as I indicated above, an assertion that violence isn't 
glamourised when there have been such a vast number of films, television series, novels in which violence and criminality _*is*_ glamourised appears to be a refusal to see rather than an argument that it isn't so.


----------



## Balfour

Balfour said:


> Chouan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good drama or not, *it is* still the glamourisation of violence and criminality, *however much you don't want it to be*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Also, regarding that which is emboldened, strange that your position is usually when someone disagrees with you, you consider that to be 'his subjective opinion', but when it comes to your view on this matter (and indeed many other matters), then you consider your view absolutely correct.
Click to expand...




Chouan said:


> ...
> 
> Indeed, but as I indicated above, an assertion that violence isn't
> glamourised when there have been such a vast number of films, television series, novels in which violence and criminality _*is*_ glamourised appears to be a refusal to see rather than an argument that it isn't so.


While I agree with what I have underlined (and made similar point upthread), the point you were making (cited in my post quoted above) related specifically to 'The Sopranos'. This post in response to my comment just shifts the debate away from the point to which I was responding, which as others have pointed out is a fairly transparent debating tactic.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> While I agree with what I have underlined (and made similar point upthread), the point you were making (cited in my post quoted above) related specifically to 'The Sopranos'. This post in response to my comment just shifts the debate away from the point to which I was responding, which as others have pointed out is a fairly transparent debating tactic.


I did say originally that The Sopranos was the first television series that sprung to mind, as an example rather than as an absolute. Given time and inclination I could list hundreds.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> I did say originally that The Sopranos was the first television series that sprung to mind, as an example rather than as an absolute. Given time and inclination I could list hundreds.


Misses, while illustrating, my point completely!


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Misses, while illustrating, my point completely!


Indeed? How so? You appear to be suggesting that I gave The Sopranos as a perfect example that proves my point, when what I actually wrote was that The Sopranos were simply the first television series that popped into my head. That doesn't mean that my argument stands, or falls, on the one example of The Sopranos.


----------



## vpkozel

If you think that the Sopranos glamorized violence and the mafia lifestyle then I am not sure what you were watching. The amount of human wreckage and baggage in that show was incredible. I have no idea if it is accurate to real life but there were so many internal conflicts in that show caused specifically by the Tony's profession that it was staggering.


----------



## Balfour

I'm not going to go through this forensically when I sense you are being intentionally obtuse, but the cliffs notes are you posted in response to a post about 'The Sopranos' "Good drama or not, *it is *still the glamourisation of violence and criminality*, however much you don't want it to be.*"

I responded: "Also, regarding that which is emboldened, strange that your position is usually when someone disagrees with you, you consider that to be 'his subjective opinion', but when it comes to your view on this matter (and indeed many other matters), then you consider your view absolutely correct."

You responded: "Indeed, but as I indicated above, an assertion that violence isn't 
glamourised when there have been such a vast number of films, television series, novels in which violence and criminality _*is*glamourised appears to be a refusal to see rather than an argument that it isn't so._"

So rather than meet the point I was making (i.e. an observation about your view that you were absolutely right about 'The Sopranos' and SG67 wanted things that you were absolutely right about to be different), you simply disappear back into the night of your more general argument. It's a very good illustration of why I have observed elsewhere it is tiresome to debate with you because of the Sixth Form debating style you adopt (which, from someone always willing to be the first to resort to condemning ad hominem attacks (perceived or actual), provoked a slew of ad hominem attacks on me).

What makes this pricelessly amusing (and raises the bar on the tiresomeness level just, but only just, enough to lead me respond) is, on this occasion, there is actually a good measure of agreement between your and my general position (that much of the media glamourises violence)!

Anyway, I've said my piece on 'The Sopranos'.


----------



## Dmontez

I think if we as a whole just stopped responding to chouans nonsensical rants the world would be a better place. 

I am not going to go back and read through, but how do The Sopranos relate to Donald Trump, and the Republicans?


----------



## Balfour

Dmontez said:


> ...
> 
> I am not going to go back and read through, but how do The Sopranos relate to Donald Trump, and the Republicans?


A wise course of action (you have saved minutes of your life you would not get back); and, indeed.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I think if we as a whole just stopped responding to chouans nonsensical rants the world would be a better place.


By which you mean the posts made by a member whose views you are not in agreement with? "Nonsensical rants" is quite an assertion to make!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Dmontez said:


> I think if we as a whole just stopped responding to chouans nonsensical rants the world would be a better place.
> 
> I am not going to go back and read through, but how do The Sopranos relate to Donald Trump, and the Republicans?


Figured that out quite some time ago.

Trump relates to immigration which relates to Mexico which relates to crime which relates to The Sopranos. I predict Richard Wagner will be next to be followed by Hitler to be followed by a gratuitous slur aimed at Tempest to be followed by a moderator admonition.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Good drama or not, it is still the glamourisation of violence and criminality, however much you don't want it to be.
> 
> Another ad hom post..... How sad.


Not to beat a dead horse on the Sopranos issue, but have you ever watched an episode? I think the glamorization of the criminal life is the last thing one would come away with.


----------



## SG_67

Dmontez said:


> I think if we as a whole just stopped responding to chouans nonsensical rants the world would be a better place.
> 
> *I am not going to go back and read through, but how do The Sopranos relate to Donald Trump, and the Republicans?*


They don't. But when plan "A" fails, try plan "B".


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> no, I wholeheartedly mean nonsensical rants. People who actually use common sense read your posts and think, "this guys lives in wonderland" or what I hope to be the truth and what has actually been asserted here before you are simply a troll in this sub forum.


Perhaps you could give me an example of a "nonsensical rant"? You do, I assume, know what "nonsensical" and "rant" mean?


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Perhaps you could give me an example of a "nonsensical rant"? You do, I assume, know what "nonsensical" and "rant" mean?


I'd rather not. If I were to do so it would only cause you to dig your heel in and go on about whatever post of yours I so choose. I would rather the members here just stop engaging you. As they say in zoos "don't feed the animals", well at AAAC it's "don't feed the trolls."


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I'd rather not. If I were to do so it would only cause you to dig your heel in and go on about whatever post of yours I so choose. I would rather the members here just stop engaging you. As they say in zoos "don't feed the animals", well at AAAC it's "don't feed the trolls."


That's a view of quite breathtaking arrogance. Because I express views that you don't agree with you refuse to challenge them, whilst asserting that they're "nonsensical rants". Further, although you are unable to offer any evidence that my posts are either "nonsensical" or "rants", you insist that they are, and then use the standard cop out of "I'd rather not" when challenged to do so. Then you assert that I must be a troll. You position is, therefore, that people who post views that you don't agree with are trolls. Is that the way you respond if people express views that you don't agree with in a social setting as well? Or do you only accuse people of "nonsensical rants" on line?


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> *Why did people watch "The Sopranos"? As a morality play about the wages of sin? Or because they wanted to watch the violence? *Why do you think that films that feature violent criminals are so popular?


Wasn't it a little of both?

I find glossy stylised violence to be quite a dull viewing experience, similarly the torture porn that Mr B mentioned is tedious, but convincing and/or dramatically well realised rough stuff in keeping with the characters, their motivations and their situations can be a satisfying device. By and large The Sopranos achieved this.


----------



## Odradek

*Dr. Ben Carson Endorses Donald Trump*










https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/11/dr-ben-carson-endorses-donald-trump/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708307463607599105


> _Carson's endorsement of Trump brought the airport waiting area to complete silence. People stopped walking. I've not see anything like it._


----------



## tocqueville

Carson reminds me of that guy in the Peter Sellers movie, Being There. Chauncey, I think. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gurdon

Yes, except Chauncey Gardner, Chance the gardner, was portrayed as kindly but clueless. Dr. Carson does not appear to be kindly.

Gurdon


----------



## Joseph Peter

Quite a display last night here.


----------



## SG_67

Joseph Peter said:


> Quite a display last night here.


Quite embarrassing for the city actually.


----------



## Joseph Peter

SG_67 said:


> Quite embarrassing for the city actually.


Why not, right, SG? Between our convicted governors, Boss Madiganistan, the rest of the Combine,the rable rousers, our crumbling roads, bridges, bankrupt school system, over drawn pension system, and tensions between the police and the citizens (did you see the headline in the Times this morning that now folks are PO-ed the cops arent responding?), what's a little "civil discourse" b/w the Trumpsters and the professional grievance industry? It is after all Chi-raq. The capper: The Rahm-father releasing a statement this morning busting on Trump. Outstanding!


----------



## SG_67

^ you're right. Why should I be surprised. UIC is the academic home of Bill Ayers and I believe he's drawing a pension now. 

The mob definitely feels entitled to rule in Chicago. This is certainly no different. During the Christmas shopping season they intimidated regular folks and blocked public access to buildings. The police did nothing. 

I heard a Chicago TV reporter this morning asking himself why Donald Trump would want to come to Chicago or even UIC knowing that the campus is diverse and Chicago is a Dem town. 

Interesting I don't hear that about Hillary and Bernie rallies in towns and states that generally go hard R.


----------



## Chouan

The view of Trump, this weekend, is slightly different from this side of the Atlantic https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/donald-trump-weekend-violence-chaos-protests https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-race-as-rivals-vie-to-stop-Donald-Trump.html


----------



## Joseph Peter

Chouan said:


> The view of Trump, this weekend, is slightly different from this side of the Atlantic https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/donald-trump-weekend-violence-chaos-protests https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-race-as-rivals-vie-to-stop-Donald-Trump.html


Ok, Mr. C. I dont think us locals, myself and SG, were taking a position about Trump in the 2 notes above yours and how he is viewed on either side of the pond. Not to speak for him, but I think SG and myself were simply lamenting another bruise for Chicago.


----------



## tocqueville

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trump-government-ethnocentrism/473538/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> The view of Trump, this weekend, is slightly different from this side of the Atlantic https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/donald-trump-weekend-violence-chaos-protests https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-race-as-rivals-vie-to-stop-Donald-Trump.html


The deranged Guardian and the increasingly redundant Telegraph are hardly "the view" on this side of the Atlantic.
The Guardian just exists to tell the BBC what to feature on the "news", and the BBC buys thousands of copies a day just to keep it's newspaper's head above water.

The fact is that Europe needs Trump just as much as the US does.
Somebody has to stand up to Merkel and Soros, for our children's sake.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> The view of Trump, this weekend, is slightly different from this side of the Atlantic https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/donald-trump-weekend-violence-chaos-protests https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-race-as-rivals-vie-to-stop-Donald-Trump.html


With all due respect, no one here really cares what the foreign media opinion is of our politicians. Those in office or those running for office.


----------



## SG_67

Joseph Peter said:


> Ok, Mr. C. I dont think us locals, myself and SG, were taking a position about Trump in the 2 notes above yours and how he is viewed on either side of the pond. Not to speak for him, but I think SG and myself were simply lamenting another bruise for Chicago.


Quite correct. I'm hardly a Donald Trump supporter but the mob in Chicago is entirely out of control.

Meanwhile:

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/03/14/chicago-weekend-violence-shootings-2/


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> With all due respect, no one here really cares what the foreign media opinion is of our politicians. Those in office or those running for office.


Unfortunately, SG, our image abroad matters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Unfortunately, SG, our image abroad matters.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think you and I have different opinions on what what that image should be.

By the way, as long as we're paying the bills we will do and say as we damned well please.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Unfortunately, SG, our image abroad matters.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why does it matter?

When was the last time you heard a French, Chinese, Russian, or any other country's leader fret over what America thought of them?


----------



## Dhaller

vpkozel said:


> Why does it matter?
> 
> When was the last time you heard a French, Chinese, Russian, or any other country's leader fret over what America thought of them?


Because the USA's greatest asset - even as damaged as it is, currently - is its diplomatic capital.

Anyone who doesn't see *that* is simply ignorant of history.

DH


----------



## SG_67

Dhaller said:


> Because the USA's greatest asset - even as damaged as it is, currently - is its diplomatic capital.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't see *that* is simply ignorant of history.
> 
> DH


And diplomatic capital is maintained and earned by not drawing red lines only to ignore them, no agreeing to international agreements only to have a signatory country violate that agreement by launching ballistic missiles.

It is earned and maintained by not withdrawing from the world and then whining about it to the Atlantic when other countries aren't stepping into the void as you would have wished.

It's earned and maintained being clear with ones allies in turbulent parts of them world.

By the way, as far as we like to think we've evolved and how much distance we've put between us and the 19th century, diplomacy still is most effective when backed up with arms.

I believe it was Frederick the Great who said something to the effect that "diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments." Not much has really changed.


----------



## vpkozel

Dhaller said:


> Because the USA's greatest asset - even as damaged as it is, currently - is its diplomatic capital.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't see *that* is simply ignorant of history.
> 
> DH


I absolutely disagree and I am pretty sure that I am not ignorant of history.

America's greatest asset is its people and the willingness to confront tough problems with an attitude that we can find a way to overcome them - by brute force if necessary.

Sometimes the right decision long term is the one that is the most unpopular in the moment.


----------



## bernoulli

I can't talk about the UK, but there is a growing perception about the stupidity of 'mericans. My life is between South America, Asia and Europe, and I heard from everybody, in whatever cultural and social context, that that not only Trump, but American politics in general, is a derision to the position of the US in the world.

Republicans, in particular, stopped being the free trade and fiscally responsible party and transformed themselves into the shrill bitchy religious fanatic party. Unless otherwise convinced, I grudgingly give credence to both views. A shame, though, as I feel like the US could be the beacon of freedom, personal and social accountability, that the world needs.

Can you please grow the ... up? (<tongue in cheek>)


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> Why does it matter?
> 
> When was the last time you heard a French, Chinese, Russian, or any other country's leader fret over what America thought of them?


They do fret. A lot. Their policymakers do. Their intel services do. Will we or won't we back them or oppose them or give them free reign. How much will we back them? How much will we oppose them? To what point?

I'm one of those oddities who seldom reads the US press and almost never watches TV news. My information comes entirely from international media, most of it francophone, and I spend a lot of time communicating with and working with/for/on foreign governments and their militaries. Believe me when I say that it is not our hard power alone that gives us the influence that we have, and the rest of the world watches us very, very closely. If they write us off or think they need to resist us, that is a problem. I can also say this: with the exception maybe of Russia, the North Koreans, Iran, etc., absolutely no one wants us to pull back into an isolationist crouch. That would spell catastrophe. Now, whether or not we should be super interventionist, use our military as we do, etc., etc., is hotly debated...but only the nut cases want to see us gather up all our marbles and go home.


----------



## vpkozel

I am not going to defend Trump at all, so please do not mistake anything I say as a defense of him. 

America is not perfect by any stretch but we have restrained our power more than any other superpower in history. Or we are at least in the top 2. Also, we willingly rebuilt a good portion of the world following WW2, not asking for anything in return. 

But it is easy for those who have a bone to pick - and incredibly lazy as well - to portray America as stupid, undiplomatic, and a bully and it generally involves taking one minute event and then extrapolating it.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> I think you and I have different opinions on what what that image should be.
> 
> By the way, as long as we're paying the bills we will do and say as we damned well please.


We don't live on an island. We have friends and enemies and need our friends to be our friends and our enemies at least not to be too entrenched in their opposition. It is very hard for us to function unilaterally, not giving a damn about anyone else. So, for example, we might ask another government to put some skin in the game and help us. They, then, often have to be responsible to their people, who may or may not be willing to align with the US on a given matter.

We live in a world of countless overlapping alliances and arrangements, and even we are seldom able to just do whatever pleases us, never mind the consequences.

Anyway, you contradict yourself given your rhetoric of our "decline." I've long countered that it's imaginary, especially if it's not based on any real knowledge of how we are perceived by the rest of the world. In any case, the rhetoric suggests one does care.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> They do fret. A lot. Their policymakers do. Their intel services do. Will we or won't we back them or oppose them or give them free reign. How much will we back them? How much will we oppose them? To what point?


That is fretting over what can I get away with. Which is a lot different than them caring what we think of the action and you know it.


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> That is fretting over what can I get away with. Which is a lot different than them caring what we think of the action and you know it.


Maybe for our enemies, but not for the rest of the world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Maybe for our enemies, but not for the rest of the world.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Who do you consider to be our enemies then? Because I bet I can come up with a long list of folks who ignore what is best for the US and do what is best for them.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> I absolutely disagree and I am pretty sure that I am not ignorant of history.
> 
> America's greatest asset is its people and the willingness to confront tough problems with an attitude that we can find a way to overcome them - by brute force if necessary.
> 
> Sometimes the right decision long term is the one that is the most unpopular in the moment.


Yes, the "brute force" response has worked so well for the US in the past. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam were all such great successes weren't they.....
"Brute force" is usually the most simple minded and least effective solution to diplomatic problems. Having a big stick is one thing, having to use the big stick is usually evidence of failure. Wanting to use the big stick is evidence of complete irresponsibility.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Yes, the "brute force" response has worked so well for the US in the past. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam were all such great successes weren't they.....
> "Brute force" is usually the most simple minded and least effective solution to diplomatic problems. Having a big stick is one thing, having to use the big stick is usually evidence of failure. Wanting to use the big stick is evidence of complete irresponsibility.


You might want to go back a little further.....


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> Who do you consider to be our enemies then? Because I bet I can come up with a long list of folks who ignore what is best for the US and do what is best for them.


All countries act only in their best interest, as they understand it. That's the way of the world. But I count as enemies only those countries that active seek to oppose the US and have interests that run counter to our vital ones. Canada's interests are not the same as ours, but Canada's interests don't include, say, terrorism, or harming the US or US allies. Maybe the'll push a trade deal that some in our country won't like, or maybe their push an environmental policy that some of our industries don't like. But that's different.

Most countries are keenly aware of and interested in the confluence of their interests and America's and how they benefit from or lose out because of US policies or those of US-backed institutions such as things like the World Bank and the IMF.

We do not and cannot act unilaterally or pay no heed to how we are perceived, for we rely on other's cooperation all the time. Every soldier everywhere in the world is there thanks to some agreement or other; every over-flight. Every UN vote. Every time anyone does or does not hold up his end of a a treaty. Accept tourists and protect them. Reciprocate countless activities. We are constantly, constantly asking for help, and usually getting it. We would find life really difficult if suddenly good will were to dry up.

Some examples: France needs our help to conduct its military operations, most of which, by the way, are in our interest as well. It works out for us and for them. They, of course, are keenly interested in the evolution of our policies. Do they align? Where are the points of friction? How can they convince us to do X or Y? And, of course, is being in bed with us really their best option? They are at complete liberty to change their mind and turn their back. You could say, "who cares?" But the truth is that we'd find life a lot more difficult if France were to break away or worse, line up with Russia. Marine Le Pen wants to do that, and she has a lot of support. Most don't support her, but that could change. What if most people in France decide that we're barking mad, or stupid, or unworthy of trust? What if most people decide that their interests and ours are in opposition?

Another example: Germany. If we want to counter Russia in Eastern Europe, we have to have German support. Merkel may or may not give that support. The German people, moreover, may or may not permit her. A large portion of the German public takes Putin's side and thinks that the souring of relations between the West and Russia is our fault. So, when the time comes for us to rally the allies, the Germans might easily say, "no, you're just antagonizing the Russians and are provoking them, so we're going to veto your NATO resolution and refuse to back that thing you're asking us to do." Or, maybe we'll ask the Germans not to impose an economic settlement on, say, Greece, because we fear that it will push the Greeks into Russia's arms. The Germans could tell us to buzz off. Merkel could shatter the EU, which may or may not be in our interest, and whatever we tell her to do, Merkel is at complete liberty to ignore us or take our concerns on board. She could gut NATO. Of course, she wouldn't, but whose to say that the next German government will share her views?

The bottom line is that Americans like to think that we are self-reliant. We aren't. Americans like to think we should be self-reliant. That's not possible. Nearly everything we do internationally, we do with the cooperation and support of others.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Who do you consider to be our enemies then? Because I bet I can come up with a long list of folks who ignore what is best for the US and do what is best for them.


If by "folks" you are referring to other countries, you appear to be suggesting that other countries that put their interests above those of the US are your enemies. Is that *really* your position?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> You might want to go back a little further.....


Why? The world has changed since WW2. What might have worked when the US was the only nuclear power is not necessarily going to work now. Looking back to how things were, and wanting things to be like they were then doesn't do much good. Countries need to learn from their History, not simply repeat it. If WW2 had been fought the same way as WW1 France would probably have won in 1940, but the world had changed.
The US has been bombing Daesh in Syria and Iraq for how many months now, and what have they achieved?
Perhaps you are looking back with nostalgia to the days when the US could invade small Central American countries whenever they felt like it? Or to when they could organise coups to overthrow democratically elected governments that they didn't like?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> If by "folks" you are referring to other countries, you appear to be suggesting that other countries that put their interests above those of the US are your enemies. Is that *really* your position?


Of course I am not suggesting that. Do you think that unless the US puts its interests ahead of another country's that we are their enemy?

But thanks for continuing your habit of putting words in another's posts then arguing with what you said they meant. That's always fun.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Why? The world has changed since WW2. What might have worked when the US was the only nuclear power is not necessarily going to work now. Looking back to how things were, and wanting things to be like they were then doesn't do much good. Countries need to learn from their History, not simply repeat it. If WW2 had been fought the same way as WW1 France would probably have won in 1940, but the world had changed.
> The US has been bombing Daesh in Syria and Iraq for how many months now, and what have they achieved?
> Perhaps you are looking back with nostalgia to the days when the US could invade small Central American countries whenever they felt like it? Or to when they could organise coups to overthrow democratically elected governments that they didn't like?


How long was the US the lone nuclear superpower?


----------



## vpkozel

Tocquville - I am on my phone and cannot do your well thought out and detailed post the justice it deserves. So, while there are parts I agree with and disagree with I will have to respond at a later time.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Of course I am not suggesting that. Do you think that unless the US puts its interests ahead of another country's that we are their enemy?
> 
> But thanks for continuing your habit of putting words in another's posts then arguing with what you said they meant. That's always fun.


Then could you explain your position in a way that is clear please? As your post stands, which I did query, my interpretation is valid.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> How long was the US the lone nuclear superpower?


Don't you know? I *am* surprised!
Care to respond to the rest of the post?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Don't you know? I *am* surprised!
> Care to respond to the rest of the post?


Of course I knew. Well Inthought it was 1950 actually.

No need to really respond as not much really happened militarily between 1945-1949. Much of what the US did during that time was work on rebuilding Europe and Japan.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Of course I knew. Well Inthought it was 1950 actually.
> 
> No need to really respond as not much really happened militarily between 1945-1949. Much of what the US did during that time was work on rebuilding Europe and Japan.


So what should we be looking at when you suggest that we go back further?

Any chance of clarification of your previous point please?


----------



## Chouan




----------



## tocqueville

I liked that, Chouan.

And yes, Cruz is seriously scary. That preacher he's fond of is just awful.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


>


LOL. Excellent. Your video example expresses almost perfectly my frustrations with the upcoming election cycle(s). So far, I see no one (remaining) that I really want to vote for. "As it has been from the beginning and seems it is and ever shall be," none of the candidates, representing either party are worthy of my vote or of the office for which they are running.  It really is very sad.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Excellent. Your video example expresses almost perfectly my frustrations with the upcoming election cycle(s). So far, I see no one (remaining) that I really want to vote for. "As it has been from the beginning and seems it is and ever shall be," none of the candidates, representing either party are worthy of my vote or of the office for which they are running.  It really is very sad.


It is indeed. My students, all aged 17-18, even those whose politics are of the Tory/UKIP kind are really incredulous that you've got people like these running as candidates for the presidency.
The drift to the right in politics in the UK as well as the US is seriously frightening. Even the BBC refers to Corbyn's "extreme" views! 
You might like this one by the same performer:


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Excellent. Your video example expresses almost perfectly my frustrations with the upcoming election cycle(s). So far, I see no one (remaining) that I really want to vote for. "As it has been from the beginning and seems it is and ever shall be," none of the candidates, representing either party are worthy of my vote or of the office for which they are running.  It really is very sad.


There's sort of a race to the bottom going on. The best we can do is pick the least bad. I have strong opinions on who that is (Clinton), but not out of positive approval of her as much as (much) greater antipathy toward alternatives. Hardly a ringing endorsement!

It just occurred to me that a problem intrinsic to a 'least bad' contest is that it is hard to defend one's preferred candidate (because one acknowledges much of the negative) but instead can only argue the opposite with vigor, that is, one can only attack the others as being bad as opposed to arguing why one's preference is good. Debate quickly becomes a litany of accusations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> There's sort of a race to the bottom going on. The best we can do is pick the least bad. I have strong opinions on who that is (Clinton), but not out of positive approval of her as much as (much) greater antipathy toward alternatives. Hardly a ringing endorsement!
> 
> It just occurred to me that a problem intrinsic to a 'least bad' contest is that it is hard to defend one's preferred candidate (because one acknowledges much of the negative) but instead can only argue the opposite with vigor, that is, one can only attack the others as being bad as opposed to arguing why one's preference is good. Debate this quickly becomes a litany of accusations.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Leading to negative campaigning all round as well.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> And yes, Cruz is seriously scary. That preacher he's fond of is just awful.


I really hope you are not being serious.


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> I really hope you are not being serious.


I am. Why do you ask?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> I am. Why do you ask?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No reason. *cough* JeramiahWright *cough*. No reason at all.....


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Then could you explain your position in a way that is clear please? As your post stands, which I did query, my interpretation is valid.


It is quite clear. I am asking Tocqueville to define enemies (which he has since done), but not before you weighed in.

I do not think that I have not defined anything - but don't let that stop you from pretending that I have.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> So what should we be looking at when you suggest that we go back further?
> 
> Any chance of clarification of your previous point please?


You first. What events were you referring to when you said that what worked when the US was the lone nuclear power won't work now?

Because your previous examples don't fit into that timeline.


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> No reason. *cough* JeramiahWright *cough*. No reason at all.....


Fair point. Wright is odious. I grant that.

In fact, so seriously did I take Wright's association with Obama that back in 2008 I scrutinized Obama's positions as they related to Wright, not just what he wrote and said about Wright himself but also about many of the broader subjects Wright spoke of. I came away satisfied that Obama got some good things from Wright and had enough sense to leave aside the bad.

The burden is on Cruz to do the same for what's his name. If he has come out and denounced that character, I'd be pleased to learn of it.

Edit: Kevin Swanson. That's his name. I thought of linking the speech he gave right before introducing Cruz at what amounted to a homophobia rally but thought his speech inappropriate for polite company.

In sharp contrast is this speech by Obama, which in many regards is a full-length response to criticism regarding his association with Wright. It is the man I voted for, gladly, and again in 2012:


----------



## SG_67

^ this is pure Obama! And can you blame him? He always does it and gets away with it. Here he was sitting in the pews listening to this guy. Then when he's called out on it he makes a lofty speech where he talks pretty and everyone is in awe. 

The fact is that Obama was nothing more than another petty, Chicago pol before being voted into the senate. Complete, mind you, with a sweetheart real estate deal compliments of Tony Rezko. He ingratiated himself by attending Jeremiah Wright's church and pandered in the most base way to his constituency. Meanwhile, he and his wife slowly climbed the social and political scene. 

Google "Michelle Obama", "university of Chicago hospital" and "patient dumping" and see what comes up. These are the Obamas. 

I've had it up to my eye balls with BHO's sanctimonious crap. His public and private statements and actions indicate that he's someone who sees himself as special and above the normal standard for criticism because, well, he's just so f****ing special. A trait, mind you, shared by sociopaths.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Yes, the "brute force" response has worked so well for the US in the past. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam were all such great successes weren't they.....
> "Brute force" is usually the most simple minded and least effective solution to diplomatic problems. Having a big stick is one thing, having to use the big stick is usually evidence of failure. Wanting to use the big stick is evidence of complete irresponsibility.


I think you should read your history again. Brute force indeed worked in Vietnam. There was no political support so in the end it failed but diplomacy and force need to work hand in hand.

In Iraq and Afghanistan each time we have turned up the pressure it has worked. David Petraeus showed that in both theaters of war. The fact is that diplomacy alone is a dead end as well.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ this is pure Obama! And can you blame him? He always does it and gets away with it. Here he was sitting in the pews listening to this guy. Then when he's called out on it he makes a lofty speech where he talks pretty and everyone is in awe.
> 
> The fact is that Obama was nothing more than another petty, Chicago pol before being voted into the senate. Complete, mind you, with a sweetheart real estate deal compliments of Tony Rezko. He ingratiated himself by attending Jeremiah Wright's church and pandered in the most base way to his constituency. Meanwhile, he and his wife slowly climbed the social and political scene.
> 
> Google "Michelle Obama", "university of Chicago hospital" and "patient dumping" and see what comes up. These are the Obamas.
> 
> I've had it up to my eye balls with BHO's sanctimonious crap. His public and private statements and actions indicate that he's someone who sees himself as special and above the normal standard for criticism because, well, he's just so f****ing special. A trait, mind you, shared by sociopaths.


Honestly, I think he is pretty damned special and find it odd that you might describe him as a socio-path. It's a beautiful speech with real content. That makes him sanctimonious?


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Honestly, I think he is pretty damned special and find it odd that you might describe him as a socio-path. It's a beautiful speech with real content. That makes him sanctimonious?


I didn't call him a sociopath. I said he shares some interesting personality traits with sociopaths.

He's not special. He talks pretty. That's it. End of story. He's not unique, gifted or otherwise brilliant. He's an ambitious guy who grabbed for the brass ring when it was time.

Sure the speech is beautiful but so is Hamlet's soliloquy. So what. Did he take follow up questions? Do any reporters actually have the balls to ask him questions about that without fearing being shunned by their peers?

I'll tell you this much. Were I in church and our new pastor started talking like that, I'd walk out and attend another church.

In Obama's defense, I don't think he bought any of that crap. But what he did do is compromise himself and pretend so that he could grub for votes. Which is what politicians do best; grub for money and votes.


----------



## tocqueville

There was substance in there, albeit nothing with concrete policy implications. Or maybe I'm too delighted to hear a president talk about complicated things in a manner that doesn't sound like he's obliged to dumb it down. We've had quite a few presidents like that.

Anyway, let's talk about Kasich. He won Ohio. Can we spin any plausible scenario in which he somehow rises to become the real alternative to Trump? Kasich's the kind of Republican I want: I disagree with him on many things but don't hate him and don't think he'll do any damage to our democracy. He's the kind of guy with whom I can respectfully disagree.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Anyway, let's talk about Kasich. He won Ohio. Can we spin any plausible scenario in which he somehow rises to become the real alternative to Trump? .


Lord, I hope so. Of all of the candidates left on either side, he is the only one that I could see myself voting for. Otherwise, it's 3rd party again. I held out hope for Rubio, but his devolution into a high school junior over the past few months made that impossible for me - and it looks like I was not alone in that.


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> Lord, I hope so. Of all of the candidates left on either side, he is the only one that I could see myself voting for. Otherwise, it's 3rd party again. I held out hope for Rubio, but his devolution into a high school junior over the past few months made that impossible for me - and it looks like I was not alone in that.


Rubio clearly has a lot of potential but was never the candidate so many thought he would be.

Kasich could do well in a general against Clinton, although Trump enthusiasts would need a way to vent their anger, which is a scary thought. I rather like a Clinton-Kasich face up because there might even be a substantive debate given that he's a fairly meat-and-potatos Republican policy-wise, and she's the same for the Dems. No circus.


----------



## tocqueville

Interesting op-ed in Wapo about how the press has contributed to Trump's rise:

Similar: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/all...be-speaking-soon_us_56e8bad1e4b0860f99daec81?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> You first. What events were you referring to when you said that what worked when the US was the lone nuclear power won't work now?
> 
> Because your previous examples don't fit into that timeline.


An imposed peace on the USSR; the breaking of the Berlin Blockade, the USSR abandoning Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia and withdrawing from Austria, as well as preventing them from expanding further ionto Manchuria and Korea, which they were more than capable of doing.
Your turn, what diplomatic successes have the US achieved through military force post 1950? Bear in mind that Korea was the UN, not the US.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I think you should read your history again. Brute force indeed worked in Vietnam. There was no political support so in the end it failed but diplomacy and force need to work hand in hand.


How did brute force win in Vietnam? Who pulled out in 1973, the Viet Cong? It didn't matter if the US was stronger militarily, without a political solution the war was lost, and the US lost.



SG_67 said:


> In Iraq and Afghanistan each time we have turned up the pressure it has worked. David Petraeus showed that in both theaters of war. The fact is that diplomacy alone is a dead end as well.


An intervention works when the aim has been achieved. It doesn't matter how much military intervention has taken place or how successful it may have been temporarily, that Afghanistan and Iraq are still ungovernable after, what, 13 years? shows that US intervention has failed. Whatever the US, and Britain, hoped to achieve by invading Iraq and intervening in Afghanistan hasn't occurred, unless the sole aim of the US was the death of Saddam?
Petraeus showed that if overwhelming military force is in place then those opposed to the US puppets temporarily withdraw, until such time as massive military intervention becomes too expensive to maintain, which the Taliban and Daesh are fully aware of, when it is withdrawn. Meanwhile, US attacks of hospitals, wedding parties and other "collateral damage" ensures that the US continues to be seen by the civil population as an unfriendly occupying power and ensures that their military intervention will ultimately fail. Winning "hearts and minds" with cluster bombs and napalm has never really worked. Neither has propping up unpopular brutal dictators against the wishes of their people.


----------



## SG_67

^ By 1973 the VC had long since stopped being an effective fighting force. 

The Tet offensive yielded no gains for the NVA. Carpet bombing campaigns succeeded in bring the North to the bargaining table. The US never lost a military engagement in Vietnam. 

The failure was political. Not military. Political will needs to go hand in hand with military effort. In Vietnam there was a disconnect between the two and the US ended up pulling out and stopped supporting the South. Hence, the fall of Saigon. 

As for propping up dictators against the "wishes of the people" the middle east really has no tradition of democracy. They seem perfectly content being led by dictators and typically when they overthrow one dictator, it is only in order to replace him with another. This is certainly what happened in Iran in 1979. 

Your train of thought certainly carries currency in some corners, but I believe it is disconnected from the way things work in certain parts of the world. Democracy as you and I understand it is an institution that is uniquely western and for that matter western european. We can discuss how that has developed and trace it back to Rome and Greece but that's another discussion.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ By 1973 the VC had long since stopped being an effective fighting force.
> 
> The Tet offensive yielded no gains for the NVA. Carpet bombing campaigns succeeded in bring the North to the bargaining table. The US never lost a military engagement in Vietnam.
> 
> The failure was political. Not military. Political will needs to go hand in hand with military effort. In Vietnam there was a disconnect between the two and the US ended up pulling out and stopped supporting the South. Hence, the fall of Saigon.


Indeed. A military campaign, no matter how successful militarily, cannot succeed without a successful political or diplomatic campaign. the desired outcome of US intervention in Vietnam was a non-Communist South. The US backed several leaders who can only really be described as warlords, rather like Chiang in China, but was never able to turn military success into political success. It doesn't matter how many battles an army wins, if they can't win politically as well they've lost, and the military successes, and the casualties, are all in vain.
No matter what the US military did in Vietnam, it was a defeat. The US failed to achieve the aim it used military force to gain. The use of military force without an adequate political plan is futile. 
Iraq and Afghanistan proved that again. Enormous use of force, expenditure of lives and treasure, has failed to achieve the aims. 
My argument was that the use of military force, brute force, will not achieve political ends if the political solution isn't as well planned and thought as the military campaign.
Britain fought and won two wars in Afghanistan, militarily, but both were failures because the political aim wasn't achieved, indeed, wasn't achievable. The USSR found the same as well, indeed, the failure in Afghanistan may have caused the collapse of the USSR. US military intervention is propping up a warlord in Kabul, who doesn't even control Kabul, never mind the rest of Afghanistan. This is, like Iraq, a further American foreign policy failure.



SG_67 said:


> As for propping up dictators against the "wishes of the people" the middle east really has no tradition of democracy. They seem perfectly content being led by dictators and typically when they overthrow one dictator, it is only in order to replace him with another. This is certainly what happened in Iran in 1979.
> 
> Your train of thought certainly carries currency in some corners, but I believe it is disconnected from the way things work in certain parts of the world. Democracy as you and I understand it is an institution that is uniquely western and for that matter western european. We can discuss how that has developed and trace it back to Rome and Greece but that's another discussion.


Yet when Chile voted, democratically, for a government of the Left, the US organised his overthrow, replacing Allende with Pinochet. The US propped up the Somozas in Nicaragua for years, despite their corruption, in order to further US interests, despite the popular support in Nicaragua for the Sandinistas, and then sought to de-stabilise and overthrow the Sandinista government once Somoza was overthrown. This would suggest that it isn't that democracy isn't understood or wanted, but that democratic election of people that the West don't like, like Hamas in Gaza, is greeted with opposition rather with acceptance of a peoples' right of self-determination, which Wilson insisted was a feature of the Treaty of Versailles. 
The History of military intervention by the US, the use of "brute force" as advocated by Mr.Kozel and yourself, has resulted in a series of failures, and has only furthered the impression of the US as a bully.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Indeed. A military campaign, no matter how successful militarily, cannot succeed without a successful political or diplomatic campaign. the desired outcome of US intervention in Vietnam was a non-Communist South. The US backed several leaders who can only really be described as warlords, rather like Chiang in China, but was never able to turn military success into political success. It doesn't matter how many battles an army wins, if they can't win politically as well they've lost, and the military successes, and the casualties, are all in vain.
> No matter what the US military did in Vietnam, it was a defeat. The US failed to achieve the aim it used military force to gain. The use of military force without an adequate political plan is futile.
> Iraq and Afghanistan proved that again. Enormous use of force, expenditure of lives and treasure, has failed to achieve the aims.
> My argument was that the use of military force, brute force, will not achieve political ends if the political solution isn't as well planned and thought as the military campaign.
> Britain fought and won two wars in Afghanistan, militarily, but both were failures because the political aim wasn't achieved, indeed, wasn't achievable. The USSR found the same as well, indeed, the failure in Afghanistan may have caused the collapse of the USSR. US military intervention is propping up a warlord in Kabul, who doesn't even control Kabul, never mind the rest of Afghanistan. This is, like Iraq, a further American foreign policy failure.
> 
> Yet when Chile voted, democratically, for a government of the Left, the US organised his overthrow, replacing Allende with Pinochet. The US propped up the Somozas in Nicaragua for years, despite their corruption, in order to further US interests, despite the popular support in Nicaragua for the Sandinistas, and then sought to de-stabilise and overthrow the Sandinista government once Somoza was overthrown. This would suggest that it isn't that democracy isn't understood or wanted, but that democratic election of people that the West don't like, like Hamas in Gaza, is greeted with opposition rather with acceptance of a peoples' right of self-determination, which Wilson insisted was a feature of the Treaty of Versailles.
> The History of military intervention by the US, the use of "brute force" as advocated by Mr.Kozel and yourself, has resulted in a series of failures, and has only furthered the impression of the US as a bully.


You'll get no argument from me about the need to political will and military force to be in harmony in order to achieve success. You seemed to imply, however, that diplomacy alone was the solution to some of our international woes and my argument was that diplomacy without the threat of arms is utterly useless. You seem to suggest, at least from my interpretation, that "brute force" is somehow this thing that exists in and of it's self and anytime we use the military it is "brute force".

I suppose if we take the Vietnam example again, the fact that the US never lost a military engagement with the North pales when compared to the eventual outcome which was the fall of the South.

As for the dictator issue, I'm sorry but even looking as recently as the last 20 years, elections in and of themselves are meaningless without the social and cultural institutions that make a healthy democracy. Venezuela is a perfect example and we can also look at more advanced countries like Russia. No one would argue that Hugo Chavez's Venezuela or Putin's Russia are democracies as we think of them. Yet both leaders were democratically elected.

It's very typical that these folks get elected, and assuming the elections were even fair, and then end up being dictators. In the case of many central and south American countries in the 1960's and 70's, it was a matter or trading a left wing dictator for a right wing dictator.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> You'll get no argument from me about the need to political will and military force to be in harmony in order to achieve success. You seemed to imply, however, that diplomacy alone was the solution to some of our international woes and my argument was that diplomacy without the threat of arms is utterly useless. You seem to suggest, at least from my interpretation, that "brute force" is somehow this thing that exists in and of it's self and anytime we use the military it is "brute force".
> 
> I suppose if we take the Vietnam example again, the fact that the US never lost a military engagement with the North pales when compared to the eventual outcome which was the fall of the South.
> 
> As for the dictator issue, I'm sorry but even looking as recently as the last 20 years, elections in and of themselves are meaningless without the social and cultural institutions that make a healthy democracy. Venezuela is a perfect example and we can also look at more advanced countries like Russia. No one would argue that Hugo Chavez's Venezuela or Putin's Russia are democracies as we think of them. Yet both leaders were democratically elected.
> 
> It's very typical that these folks get elected, and assuming the elections were even fair, and then end up being dictators. In the case of many central and south American countries in the 1960's and 70's, it was a matter or trading a left wing dictator for a right wing dictator.


However, what was being discussed was the failure of US military interventions since WW2, rather than the validity of some countries' forms of democracy. Whether an individual country's elections are truly democratic is an issue for that country alone, not for others. I'm inclined to agree that Venezuela under Chavez wasn't a democracy, but that wouldn't justify British, or American intervention. Allende's election was democratic, in an election that was almost a model for South America, but he was overthrown in a coup engineered by the US, not because he'd become a dictator, but because his political views weren't liked by the US.

It was mr.Kozel's view that the exercising of American military strength was a measure of "greatness", but your views expressed earlier about the US not being "great" because the US wasn't riding roughshod over international law and wasn't using military force in international incidents is similar.
Having the bright shiny toy of serious weaponry (especially superior firepower) does tend to make politicians want to use them, too often without thinking through the consequences.
As I outlined above, it is all very well choosing the military option in solving a problem, but too often since WW2 the US has chosen that option without thinking through the consequences. Again, I offer Iraq and Afghanistan as examples where unnecessary military involvement has lead to disaster.


----------



## SG_67

^ I'm inclined to remind you of who ended up pulling away from the middle east before it was stabilized. 

Different administrations think things through on different terms and based on different calculations. By the way, the "thinking things through" thing cuts both ways. 

I'll grant you that an administration must think things through before entering a conflict. I'll further grant you that mistakes were made in the post war actions that the Bush administration engaged in. 

However, before pulling out one's military also needs to be thought through. There are consequences to those actions as well and it is apparent that the US did not think this through in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Let's take the case of Libya as well as Egypt. Both of these crises occurred purely within the Obama administration. In the former they overthrew a dictator without any real clear understanding of what the next step should be. Now we have a failed state where as with Qaddafi, as abhorrent as he was, provided stability. 

In Egypt, a military dictator was overthrown and a radical Islamist government stepped in, only to be overthrown by another military dictatorship. Not much changed I would say.


----------



## Dcr5468

In the long run none of this matters. History has shown that every great economic and military power eventually over extends itself. The US debt burden cannot be resolved without inflating away part of the debt and/or devaluing our currency. Most of the great empires ended with a sovereign debt crisis. One day, hopefully long from now, US Treasuries will not be the safest investment in the world. Then we shall slowly go the way of the Romans, Byzantines, various European powers, and most recently Great Britain.

Most of the world enjoys a much higher standard of living than anytime in history largely due to free trade enabled the US projecting power. Our "empire" is derived from trade with nations that have frequently been enemies in the past. It's time the EU and others that enjoy our umbrella of protection help foot the bill.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bernoulli

I won't get involved in politics, and said my piece regarding it a few posts ago. However, I will try to clear misconceptions when it turns to Economics. No,the US debt does not need to be inflated away or devaluing its currency. This is bollocks. Sorry, but that is a false statement.

First, the debt in itself is not a problem, the debt service may be if interest rates are high and the US has a significant deficit in the future.
Second, growing takes care of Debt/GDP, which is the most relevant measure. 
Third, a falling deficit, like we have today, takes care of any issues (think Bill Clinton in the 90's).

Counterexample: Japan has a debt of over 230% of GDP and its long term interest rate is negative! Which means people are buying to hold Japanese long term debt, even though its debt is skyhigh.

So no, there is simply no way that those are the only two options.



Dcr5468 said:


> In the long run none of this matters. History has shown that every great economic and military power eventually over extends itself. The US debt burden cannot be resolved without inflating away part of the debt and/or devaluing our currency. Most of the great empires ended with a sovereign debt crisis. One day, hopefully long from now, US Treasuries will not be the safest investment in the world. Then we shall slowly go the way of the Romans, Byzantines, various European powers, and most recently Great Britain.
> 
> Most of the world enjoys a much higher standard of living than anytime in history largely due to free trade enabled the US projecting power. Our "empire" is derived from trade with nations that have frequently been enemies in the past. It's time the EU and others that enjoy our umbrella of protection help foot the bill.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm inclined to remind you of who ended up pulling away from the middle east before it was stabilized.


Ah, the "you did it too" defence! Just because our government had the same idiotic policy as yours doesn't make either right! In any case, this argument is about the failures of the use "brute force", so Britain's failure in this respect isn't a counter argument.



SG_67 said:


> Different administrations think things through on different terms and based on different calculations. By the way, the "thinking things through" thing cuts both ways.
> 
> I'll grant you that an administration must think things through before entering a conflict. I'll further grant you that mistakes were made in the post war actions that the Bush administration engaged in.


And the other military adventures that predate Bush, like Vietnam.



SG_67 said:


> However, before pulling out one's military also needs to be thought through. There are consequences to those actions as well and it is apparent that the US did not think this through in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Indeed. The use of "brute force" without a political and diplomatic involvement is doomed to failure



SG_67 said:


> Let's take the case of Libya as well as Egypt. Both of these crises occurred purely within the Obama administration. In the former they overthrew a dictator without any real clear understanding of what the next step should be. Now we have a failed state where as with Qaddafi, as abhorrent as he was, provided stability.
> 
> In Egypt, a military dictator was overthrown and a radical Islamist government stepped in, only to be overthrown by another military dictatorship. Not much changed I would say.


Indeed. In both cases the West used "brute force", and their intervention ended as failures.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Ah, the "you did it too" defence! Just because our government had the same idiotic policy as yours doesn't make either right! In any case, this argument is about the failures of the use "brute force", so Britain's failure in this respect isn't a counter argument.
> 
> And the other military adventures that predate Bush, like Vietnam.
> 
> Indeed. The use of "brute force" without a political and diplomatic involvement is doomed to failure
> 
> Indeed. In both cases the West used "brute force", and their intervention ended as failures.


I'm just curious; is the use of armed force ever justified in your opinion? Short of ones own country being invaded.

You keep hammering on the term brute force as though there is any other type of force. A depleted uranium shell coming from an Abrams tank wrecks the same regards of the political backstory which delivered the tank at that specific location.

I think you misunderstood what I had said; pulling out of an armed conflict without thinking through the consequences is every bit as dangerous as entering it the same way. Inaction is just as dangerous sometimes when not thought through.

Call it "brute passivity" if it makes you feel better.

Also, I never stated that a great country is only great if it uses force. But when a great country draws a "red line" on something, and that line is crossed, action must be taken. Otherwise, it's better not to draw lines.

I would have been just as content had Obama said "syria's internal conflict is not in our national interest" and left it at that. But once we engage, even rhetorically and then fail to act on our promises, well, that's as bad as going in.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm just curious; is the use of armed force ever justified in your opinion? Short of ones own country being invaded.


Protection of one's merchant shipping? But not randomly firing on boats that come too close, in the opinion of a mercenary, for example, but by establishing that military force would be used in response to military force being used. 
I'll have a think about other situations.



SG_67 said:


> You keep hammering on the term brute force as though there is any other type of force. A depleted uranium shell coming from an Abrams tank wrecks the same regards of the political backstory which delivered the tank at that specific location.


I wasn't the one to first use the expression, it was used by you and others as a legitimate response to a situation.



SG_67 said:


> I think you misunderstood what I had said; pulling out of an armed conflict without thinking through the consequences is every bit as dangerous as entering it the same way. Inaction is just as dangerous sometimes when not thought through.
> 
> Call it "brute passivity" if it makes you feel better.


It is indeed, which is why military intervention can only be effective if it is properly thought through, including precautions against "mission creep" and having a pre-established exit strategy. Starting a war is fairly easy, ending a war is much more difficult, especially if the war aims are unlikely to be achieved.



SG_67 said:


> Also, I never stated that a great country is only great if it uses force. But when a great country draws a "red line" on something, and that line is crossed, action must be taken. Otherwise, *it's better not to draw lines*.


It is indeed.



SG_67 said:


> I would have been just as content had Obama said "syria's internal conflict is not in our national interest" and left it at that. But once we engage, even rhetorically and then fail to act on our promises, well, that's as bad as going in.


Indeed. It is essential that politicians and leaders know exactly what they are getting into when they are tempted to use their exciting war toys. Too often leaders seem to think that engaging in a military adventure is some how a more exciting than peaceful negotiations, or diplomacy, or will gain them more popular support at home than by seeming to be indecisive by talking to potential enemies. PM's and Presidents often think that taking a military action, like "call me Dave" wanting to bomb Daesh in Syria, will somehow gain them popularity. It takes a bigger man to _*not*_ take that step.


----------



## jd202

bernoulli said:


> I won't get involved in politics, and said my piece regarding it a few posts ago. However, I will try to clear misconceptions when it turns to Economics. No,the US debt does not need to be inflated away or devaluing its currency. This is bollocks. Sorry, but that is a false statement.


+1. The current US debt level and (decreasing) deficit are not the crisis-level problem that so many think that they are. However, future spending commitments, particularly in Medicare and some other mandatory spending, are definitely a challenge. Even there, there's been some progress as of late with health care cost inflation decreasing. Lots of ways to mitigate that risk, if political will can overcome the divides in Congress.

A major sovereign debt crisis in the next 30-40 years is a legitimate risk for the U.S., but far from certain or even highly probable.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> PM's and Presidents often think that taking a military action, like "call me Dave" wanting to bomb Daesh in Syria, will somehow gain them popularity. It takes a bigger man to _*not*_ take that step.


A slight side-issue, but on the matter of wanting to bomb Daesh, or ISIS, I don't think you could be more wrong. It's nothing to do with popularity - Daesh is a vile regime that must be stamped out. The British Labour Party's* opposition to sending the RAF to Syria was pure craven cowardice. I'm just disappointed that the bombing itself seems to have been on too limited a scale.

* Or rather Jeremy Corbyn and some of his acolytes - I realise there were more honourable Labour MPs who supported the bombing campaign.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> A slight side-issue, but on the matter of wanting to bomb Daesh, or ISIS, I don't think you could be more wrong. It's nothing to do with popularity - Daesh is a vile regime that must be stamped out. The British Labour Party's* opposition to sending the RAF to Syria was pure craven cowardice. I'm just disappointed that the bombing itself seems to have been on too limited a scale.
> 
> * Or rather Jeremy Corbyn and some of his acolytes - I realise there were more honourable Labour MPs who supported the bombing campaign.


Nobody here would disagree with you that Daesh is a vile regime, but, as I suggested here at the time, a pathetic and inadequate bombing "campaign" carried out by a hand full of aircraft trying to bomb, without adequate intelligence, or adequate targeting, insurgents hiding behind a terrorised civilian population was never going to have the slightest effect in stamping them out. The Labour Party's opposition was based on principle as well as pragmatism, in that they were fully aware that bombing Syria would be an ineffectual gesture that would achieve nothing in the destruction of Daesh, and so it has proved. Sadly, "call me Dave" called for the bombing as means of showing the country, and his party, that he was capable of tough action (even if it was pointless) and, also sadly, too many people believed his publicity, and that he really intended to do something worthwhile. Of course the bombing is on a limited, such as to be entirely ineffectual, scale, as we were never going to be capable of anything more. The popular press got all carried away with the military hardware, the shiny war toys that always excite the populist press, but they have been every bit as ineffective as the military experts suggested at the time. 
To suggest that opposing the bombing Syria is somehow cowardly makes no sense at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/de...se-allies-but-will-have-little-effect-on-isis
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...mb-raids-in-Syria-dismissed-as-non-event.html


----------



## Tiger

jd202 said:


> +1. The current US debt level and (decreasing) deficit are not the crisis-level problem that so many think that they are. However, future spending commitments, particularly in Medicare and some other mandatory spending, are definitely a challenge. Even there, there's been some progress as of late with health care cost inflation decreasing. Lots of ways to mitigate that risk, if political will can overcome the divides in Congress. A major sovereign debt crisis in the next 30-40 years is a legitimate risk for the U.S., but far from certain or even highly probable.


I will stay out of the economic debate, because it is impossible to separate it from a political debate. However, all of this talk of "decreasing deficits" seems to be in direct contrast with the Congressional Budget Office (see cbo.gov), which states:

"In 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase, in relation to the size of the economy, for the first time since 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would grow over the next 10 years, and by 2026 it would be considerably larger than its average over the past 50 years, CBO projects. Debt held by the public would also grow significantly from its already high level."

Can we really dismiss $600 billion dollar (and growing) annual deficits and over $19 trillion in debt?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Nobody here would disagree with you that Daesh is a vile regime, but, as I suggested here at the time, a pathetic and inadequate bombing "campaign" carried out by a hand full of aircraft trying to bomb, without adequate intelligence, or adequate targeting, insurgents hiding behind a terrorised civilian population was never going to have the slightest effect in stamping them out. The Labour Party's opposition was based on principle as well as pragmatism, in that they were fully aware that bombing Syria would be an ineffectual gesture that would achieve nothing in the destruction of Daesh, and so it has proved. Sadly, "call me Dave" called for the bombing as means of showing the country, and his party, that he was capable of tough action (even if it was pointless) and, also sadly, too many people believed his publicity, and that he really intended to do something worthwhile. Of course the bombing is on a limited, such as to be entirely ineffectual, scale, as we were never going to be capable of anything more. The popular press got all carried away with the military hardware, the shiny war toys that always excite the populist press, but they have been every bit as ineffective as the military experts suggested at the time.
> To suggest that opposing the bombing Syria is somehow cowardly makes no sense at all.
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/de...se-allies-but-will-have-little-effect-on-isis
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...mb-raids-in-Syria-dismissed-as-non-event.html


Again, I disagree with your assessment. Every Daesh fighter killed and taken out of their despicable war is an example to the others that their cause is futile and will eventually be destroyed.

The Labour Party in its current form is constitutionally opposed to any form of war - appeasement, disarmament and pacifism are in its DNA. Whatever the proposition is, if it involves any form of military deployment they will oppose it.


----------



## bernoulli

Yes we can. Debt does not work for a country in the same way that it works for an individual.

Example: countries don't ever need to repay their debts, as countries, unlike individuals, do not die. The debt/GDP ratio needs to be managable, but that is it. Countries will live with debt forever. (It is more complicated than that).

Of course, there is a risk that it can spiral out of control. Yet, your analysis is misleading. The deficit is increasing in nominal terms, but not real terms, as the economy is growing at 2.5% a year. No one denies that the US will experience a higher debt level than in the past. Nobody is saying this is a riskless strategy, but if markets were worried about the deficit, market agents would not be gobbling US 10 year debt at a little bit over 2% a year, with is in line with inflation projections.

Again: institutional investors, local and international agents, are willing to purchase US long term debt at almost zero real interest rate. Zero! Meanwhile, in Brazil, long term interest rates are at 6%. Reason? Lack of confidence in the country's ability to repay its local debt. The reason that the deficit is not part of the political discourse in the last few years has one reason: it is not a major issue. At least, not right now or the foreseeable future.

If the deficit starts to increase dramatically, we have a major crisis, or some exogenous adverse shock happens, then we can revisit this discussion.

BTW, I am right now teaching the subject at a top 10 university. I am not using the argument of authority, but would like to tell you I know what I am talking about.



Tiger said:


> I will stay out of the economic debate, because it is impossible to separate it from a political debate. However, all of this talk of "decreasing deficits" seems to be in direct contrast with the Congressional Budget Office (see cbo.gov), which states:
> 
> "In 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase, in relation to the size of the economy, for the first time since 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would grow over the next 10 years, and by 2026 it would be considerably larger than its average over the past 50 years, CBO projects. Debt held by the public would also grow significantly from its already high level."
> 
> Can we really dismiss $600 billion dollar (and growing) annual deficits and over $19 trillion in debt?


----------



## bernoulli

One last thing: it is perfectly easy to separate economic and politic discourse. Economic models give testable predictions. Most economists agree about how to manage an economy. Yes, an economy like the US is a complex adaptative system, and policy prescriptions are context dependent, but economists agree much more than politicians in what to do in a normal situation (in the middle of a financial crisis, all bets are off). 

For instance, most economists would agree that 1) the deficit is not a short-term problem; 2) there is no space for major expansionary fiscal policy (at most, targeted policies like more infrastructure spending, but not at a large scale like the stimulus); 3) there are underlying long-term risks if the economy does not grow or politicians continue to create future outlays. Economist also favor taxation on consumption over taxes on investment and income etc etc.

Pick a microeconomics or macroeconomics book. There are standard economic policies that are on the textbook for a reason. Particularly, I use Mankiw's Macroeconomics, even though I find that the book has some flaws.


----------



## rtd1

I don't generally post in this forum, as I came to AAAC mainly to get advice on shoes and sport coats not to debate politics. However, my background is likewise in Economics and there is an enormous amount of nonsense and fearmongering out there. 

We are not going to have a sovereign debt crisis in the US. Our debts are denominated in a currency (USD) whose issuance is controlled by our government. We are not issuing debts in foreign currencies. The dollar is not pegged to gold or another currency. The situation is completely unlike the one in Europe and comparisons to Greece are misguided. As bernoulli states above, comparisons to a household budget are equally mistaken and inappropriate.

As for Social Security, yes there will be a shortfall in the future, but it's due almost entirely due to demographics (an aging population) and it's important to put it into context - the shortfall will be approximately 25% at peak, which means that 75% of committed payments could still be made with no changes whatsoever. Closing the gap will require relatively modest changes like raising the cap on income subject to the FICA tax, changing which CPI index are used to calculate COLAs, and perhaps raising the retirement age by a year or two at most over a long period of time. The popular notion that Social Security is going to run out of money and go bankrupt is an absurd falsehood.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> BTW, I am right now teaching the subject at a top 10 university. I am not using the argument of authority, but would like to tell you I know what I am talking about.


Yet, there are other economists and professors of economics who also "know what they are talking about" and will possess a varying viewpoint about the enormous U.S. debt!


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> One last thing: it is perfectly easy to separate economic and politic discourse. Economic models give testable predictions. Most economists agree about how to manage an economy. Yes, an economy like the US is a complex adaptative system, and policy prescriptions are context dependent, but economists agree much more than politicians in what to do in a normal situation (in the middle of a financial crisis, all bets are off)...Pick a microeconomics or macroeconomics book. There are standard economic policies that are on the textbook for a reason. Particularly, I use Mankiw's Macroeconomics, even though I find that the book has some flaws.


But would Barro and de Rugy, for instance, agree with Mankiw?

My field is history, and I know enough about it to see how various historical schools of thought teach and write about that subject - often, the same events are portrayed quite differently, depending on one's historical, politically, and yes, economic perspective/bias. (This has been demonstrated in this thread, if you've read all of the varying opinions of posters regarding the same events.)

I don't think one can really separate perspective from analysis in the social sciences, at least not without great care to be unbiased...


----------



## jd202

Tiger said:


> I will stay out of the economic debate, because it is impossible to separate it from a political debate. However, all of this talk of "decreasing deficits" seems to be in direct contrast with the Congressional Budget Office (see cbo.gov), which states:
> 
> "In 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase, in relation to the size of the economy, for the first time since 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would grow over the next 10 years, and by 2026 it would be considerably larger than its average over the past 50 years, CBO projects. Debt held by the public would also grow significantly from its already high level."
> 
> Can we really dismiss $600 billion dollar (and growing) annual deficits and over $19 trillion in debt?


A minor point, but CBO's "current law" projections are not very useful for understanding what actually will happen. If anything, the "current policy" projections are better, but still not very useful more than a few years out. The current law projections assume that upcoming expirations and sunset dates will actually happen (for various tax and spending provisions), despite the fact that they're regularly extended, among other things.

And yes, a $600B deficit is perfectly sustainable in the long term, assuming the economy doesn't shrink and government doesn't face major interest rate increases. We could have approximately that level of borrowing forever, no problem. This gets back to my original point: we simply don't have a current deficit problem. We do have some problems about explicit and implicit obligations in the future, mostly on the Medicare/medicaid side (not social security, which is not so bad, as has been noted by rtd1). But that doesn't mean we have some urgent need to reduce the deficit now.


----------



## Tiger

jd202 said:


> A minor point, but CBO's "current law" projections are not very useful for understanding what actually will happen. If anything, the "current policy" projections are better, but still not very useful more than a few years out. The current law projections assume that upcoming expirations and sunset dates will actually happen (for various tax and spending provisions), despite the fact that they're regularly extended, among other things.
> 
> And yes, a $600B deficit is perfectly sustainable in the long term, assuming the economy doesn't shrink and government doesn't face major interest rate increases. We could have approximately that level of borrowing forever, no problem. This gets back to my original point: we simply don't have a current deficit problem. We do have some problems about explicit and implicit obligations in the future, mostly on the Medicare/medicaid side (not social security, which is not so bad, as has been noted by rtd1). But that doesn't mean we have some urgent need to reduce the deficit now.


As mentioned above, many economists and professors of economics would disagree. I make no point other than to say that the issue is far from settled, or universally agreed upon.


----------



## rtd1

Tiger said:


> Yet, there are other economists and professors of economics who also "know what they are talking about" and will possess a varying viewpoint about the enormous U.S. debt!


The US national debt is denominated in dollars. The Federal Reserve can create an unlimited number of dollars with which to monetize the debt. This would be a terrible idea, and certainly would be inflationary, however, it would preclude the notion of the US government "going bankrupt" or "defaulting on the debt". If you're worried that current policy may lead to inflation, then just say so, that's a valid concern despite there being no current evidence of it happening. Don't talk about a "debt crisis" or other catastrophe directly resulting from the national debt.


----------



## rtd1

jd202 said:


> We do have some problems about explicit and implicit obligations in the future, mostly on the Medicare/medicaid side (not social security, which is not so bad, as has been noted by rtd1).


Medicare is a thornier problem. Unfortunately, the state of political discourse is such that you can't even begin to discuss the root causes without someone screaming "death panels" or similar such nonsense.


----------



## Tiger

rtd1 said:


> The US national debt is denominated in dollars. The Federal Reserve can create an unlimited number of dollars with which to monetize the debt. This would be a terrible idea, and certainly would be inflationary, however, it would preclude the notion of the US government "going bankrupt" or "defaulting on the debt". If you're worried that current policy may lead to inflation, then just say so, that's a valid concern despite there being no current evidence of it happening. Don't talk about a "debt crisis" or other catastrophe directly resulting from the national debt.


My initial comment, had you actually cared to read it, was "Can we really dismiss $600 billion dollar (and growing) annual deficits and over $19 trillion in debt?" I also made a point about ideological perspectives in the social sciences.

I did not mention anything about a "debt crisis" or a "catastrophe" or anything else that you've falsely ascribed to me...


----------



## rtd1

Tiger said:


> My initial comment, had you actually cared to read it, was "Can we really dismiss $600 billion dollar (and growing) annual deficits and over $19 trillion in debt?" I also made a point about ideological perspectives in the social sciences.
> 
> I did not mention anything about a "debt crisis" or a "catastrophe" or anything else that you've falsely ascribed to me...


So then we're supposed to just be afraid of big scary numbers or something? $19 trillion and $600 billion are meaningless numbers without the context of GDP, GDP growth rates, annual federal budget growth, interest rates, etc.


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> Yet, there are other economists and professors of economics who also "know what they are talking about" and will possess a varying viewpoint about the enormous U.S. debt!


"You can lay all economists end to end and never reach a consensus."

A variant of Dorothy Parker's line about Vassar girls at a Yale party: "If they laid them end to end I wouldn't at all be surprised."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> Again, I disagree with your assessment. Every Daesh fighter killed and taken out of their despicable war is an example to the others that their cause is futile and will eventually be destroyed.
> 
> The Labour Party in its current form is constitutionally opposed to any form of war - appeasement, disarmament and pacifism are in its DNA. Whatever the proposition is, if it involves any form of military deployment they will oppose it.


There is strong evidence that the current air/SOF campaign is not ineffectual and that IS is losing ground. What is debatable is if it is sufficient to achieve a desired end state, or if it is doing so rapidly enough. I for one prefer the current approach to inaction and expressions of stern disapproval. Is doing more warranted or advisable? Maybe.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dcr5468

rtd1 said:


> I don't generally post in this forum, as I came to AAAC mainly to get advice on shoes and sport coats not to debate politics. However, my background is likewise in Economics and there is an enormous amount of nonsense and fearmongering out there.
> 
> We are not going to have a sovereign debt crisis in the US. Our debts are denominated in a currency (USD) whose issuance is controlled by our government. We are not issuing debts in foreign currencies. The dollar is not pegged to gold or another currency. The situation is completely unlike the one in Europe and comparisons to Greece are misguided. As bernoulli states above, comparisons to a household budget are equally mistaken and inappropriate.
> 
> As for Social Security, yes there will be a shortfall in the future, but it's due almost entirely due to demographics (an aging population) and it's important to put it into context - the shortfall will be approximately 25% at peak, which means that 75% of committed payments could still be made with no changes whatsoever. Closing the gap will require relatively modest changes like raising the cap on income subject to the FICA tax, changing which CPI index are used to calculate COLAs, and perhaps raising the retirement age by a year or two at most over a long period of time. The popular notion that Social Security is going to run out of money and go bankrupt is an absurd falsehood.


My original post was in the context of many years, not short term. Deficits, national debt, credit ratings of United States can be sustained for many years, perhaps decades. But it is sheer arrogance to believe the US will be the most powerful country in the world in perpetuity. History has taught us this for millennia.

I am a banker and we are slowly but surely being regulated out of business. Our best chance of recapturing entrepreneurial spirit in this country, which is our best chance of growing our way out of this mess, is to systematically disable or scale back large blocks of a federal government.

I am, however, an optimist by nature and believe if any nation in history had the ability to restore its prominence it would be the US. It seems popular these days to believe otherwise, but this is the most free nation in the modern history of mankind, and we should all be thankful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dcr5468

By the way don't forget to appreciate the freedoms we still have. In many countries today you would not have access to a forum like this, or you may receive a visit from your local secret police if they don't like what they say.

I have relatives in France as my family here in the late 1800s. In 1986, when I was 18, I had a cousin spend the summer with my family on his first visit to the US. Many years later, he told me he did not truly understand what it meant to be free until he was here for a few months. That really made an impression on me at the time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

rtd1 said:


> So then we're supposed to just be afraid of big scary numbers or something? $19 trillion and $600 billion are meaningless numbers without the context of GDP, GDP growth rates, annual federal budget growth, interest rates, etc.


Even those seemingly less concerned about debt/deficit levels here have added caveats re: rising interest rates, increased federal spending, decreased growth, inflation, et al., so my concerns are not irrational.

Just for clarity, what levels of deficit and debt would make you uncomfortable, if at all? Any problems with spending hundreds of billions each year in debt service? Precisely when should we be concerned? Please do tell!


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> There is strong evidence that the current air/SOF campaign is not ineffectual and that IS is losing ground. What is debatable is if it is sufficient to achieve a desired end state, or if it is doing so rapidly enough. I for one prefer the current approach to inaction and expressions of stern disapproval. Is doing more warranted or advisable? Maybe.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's good to know IS is on the back foot - there is little in the way of reliable media coverage now.

It's rather hard to imagine what might be a realistic end state in that region, at the moment, but IS cannot be part of it.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> It's good to know IS is on the back foot - there is little in the way of reliable media coverage now.
> 
> It's rather hard to imagine what might be a realistic end state in that region, at the moment, but IS cannot be part of it.


This seems trivial, but it's not: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...aries-as-cost-of-waging-terror-starts-to-bite

One of the biggest obstacles to more decisive action has been a lack of good ideas regarding the desired end state. This has been the case from the beginning. Certain elements have been fairly clear (no Assad, limited Iranian influence, no AQ, etc.) But who would be in charge? How? Who would be the winners?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rtd1

Tiger said:


> Even those seemingly less concerned about debt/deficit levels here have added caveats re: rising interest rates, increased federal spending, decreased growth, inflation, et al., so my concerns are not irrational.
> 
> Just for clarity, what levels of deficit and debt would make you uncomfortable, if at all? Any problems with spending hundreds of billions each year in debt service? Precisely when should we be concerned? Please do tell!


My main point concerns the definition of terms that are being thrown around, specifically "sustainability" and crisis. From the standpoint of sustainability, I think most economists would agree that a deficit is sustainable so long as nominal GDP net of borrowing costs exceeds the primary deficit. However, this is merely a tautology, as the definition of sustainable is "able to continue at the current rate" and so long as GDP is growing faster than debt service, it can continue indefinitely. Something is sustainable for as long as it can continue, but this says nothing about what happens when it can no longer continue along a specific trajectory - it could simply reach a steady state and continue indefinitely, it could slowly reverse course, or it could devolve rapidly. Many seem to be using the world unsustainable synonymously with "eventual crisis" and that need not be the case, in fact, it's unlikely to be the case.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> This seems trivial, but it's not: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...aries-as-cost-of-waging-terror-starts-to-bite
> 
> One of the biggest obstacles to more decisive action has been a lack of good ideas regarding the desired end state. This has been the case from the beginning. Certain elements have been fairly clear (no Assad, limited Iranian influence, no AQ, etc.) But who would be in charge? How? Who would be the winners?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Indeed, one of the arguments against Britain bombing Syria was "what is the purpose"? What is the war aim? There was, and is, no firm, reasonable idea of what the bombing was supposed to achieve beyond it being a knee jerk reaction to Paris that would keep the electorate happy. As the Telegraph article that I linked suggests, what the RAF have achieved is next to nothing, which is what military experts said at the time of the vote. There is still no plan, still no policy beyond "bomb Daesh" (never mind the collateral damage to the civilians living in terror under Daesh control).


----------



## Joseph Peter

The arguments about economics in the US and US' foreign policy here illustrate how folks like Trump (basically a professional wrestler in a tie) and Sanders (hey!, let's make the US into Sweden) gain traction. While we go back and forth about these arguments (meant in the pure sense of the word), the average person sees his/her job disappearing under a "free trade" banner, their kids' having no chance to better themselves, and their tax dollars going into social programs paying for "undocumented aliens" and the capper to most is the argument that the US should let in more folks from the Middle East both before and after two clowns wipe out 14 folks.

Our political discourse has reached a level of Ph.d dithering about who has the "best" citations to whichever authority and an endless thrust and parry about history. Important topics to be sure but if you want to know how Trump and Sanders can have an appeal, our thread here shows why. Like our leaders on either side of the ball, the arguments and citations go right past the average "working stiff" trying to put food on the table and a roof over a head. What are they supposed to think? For example, they've been told about "peak oil" for decades and the need to get used to $4 or $5 a gallon of gas and then what happens? Their is a glut and gas sinks to a buck or two something a gallon. 

Those voting for either candidate mentioned above dont buy this stuff anymore and they dont trust the establishment of each side. So we get The Donald and Feel the Bern. Meanwhile, we prattle on about what history says and/or economic policy. I think you folks here are some of the smartest people I've ever encountered on a web board. However, we are so smart we have become disconnected and talk past the average smuck trying to get through the week. This time around, they are actually voting. We'll see where it goes.


----------



## bernoulli

This! Also, economists write models and test predictions. I am not going to argue more other than to point that the market is gobbling up 30 year bonds at a 2.63% yield right now. Surely the sign of agents really worried about the long term fiscal issues of the US (https://data.cnbc.com/quotes/US30Y). Or maybe you want to look at inflation protected bonds? A whopping negative 1% premium on a 30 year TIPS bond! Very big crisis looming just around the corner. Only not. Yes, we can both disregard a U$600 billion deficit and a U$19 trillion debt. Both are easily manageable in the long term. Economists add caveats because we are not oracles. Given reasonable assumptions, both numbers are not that relevant.

Let's say the US decides to fund yet another war tomorrow. That is the reason we add caveats.



rtd1 said:


> So then we're supposed to just be afraid of big scary numbers or something? $19 trillion and $600 billion are meaningless numbers without the context of GDP, GDP growth rates, annual federal budget growth, interest rates, etc.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> The Labour Party in its current form is constitutionally opposed to any form of war


Only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials.



Langham said:


> - appeasement, disarmament and pacifism are in its DNA.


Again, only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials. Under Cameron's premiership our armed forces have been reduced to the smallest that they have been since the Crimean War. Under his leadership in the last Parliament we had months, not days, but months when we not only had no RN warship at sea, but during which time we had no RN warship that was even capable of sailing. We even had to cancel planned RN deployments because there were no RFAs (logistical support ships) that had enough people onboard to sail them! Armed forces cuts under the Tories have been consistently far more severe than they have been under any Labour government in the last 30 years.



Langham said:


> Whatever the proposition is, if it involves any form of military deployment they will oppose it.


Only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials.
> 
> Again, only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials. Under Cameron's premiership our armed forces have been reduced to the smallest that they have been since the Crimean War. Under his leadership in the last Parliament we had months, not days, but months when we not only had no RN warship at sea, but during which time we had no RN warship that was even capable of sailing. We even had to cancel planned RN deployments because there were no RFAs (logistical support ships) that had enough people onboard to sail them! Armed forces cuts under the Tories have been consistently far more severe than they have been under any Labour government in the last 30 years.
> 
> Only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials.


As a matter of record, I wish to state that I have never read - never in my life read - either the Sun, the Daily Express, or the Daly Mail (in fact I have never read any tabloid papers, with the exception of The Times when it reduced itself to that format). The views I express here are my own, fortified by far more august organs than those you mention so repetitively.

I would agree that the diminution of our armed services is regrettable. Arguably it was made necessary by the former Labour government's atrocious mishandling of the economy in the period after 1997, but it's nevertheless unfortunate.


----------



## rtd1

Joseph Peter said:


> The arguments about economics in the US and US' foreign policy here illustrate how folks like Trump (basically a professional wrestler in a tie) and Sanders (hey!, let's make the US into Sweden) gain traction. While we go back and forth about these arguments (meant in the pure sense of the word), the average person sees his/her job disappearing under a "free trade" banner, their kids' having no chance to better themselves, and their tax dollars going into social programs paying for "undocumented aliens" and the capper to most is the argument that the US should let in more folks from the Middle East both before and after two clowns wipe out 14 folks.
> 
> Our political discourse has reached a level of Ph.d dithering about who has the "best" citations to whichever authority and an endless thrust and parry about history. Important topics to be sure but if you want to know how Trump and Sanders can have an appeal, our thread here shows why. Like our leaders on either side of the ball, the arguments and citations go right past the average "working stiff" trying to put food on the table and a roof over a head. What are they supposed to think? For example, they've been told about "peak oil" for decades and the need to get used to $4 or $5 a gallon of gas and then what happens? Their is a glut and gas sinks to a buck or two something a gallon.
> 
> Those voting for either candidate mentioned above dont buy this stuff anymore and they dont trust the establishment of each side. So we get The Donald and Feel the Bern. Meanwhile, we prattle on about what history says and/or economic policy. I think you folks here are some of the smartest people I've ever encountered on a web board. However, we are so smart we have become disconnected and talk past the average smuck trying to get through the week. This time around, they are actually voting. We'll see where it goes.


You are 100% correct.

However, no amount of walls, tariffs, and "better deals" will return Joe Sixpack to his pre-1980's glory days. Nor will a higher minimum wage and raising taxes on "the rich". There are no easy solutions here.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> As a matter of record, I wish to state that I have never read - never in my life read - either the Sun, the Daily Express, or the Daly Mail (in fact I have never read any tabloid papers, with the exception of The Times when it reduced itself to that format). The views I express here are my own, fortified by far more august organs than those you mention so repetitively.


I only mention those organs as those are the ones that most consistently peddle that message.



Langham said:


> I would agree that the diminution of our armed services is regrettable.


It is indeed, and they have been consistently cut by the Tories since the first post-war Tory government.



Langham said:


> Arguably it was made necessary by the former Labour government's atrocious mishandling of the economy in the period after 1997, but it's nevertheless unfortunate.


Arguably, but incorrectly. The savage cutting of the armed forces was part of Thatcher's ideology. After the entirely necessary and understandable reduction of our armed forces post war, and post empire, they were maintained at a fairly constant level until her government instituted serious reductions, especially of the Navy. If Argentina had waited even 6 months before invading the Falklands, the planned cuts to the Navy would have made Operation corporate impossible to have carried out.
If you care to look at the post war history of our armed forces, the party that has consistently carried out the most significant cuts has been the Tories, yet Labour is the party that is condemned for it!


----------



## tocqueville

rtd1 said:


> You are 100% correct.
> 
> However, no amount of walls, tariffs, and "better deals" will return Joe Sixpack to his pre-1980's glory days. Nor will a higher minimum wage and raising taxes on "the rich". There are no easy solutions here.


I agree, and I sympathize deeply with Joe Sixpack. But it's all so bloody complicated. I recall Trump recently saying that if he were elected, iPhones would be made in the US. Sounds great, but for a zillion reasons, there's basically no way Apple could do that even if it wanted to, and economically speaking, it never would. Threatening Apple wouldn't work. It would take incentives and a whole lot of other things both to induce Apple to make the move and make it possible for Apple to produce stuff like that were, where, from what I've read, we don't have nearly enough of the kind of industrial engineers it would take, for example. But in any case, you'll never hear from Trump any ideas about how he'd do that. He just says he'll do it. Apple will make iPhone in the US, basically because he said so. Maybe he can do a Jedi mind trick on Tim Cook?


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials.
> 
> Again, only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials. Under Cameron's premiership our armed forces have been reduced to the smallest that they have been since the Crimean War. Under his leadership in the last Parliament we had months, not days, but months when we not only had no RN warship at sea, but during which time we had no RN warship that was even capable of sailing. We even had to cancel planned RN deployments because there were no RFAs (logistical support ships) that had enough people onboard to sail them! Armed forces cuts under the Tories have been consistently far more severe than they have been under any Labour government in the last 30 years.
> 
> Only if you believe in the Sun, Express and Heil editorials.


I have to agree with Chouan here. It seems to me that Labour, like our Dem party, has a spectrum of views on such things as force and the use of force. In Labour's case, you have a range from Blairite interventionism to principled pacifism that in some cases is combined with anti-Americanism and/or some form of third-worldism. A Labour MP I met recently--who said, for example, that plenty of Labour MPs are prepared to vote for Trident renewal--insisted that Labour historical has voted for larger defense budgets than the Tories, who are responsible for most of the cuts and are responsible for today's austerity measures. She claimed Thatcher was behind a number of the larger cuts. I have no idea if she's right...I'm just saying.

In our Dem party, you have hawks like Clinton on one end--liberal interventionists--and pacifists on the other who might also have a touch of third-worldism. Our Republicans range from hawks to what I would describe as armed isolationists.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I have to agree with Chouan here. It seems to me that Labour, like our Dem party, has a spectrum of views on such things as force and the use of force. In Labour's case, you have a range from Blairite interventionism to principled pacifism that in some cases is combined with anti-Americanism and/or some form of third-worldism. A Labour MP I met recently--who said, for example, that plenty of Labour MPs are prepared to vote for Trident renewal--insisted that Labour historical has voted for larger defense budgets than the Tories, who are responsible for most of the cuts and are responsible for today's austerity measures. She claimed Thatcher was behind a number of the larger cuts. I have no idea if she's right...I'm just saying.
> 
> In our Dem party, you have hawks like Clinton on one end--liberal interventionists--and pacifists on the other who might also have a touch of third-worldism. Our Republicans range from hawks to what I would describe as armed isolationists.


Indeed; Corbyn, for example is against the renewal or replacement of Trident, but is also in favour of at least maintaining, even augmenting, our conventional armed forces, but is consistently portrayed as wanting total disarmament.


----------



## rtd1

tocqueville said:


> I agree, and I sympathize deeply with Joe Sixpack. But it's all so bloody complicated. I recall Trump recently saying that if he were elected, iPhones would be made in the US. Sounds great, but for a zillion reasons, there's basically no way Apple could do that even if it wanted to, and economically speaking, it never would. Threatening Apple wouldn't work. It would take incentives and a whole lot of other things both to induce Apple to make the move and make it possible for Apple to produce stuff like that were, where, from what I've read, we don't have nearly enough of the kind of industrial engineers it would take, for example. But in any case, you'll never hear from Trump any ideas about how he'd do that. He just says he'll do it. Apple will make iPhone in the US, basically because he said so. Maybe he can do a Jedi mind trick on Tim Cook?


The only solution is more education and training. However, this is a solution that will take decades to have an effect. It's actually one of two or three areas where I agree strongly with Sanders - publicly funded K-12 education was the solution to the post Industrial Revolution problem of yestercentury, publicly funded post-secondary education is a solution to the challenges of today and the future. However, this presupposes abilities and desires that may not exist. I'm somewhat optimistic about its prospects for helping a twenty-something son of Joe Sixpack, but significantly less optimistic about the Joe Sixpack in his 40's or 50's.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I agree, and I sympathize deeply with Joe Sixpack. But it's all so bloody complicated. I recall Trump recently saying that if he were elected, iPhones would be made in the US. Sounds great, but for a zillion reasons, there's basically no way Apple could do that even if it wanted to, and economically speaking, it never would. Threatening Apple wouldn't work. It would take incentives and a whole lot of other things both to induce Apple to make the move and make it possible for Apple to produce stuff like that were, where, from what I've read, we don't have nearly enough of the kind of industrial engineers it would take, for example. But in any case, you'll never hear from Trump any ideas about how he'd do that. He just says he'll do it. Apple will make iPhone in the US, basically because he said so. Maybe he can do a Jedi mind trick on Tim Cook?


Indeed; as far as Apple are concerned, their phones are currently being made by, effectively, slaves, in Shanghai. There is no possibility that apple would choose to have them made by US workers in the US at a fair rate of pay with fair conditions.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> I have to agree with Chouan here. It seems to me that Labour, like our Dem party, has a spectrum of views on such things as force and the use of force. In Labour's case, you have a range from Blairite interventionism to principled pacifism that in some cases is combined with anti-Americanism and/or some form of third-worldism. A Labour MP I met recently--who said, for example, that plenty of Labour MPs are prepared to vote for Trident renewal--insisted that Labour historical has voted for larger defense budgets than the Tories, who are responsible for most of the cuts and are responsible for today's austerity measures. She claimed Thatcher was behind a number of the larger cuts. I have no idea if she's right...I'm just saying.
> 
> In our Dem party, you have hawks like Clinton on one end--liberal interventionists--and pacifists on the other who might also have a touch of third-worldism. Our Republicans range from hawks to what I would describe as armed isolationists.


Tory governments have not infrequently been voted in to repair the wrongs of outgoing Labour administrations. When Gordon Brown left office, for instance, the country was an economic basket case. It follows that spending cuts had to be made and in these instances the armed forces are sometimes an easy target.

Corbyn's defence policy has been the subject of ridicule. His last proposal was that the Trident subs - the UK's nuclear deterrent - would continue to patrol, but without their nuclear warheads.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> Tory governments have not infrequently been voted in to repair the wrongs of outgoing Labour administrations. When Gordon Brown left office, for instance, the country was an economic basket case. It follows that spending cuts had to be made and in these instances the armed forces are sometimes an easy target.
> 
> Corbyn's defence policy has been the subject of ridicule. His last proposal was that the Trident subs - the UK's nuclear deterrent - would continue to patrol, but without their nuclear warheads.


I can't speak to which party is to blame, but I agree that Corbyn's stance on Trident is ridiculous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

This really says it all. Trump in his element. Watch it.


----------



## Tiger

The Trump - and Sanders, among others - phenomena are precisely why the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not want the general population to vote for the newly created position of president (chief executive). The electoral system delineated in Article II Section 1 was designed to allow States to have the ultimate power in determining the holder of that office, both because of the power-sharing arrangement between the States and the new general ("federal") government and the wisdom of knowing that the average person would not possess the requisite capacity to make a reasoned and informed choice.

As the "democratization" disease spread in the early years of the Republic, more and more States turned the power of choosing presidential electors over to their citizenry. We can see the consequences in not only who wins elections, but in who even bothers to run for office.

It's not pretty...I'd vote for some of the people who post here rather than any of the remaining choices of either party!


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> This really says it all. Trump in his element. Watch it.


Obama in his element:


----------



## tocqueville

How does that even compare?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> How does that even compare?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


One idiotic, moronic and otherwise infantile public display for another. The difference is that my example is the actual leader of the free world.


----------



## tocqueville

How is what Obama did idiotic? Just that he appeared with a nut case? I am at a loss to understand how anyone can equate the two men. Obama derangement syndrome?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

^ he went on a YouTube interview with a woman who eats Cheerios out of a bath tub filled with milk whilst sitting in it. 

Both are moronic in nature but let's not pretend that Donald Trump is alone in this. Besides, he did what he did as a private citizen, not as the head of state and government of the most powerful nation on earth.


----------



## jd202

SG_67 said:


> ^ he went on a YouTube interview with a woman who eats Cheerios out of a bath tub filled with milk whilst sitting in it.
> 
> Both are moronic in nature but let's not pretend that Donald Trump is alone in this. Besides, he did what he did as a private citizen, not as the head of state and government of the most powerful nation on earth.


You've lost me here. I barely know who this woman is, but I gather she has a big audience. Obama is trying to connect to that audience. So what? He didn't do anything buffoonish. This seems like people being appalled that Nixon appeared on Laugh-In. Meh.

Edit: And by the way, Trump's WWE appearance doesn't really bother me, either. Disagree with Obama's politics and decisions as President as much as you would like (and I quite often do), but to draw an equivalence between the propriety of Obama's personal and public behavior/comportment with Trump's seems a tough position to defend.


----------



## SG_67

jd202 said:


> You've lost me here. I barely know who this woman is, but I gather she has a big audience. Obama is trying to connect to that audience. So what? He didn't do anything buffoonish. This seems like people being appalled that Nixon appeared on Laugh-In. Meh.
> 
> Edit: And by the way, Trump's WWE appearance doesn't really bother me, either. Disagree with Obama's politics and decisions as President as much as you would like (and I quite often do), but to draw an equivalence between the propriety of Obama's personal and public behavior/comportment with Trump's seems a tough position to defend.


I'm not trying to draw a straight line, tit for tat comparison. Each man I had behaved uniquely moronic in his own right.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Trump supporter. I don't care for him as a candidate and I don't care for his policies, as vague and nonsensical as they may be at this point.

But I'm tired of the press, and some here, to try to cast him as some buffoon. His behavior may be buffoonish but he's trying to win the buffoon vote. And he's succeeding.

The president of the United States should not be going on talk shows and dancing, he should not be sitting down for interviews with comedians whether late night or on you tube.

Granted he hasn't degraded the office quite like one Bill Clinton and been fellated 10 feet away from the center of the universe, but he's done plenty of stupid things in order to get votes.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> I'm not trying to draw a straight line, tit for tat comparison. Each man I had behaved uniquely moronic in his own right.
> 
> In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Trump supporter. I don't care for him as a candidate and I don't care for his policies, as vague and nonsensical as they may be at this point.
> 
> But I'm tired of the press, and some here, to try to cast him as some buffoon. His behavior may be buffoonish but he's trying to win the buffoon vote. And he's succeeding.
> 
> The president of the United States should not be going on talk shows and dancing, he should not be sitting down for interviews with comedians whether late night or on you tube.
> 
> Granted he hasn't degraded the office quite like one Bill Clinton and been fellated 10 feet away from the center of the universe, but he's done plenty of stupid things in order to get votes.


You are expecting a modicum of dignity from a political leadership that is elected by a citizenry that values celebrity rather than dignity. I share your preference, but see it as a wish rather than an expectation.


----------



## 16412

It seems to me that Trump went to a private boys school with certain rules, which he sort of abides by, such as, kicking out the rabble rousers. But, the boys made up their own rules elsewhere, and we are seeing a lot of that.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> You are expecting a modicum of dignity from a political leadership that is elected by a citizenry that values celebrity rather than dignity. I share your preference, but see it as a wish rather than an expectation.


I'm far to jaded and been around too long to expect otherwise.


----------



## Chouan

There was an interesting article on BBC Radio 4 yesterday in response to Trump's suggestion that Americans shouldn't visit Europe because of the danger. The conclusion was that Americans would actually be safer in Europe, despite the terrorist threat. Even apart from a significantly higher murder rate and risk of violent crime in the US, the death rate from road accidents is something like four times higher in the US than in Europe.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> There was an interesting article on BBC Radio 4 yesterday in response to Trump's suggestion that Americans shouldn't visit Europe because of the danger. The conclusion was that Americans would actually be safer in Europe, despite the terrorist threat. Even apart from a significantly higher murder rate and risk of violent crime in the US, the death rate from road accidents is something like four times higher in the US than in Europe.


I'm curious why you should care as to what politicians here have to say? What possible interest should it be to you?


----------



## Chouan

1) As I indicated when I started the thread, I teach US Government & Politics.
2) He was speaking of Europe; I am European, therefore I have a reasonable interest in what he has to say about Europe.
3) we are constantly told, mainly by Americans, that the President is the most powerful man in the world. Therefore, what a man who wishes to become President says is of great interest.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> 1) As I indicated when I started the thread, I teach US Government & Politics.
> 2) He was speaking of Europe; I am European, therefore I have a reasonable interest in what he has to say about Europe.
> 3) we are constantly told, mainly by Americans, that the President is the most powerful man in the world. Therefore, what a man who wishes to become President says is of great interest.


Your comment about the murder rate in the US suggests at best a marginal understanding of it and where such crimes occur.

And though he was speaking of Europe, again, what concern is it of yours. The POTUS does lead the most powerful country in the world but he (whom ever it may be) is also a politician with domestic concerns.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Your comment about the murder rate in the US suggests at best a marginal understanding of it and where such crimes occur.
> 
> And though he was speaking of Europe, again, what concern is it of yours. The POTUS does lead the most powerful country in the world but he (whom ever it may be) is also a politician with domestic concerns.


I answered your question in my previous post. However, if a potential US president speaks nonsense about Europe it is of concern to Europeans; I would have thought that self-evident!


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I answered your question in my previous post. However, if a potential US president speaks nonsense about Europe it is of concern to Europeans;* I would have thought that self-evident*!


Not really.


----------



## Dcr5468

Chouan said:


> There was an interesting article on BBC Radio 4 yesterday in response to Trump's suggestion that Americans shouldn't visit Europe because of the danger. The conclusion was that Americans would actually be safer in Europe, despite the terrorist threat. Even apart from a significantly higher murder rate and risk of violent crime in the US, the death rate from road accidents is something like four times higher in the US than in Europe.


Perhaps if you are confined to some hamlet in the middle of nowhere. Transportation hubs seem to be the target of choice, which will disproportionally impact tourists (including Americans).

Also since the US is rather large mass transit is impractical other than a very few densely populated areas so that's not a realistic comparison.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Not really.


He said yesterday that he would be prepared to use a nuclear weapon on Europe, is that of no business of mine either? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ear-weapons-in-attack-on-europe-a6961101.html
I really don't see how the pronouncements on Europe of a man who has a chance of becoming president of the US is, in your view, of no concern to Europeans.


----------



## SG_67

^ assuming he's even serious or presenting a well thought out answer, do you think he actually would? 

Me thinks you protest too much! I'm sure you chuckled when you heard it so don't pretend to offer up your " waling and gnashing of teeth" as though you think he's going to nuke Paris. 

I'm still sticking to my guns; Donald Trump will not be the nominee. By hook or by crook, the GOP will see to it assuming primary voters don't. They'll take a loss in 2016 if they have to, though I imagine that won't be the case.


----------



## eagle2250

^^That and....
Chris Matthews was asking Trump misleading/there is no good answer/nonsensical questions. Why would he even suggest any presidential candidate would advocate microwaving our allies? Trumps answer should have been, "ask me a sensible question and I'll do my best to give you a sensible answer. :crazy: I am not a Trump advocate, but I also don't advocate the lame stream media setting him up for failure....that is simply not their role! Besides, the candidate can do that all on his own.


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> ^^That and....
> Chris Matthews was asking Trump misleading/there is no good answer/nonsensical questions. Why would he even suggest any presidential candidate would advocate microwaving our allies? Trumps answer should have been, "ask me a sensible question and I'll do my best to give you a sensible answer. :crazy: I am not a Trump advocate, but I also don't advocate the lame stream media setting him up for failure....that is simply not their role! Besides, the candidate can do that all on his own.


Oh I completely agree! Part of it is Trump's fault for not being better prepared and letting his ego get in the way.


----------



## drlivingston

As I ponder a Trump vs. Clinton ticket, I really wish someone would jump out, yell April Fools, and introduce the real candidates for president.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> ^ assuming he's even serious or presenting a well thought out answer, do you think he actually would?
> 
> Me thinks you protest too much! I'm sure you chuckled when you heard it so don't pretend to offer up your " waling and gnashing of teeth" as though you think he's going to nuke Paris.
> 
> I'm still sticking to my guns; Donald Trump will not be the nominee. By hook or by crook, the GOP will see to it assuming primary voters don't. They'll take a loss in 2016 if they have to, though I imagine that won't be the case.


If you are right, and Trump is deprived of the nomination via the machinations of GOP grown-ups, Hillary should enjoy a cakewalk since Trump supporters will feel jobbed and exercise their temper tantrum by boycotting the election -- but at least I'd have somebody to vote for!

If Trump does secure the nomination, which I think is much more likely, he would likely lose handily to Hillary.

All that said, I acknowledge that predictions are perilous in this weirdest and most disturbing presidential election in memory.


----------



## Mike Petrik

drlivingston said:


> As I ponder a Trump vs. Clinton ticket, I really wish someone would jump out, yell April Fools, and introduce the real candidates for president.


What? You mean you can't choose between the ruthless criminal and the egomaniacal manchild?


----------



## SG_67

Even if Trump is the nominee I doubt it will be a cake walk for Hillary. 

People really only know one side of Trump. Provided he gets his s**t together and starts to act like a real contender, he can still define himself. He's bringing out a lot of people and many of these polls don't take into consideration newly minted Trumpophiles who may likely vote for him. 

There's no room left for Hillary. There's no defining to be done. She is absolutely lackluster and though she has a base, she's unlikely to be able to put together the coalition that Obama had. There's just no enthusiasm for her. Again, often overlooked due to the tabloid nature of the GOP fight, she can't even put away a septagenerian socialist. 

Americans are generally loathe to hand over the keys to the same party after 8 years in the White House. The Obama presidency has hardly been inspirational and I think the sleeper issue may actually end up being the SCOTUS vacancy. The fact is when conservatives get energized its usually bad news for the Dems. 

All this, of course, depends on whether Trump shores up his bona fides as a conservative. It's a big if.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ assuming he's even serious or presenting a well thought out answer, do you think he actually would?
> 
> Me thinks you protest too much! I'm sure you chuckled when you heard it so don't pretend to offer up your " waling and gnashing of teeth" as though you think he's going to nuke Paris.
> 
> I'm still sticking to my guns; Donald Trump will not be the nominee. By hook or by crook, the GOP will see to it assuming primary voters don't. They'll take a loss in 2016 if they have to, though I imagine that won't be the case.


A curious change of tack on your part. You were arguing that I, as a European, have no interest in his potential nomination. When I point out that his pronouncements on Europe do pertain to Europeans, you now argue that they aren't important. I do wish that you would make your mind up.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Even if Trump is the nominee I doubt it will be a cake walk for Hillary.
> 
> People really only know one side of Trump. Provided he gets his s**t together and starts to act like a real contender, he can still define himself. He's bringing out a lot of people and many of these polls don't take into consideration newly minted Trumpophiles who may likely vote for him.
> 
> There's no room left for Hillary. There's no defining to be done. She is absolutely lackluster and though she has a base, she's unlikely to be able to put together the coalition that Obama had. There's just no enthusiasm for her. Again, often overlooked due to the tabloid nature of the GOP fight, she can't even put away a septagenerian socialist.
> 
> Americans are generally loathe to hand over the keys to the same party after 8 years in the White House. The Obama presidency has hardly been inspirational and I think the sleeper issue may actually end up being the SCOTUS vacancy. The fact is when conservatives get energized its usually bad news for the Dems.
> 
> All this, of course, depends on whether Trump shores up his bona fides as a conservative. It's a big if.


I generally agree with all of that. But I think Trump has a cap on his support that is exceeded by those who loathe him. Hillary's turnout will largely be an anti-Trump turn-out. Could be wrong though.


----------



## Joseph Peter

Matthews was all ginned up to "get" Trump. He's been railing against Trump since he announced, who did not get my vote in the primary and wont in the general if he's the nominee. Even though he exposed Trump's lack of preparedness, Matthews also fed into the reason why some will vote for Trump no matter what he says: an Establishment hack used incessant badering to get into the grill of a non professional would be politician. Meanwhile, the Elderly Hippie and Her Royal Highness get into a pissing match over who takes what from the fossil fuel industry. Amazing. The Presidency is there for the Dems to take with ease but they are at a huge risk of finding a way to lose it.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> A curious change of tack on your part. You were arguing that I, as a European, have no interest in his potential nomination. When I point out that his pronouncements on Europe do pertain to Europeans, you now argue that they aren't important. I do wish that you would make your mind up.


If you for a moment take seriously his rantings about dropping a nuke on Europe, then you're either woefully naive or you're being overly dramatic.


----------



## FLMike

Originally Posted by *32rollandrock* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1726384#post1726384
I absolutely, positively guarantee that Trump won't be a candidate (except, perhaps, in his own mind) come the convention. No way, no how. If Trump gets more than 1 percent of the delegate vote at the Republican convention, I will wear nothing but Donald Trump ties and Donald Trump shirts for the rest of my life and beyond--I will be cremated in Trump-wear. You have my word on it.



SG_67 said:


> ^ I've said it before in this thread and I will continue to state it; Donald Trump WILL NOT be the nominee. I will eat my words otherwise.
> 
> There are too many other options right now. Once the field gets narrowed a bit more and the conversation more focused, the electorate will coalesce around an establishment candidate.


I'd like to see how good 32r&r's word is, if he's still around. And, how SG's words taste.....


----------



## SG_67

FLMike said:


> Originally Posted by *32rollandrock* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1726384#post1726384
> I absolutely, positively guarantee that Trump won't be a candidate (except, perhaps, in his own mind) come the convention. No way, no how. If Trump gets more than 1 percent of the delegate vote at the Republican convention, I will wear nothing but Donald Trump ties and Donald Trump shirts for the rest of my life and beyond--I will be cremated in Trump-wear. You have my word on it.
> 
> I'd like to see how good 32r&r's word is, if he's still around. And, how SG's words taste.....


Well it's not the first time I've been wrong.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!


----------



## Shaver




----------



## FLMike

Fixed that for you....



SG_67 said:


> Well it's not the first time I've been wrong.
> 
> Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy _four years_ !


----------



## eagle2250

^^

"it's going to be a bumpy four years!" 

A bumpy four years, hell. Egad! Depending on your belief system(s) in The Bible's Book of Revelation or in Nostradamus prognostications, should you prefer, I believe we are witnessing the the beginning of "the end times!" Trump and Putin are both crazy enough to do it and there will be nowhere to run. Should these two fools be in power at the same time, we would all do well to get "knee bound" and right with our respective gods...for the worlds days are numbered. Bwahahaha! :crazy:


----------



## SG_67

I don't think either of them are crazy. They both know how to get their point across and to rally support. 

The problem with Putin, as was the problem with many Soviet era leaders, is that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of American politics, the press and public opinion.


----------



## FLMike

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> "*it's going to be a bumpy four years!*"
> 
> A bumpy four years, hell. Egad! Depending on your belief system(s) in The Bible's Book of Revelation or in Nostradamus prognostications, should you prefer, I believe we are witnessing the the beginning of "the end times!" Trump and Putin are both crazy enough to do it and there will be nowhere to run. Should these two fools be in power at the same time, we would all do well to get "knee bound" and right with our respective gods...for the worlds days are numbered. Bwahahaha! :crazy:


Fyi, I was talking about with Hillary as pres. But, to your point, the implications are well beyond the next four years.


----------



## SG_67

FLMike said:


> Fyi, I was talking about with Hillary as pres. But, to your point, the implications are well beyond the next four years.


Do you think she's going to win? I'm not exactly batting 1.000 w/ my predictions but I see serious headwinds for her.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Do you think she's going to win? I'm not exactly batting 1.000 w/ my predictions but I see serious headwinds for her.


It would be bad news if she lost. I don't just say that because I'm a Dem, but because of everything that would mean in terms of the will of the American people: they'd be voting out of various combinations of fear, loathing, and emotion, rather than out of a positive sense that the other candidate offered more and a better platform. That might change if Trump were to flesh out his positions, but I doubt he will, for I don't think he needs to. He's doing fine with big statements with nothing backing them up. I suppose many might vote for Trump because they are party loyalists, but they are not enough for him to win. He'd have to keep generating much more emotion, either hostility to Clinton or to this group or that group or all of the above. Romney, W., etc. all followed a much higher road than that.


----------



## FLMike

SG_67 said:


> Do you think she's going to win? I'm not exactly batting 1.000 w/ my predictions but I see serious headwinds for her.


With two very weak candidates, it's hard to say.


----------



## eagle2250

SG_67 said:


> Do you think she's going to win? I'm not exactly batting 1.000 w/ my predictions but I see serious headwinds for her.


I certainly struggle with any idea of voting for Hillary. In my book, having seen how fellow military members were treated for comparatively minor violations involving the handling of classified material(s), she is but an un-indicted felon at this point. In the event the FBI is not permitted to do their job and bring charges against Hillary, I fear I shall lose what remaining confidence I have in the DOJ.

...but then, I also struggle mightily with the thought of voting for Donald Trump, who appears certain to be the Republican candidate!

It certainly appears certain that this beloved Country of mine is in a state of almost certain decline!


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> It would be bad news if she lost. I don't just say that because I'm a Dem, but because of everything that would mean in terms of the will of the American people: they'd be voting out of various combinations of fear, loathing, and emotion, rather than out of a positive sense that the other candidate offered more and a better platform. That might change if Trump were to flesh out his positions, but I doubt he will, for I don't think he needs to. He's doing fine with big statements with nothing backing them up. I suppose many might vote for Trump because they are party loyalists, but they are not enough for him to win. He'd have to keep generating much more emotion, either hostility to Clinton or to this group or that group or all of the above. Romney, W., etc. all followed a much higher road than that.


Oh come on! When dems pray on the fears of minorities and women they're appealing to "the better angels of our nature" but when the GOP does it it's fear mongering.

I can rattle off a litany of crap said by democratic candidates over the years that are just as bad.

And speaking of Hillary; yes, let's put a serial liar who played fast and loose with our national secrets and her degenerate husband so he can be fellated again in a side room next to the oval office by another intern.

You know what? Give me Trump! After all, look at the last 8 years. How much worse could Trump be.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> O
> 
> You know what? Give me Trump! After all, look at the last 8 years. How much worse could Trump be.


A lot.


----------



## Chillburgher

SG_67 said:


> Do you think she's going to win? I'm not exactly batting 1.000 w/ my predictions but I see serious headwinds for her.


If current polling were to hold up, the Electoral College would have Clinton at 347, Trump at 191.

Betting markets are giving Clinton about a 70% chance of winning.


----------



## FLMike

Chillburgher said:


> If current polling were to hold up, the Electoral College would have Clinton at 347, Trump at 191.
> 
> Betting markets are giving Clinton about a 70% chance of winning.


I wonder what chance the then-current polling and betting markets gave Trump of winning before the primaries began.


----------



## Chillburgher

FLMike said:


> I wonder what chance the then-current polling and betting markets gave Trump of winning before the primaries began.


Given that there were 17 candidates in the Republican field, the "conventional wisdom" punditry of the time, and a host of other factors, he was far from a favorite to be sure. But once the primary season kicked in, he led most polls for most of the way and and even as far back as last year, betting markets were giving Trump about a 75% chance of securing the nomination.


----------



## tocqueville

Sullivan is always worth reading:

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html


----------



## SG_67

Sullivan obviously never read Plato. The republic is configured as a dystopian tyranny where dissent is crushed. 

But alas, it's the end of the world. All because the professional pundit class called it wrong. 

I suppose the millions who voted for Trump are morons, idiots and fools who have been led by this pied piper. If only they would read Sullivan and Plato the would awaken! Never had the allegory of the cave meant so much than it does now! 

But wait...they can't read. Maybe someone should read it to them. Yes of course, that's it. When we don't like the way someone votes or someone's opinion, we should pity them for they are fools and idiots who lack the education the rest of us have. 

Pure elitist dribble! The reason for Trumps success can be understood simply within the context of some of the posts in this thread.


----------



## Balfour

What a truly sad position: it appears that a great country will given the choice between two horrendously flawed persons, neither of whom deserve to be within remote proximity of the White House. I'm glad I don't have a vote.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Sullivan obviously never read Plato. The republic is configured as a dystopian tyranny where dissent is crushed.
> 
> But alas, it's the end of the world. All because the professional pundit class called it wrong.
> 
> I suppose the millions who voted for Trump are morons, idiots and fools who have been led by this pied piper. If only they would read Sullivan and Plato the would awaken! Never had the allegory of the cave meant so much than it does now!
> 
> But wait...they can't read. Maybe someone should read it to them. Yes of course, that's it. When we don't like the way someone votes or someone's opinion, we should pity them for they are fools and idiots who lack the education the rest of us have.
> 
> Pure elitist dribble! The reason for Trumps success can be understood simply within the context of some of the posts in this thread.


I despise Trump and will not vote for him. But I mostly agree with this post.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Balfour said:


> What a truly sad position: it appears that a great country will given the choice between two horrendously flawed persons, neither of whom deserve to be within remote proximity of the White House. I'm glad I don't have a vote.


Egomaniacal-child versus ruthless criminal. The choice is easy. Not.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Sullivan obviously never read Plato.


Maybe The Donald is America's Philosopher King?

A Golden Soul?


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> I despise Trump and will not vote for him. But I mostly agree with this post.
> As for Sullivan, his positions are entirely predictable -- he favors whatever is necessary to support his sexual practices. It is all that matters.


I'll be the first to admit that I was not in the Trump camp from the get go. I don't despise him, but I certainly would not have favored him.

When it's all said and done, and whether or not Trump will win in the end, the GOP will do a post mortem. My particular opinion is that the party should have clamped down a bit earlier and kept some of the clowns out of the race; Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki, Fiorina.

None of them really had a chance to begin with and unfortunately served as nothing more than a distraction from the others who probably had a better chance. Trump moved right in and cut his way through the noise. In the end it was too late.

But the more I hear from the likes of Andrew Sullivan and other liberals, the more I move into Trumps camp. The same crowd would be just as despondent and just as loud regardless of who the nominee had been.


----------



## 16412

tocqueville said:


> It would be bad news if she lost. I don't just say that because I'm a Dem, but because of everything that would mean in terms of the will of the American people: they'd be voting out of various combinations of fear, loathing, and emotion, rather than out of a positive sense that the other candidate offered more and a better platform. That might change if Trump were to flesh out his positions, but I doubt he will, for I don't think he needs to. He's doing fine with big statements with nothing backing them up. I suppose many might vote for Trump because they are party loyalists, but they are not enough for him to win. He'd have to keep generating much more emotion, either hostility to Clinton or to this group or that group or all of the above. Romney, W., etc. all followed a much higher road than that.


If Hillary won that would be a disaster. Some of it is what will she do? And the other so much of it is just plain wrong. "the will of the American people". I doubt you know what the will of the American people are. Therefore, "fear, loathing, and emotion" is far from it. The progressives have wiped out so many good things America once had. Progressives have, instead of fixing problems, removed rights. That is proof of failure because the problems are still there, and will only get worse and spread. The answer is what people did before problems showed up. Certainly not removing rights. Fear. Who is pushing fear the most? Progressives have. The list goes on and on and on of why not to vote for progressives.


----------



## tocqueville

WA said:


> If Hillary won that would be a disaster. Some of it is what will she do? And the other so much of it is just plain wrong. "the will of the American people". I doubt you know what the will of the American people are. Therefore, "fear, loathing, and emotion" is far from it. The progressives have wiped out so many good things America once had. Progressives have, instead of fixing problems, removed rights. That is proof of failure because the problems are still there, and will only get worse and spread. The answer is what people did before problems showed up. Certainly not removing rights. Fear. Who is pushing fear the most? Progressives have. The list goes on and on and on of why not to vote for progressives.


Please explain to me the rights progressives have stripped from the American people, or the things that are now worse than they were before the progressive movement...and why the progressives are to blame.


----------



## Chouan

Indeed, and what is this "fear" that these "progressives" are pushing?


----------



## SG_67

^ a few years back there was a debate regarding the budget. 

An ad was created showing Paul Ryan, or at least someone with a similar silhouette, who at the time was chair of the budget committee, pushing a little old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff. 

Does that serve as sufficient example of fear mongering?


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Please explain to me the rights progressives have stripped from the American people, or the things that are now worse than they were before the progressive movement...and why the progressives are to blame.


How about the right of little girl to go to the bathroom without having to worry about a man who "identifies" as a woman hanging around inside?

Or how about a business owner having some relative confidence in his city government that when the mob riots, his property will be protected instead of the rioters being given "space to destroy"?


----------



## Joseph Peter

tocqueville said:


> Please explain to me the rights progressives have stripped from the American people, or the things that are now worse than they were before the progressive movement...and why the progressives are to blame.


Mr. T., I didnt in the primary and in the general wont vote for the Reality Star but since you asked for an example, what do we call the disruption about a month ago at the Trump rally in Chicago? Sure, they had a right to protest what the Reality Star had to say but equally didnt the Trump folks have a right to do their rally? Now I suppose the counter argument is that the Reality Star himself cancelled it but it cannot be validly argued that the progs failed to shout it down. They didnt like what the Reality Star had to say to his folks so they disrupted it. Are quiet places reserved only for those on the left?....sorry, having fun with the term quiet places.


----------



## Langham

Balfour said:


> What a truly sad position: it appears that a great country will given the choice between two horrendously flawed persons, neither of whom deserve to be within remote proximity of the White House. I'm glad I don't have a vote.


Still it seems the Americans had a choice of various other presidential candidates, and yet of their own free will, these are the two they must now choose between.

I am beginning to suspect that Trump may even win the race; it will be rather interesting and perhaps comical to see how Cameron reacts, having been so frankly rude about him a few months ago.


----------



## SG_67

Langham said:


> Still it seems the Americans had a choice of various other presidential candidates, and yet of their own free will, these are the two they must now choose between.
> 
> I am beginning to suspect that Trump may even win the race; it will be rather interesting and perhaps comical to see how Cameron reacts, having been so frankly rude about him a few months ago.


The CW is that "Trump will be crushed". Of course, that was the CW a year ago. I'm as guilty as anyone else. My only defense is that I'm not an opinion maker.


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> The CW is that "Trump will be crushed". Of course, that was the CW a year ago. I'm as guilty as anyone else. My only defense is that I'm not an opinion maker.


Well I remember you predicting, not so long ago, that he would be replaced as the Republican candidate. I'm quite baffled by the man's evident appeal - he seems an out and out ne'er do well, a ruffian, a tin god. His vindictive treatment of Ted Cruz I found utterly offensive.


----------



## Balfour

Langham said:


> Still it seems *the Americans* had a choice of various other presidential candidates, and yet of their own free will, these are the two they must now choose between. ...


Not quite - most primaries are not open to all voters.


----------



## Langham

Balfour said:


> Not quite - most primaries are not open to all voters.


Well then if it was just a clique of voters who are responsible for the present farce, that is a great shame.


----------



## SG_67

Langham said:


> Well I remember you predicting, not so long ago, that he would be replaced as the Republican candidate. I'm quite baffled by the man's evident appeal - he seems an out and out ne'er do well, a ruffian, a tin god. His vindictive treatment of Ted Cruz I found utterly offensive.


I'm the first to own up to underestimating him. As for his treatment of Ted Cruz, so what. It's politics and Ted deserved it.

It was clear a while back that he was toast and he hung on. He should have gotten out of the ring before it got too ugly.


----------



## FLMike

In my last year of high school, they had all the seniors submit quotes to appear under our pictures in the yearbook. This was 1988....I chose a quote by Donald Trump, from his new (at the time) book, The Art of the Deal. "To me it's very simple: If you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big."

I would have never imagined he'd be a presidential candidate one day.


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> I'm the first to own up to underestimating him. As for his treatment of Ted Cruz, so what. It's politics and Ted deserved it.
> 
> It was clear a while back that he was toast and he hung on. He should have gotten out of the ring before it got too ugly.


Thrown in the towel? Perhaps ... but perhaps he performed an incidental service in revealing more (not that it was really necessary) of Trump's temperament.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> I'm the first to own up to underestimating him. As for his treatment of Ted Cruz, so what. It's politics and Ted deserved it.
> 
> It was clear a while back that he was toast and he hung on. He should have gotten out of the ring before it got too ugly.


To be frank, every time I heard Cruz speak, my sympathy for Trump increased, and between the two of them I just might have opted for Trump. I disagree fundamentally with nearly everything Cruz says. That's not the case with Trump. Aside from the anti-Mexican stuff and some of the other more offensive comments, often I find myself agreeing with Trump at least for an initial moment until I actually think about what he's saying. I'm sympathetic to his views on trade, for example.


----------



## SG_67

^ It's not "anti-Mexican". It's anti illegal immigration which is something I fail to understand why people have trouble with. 

But to your larger point, Cruz had a very annoying style and I can't stand politicians who invoke God and Christ around every turn.

I said this before but the one good thing about Trump so far is that he seems to have broken the strangle hold of the Christian right on the party. How nice to be discussing the economy and national security instead of abortion, gay marriage and other cultural topics that always seem to play into Dem hands.


----------



## SG_67

Langham said:


> Thrown in the towel? Perhaps ... but perhaps he performed an incidental service in revealing more (not that it was really necessary) of Trump's temperament.


His temperament is to win and bury his opponent. He did that. Now time to move on. The guy's a fighter and he put away his opponent. Something Hillary can't seem to do with one dogged, septuagenarian socialist.

On Tuesday night he seemed to have nice words about Cruz.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ It's not "anti-Mexican". It's anti illegal immigration which is something I fail to understand why people have trouble with.
> 
> But to your larger point, Cruz had a very annoying style and I can't stand politicians who invoke God and Christ around every turn.
> 
> I said this before but the one good thing about Trump so far is that he seems to have broken the strangle hold of the Christian right on the party. How nice to be discussing the economy and national security instead of abortion, gay marriage and other cultural topics that always seem to play into Dem hands.


Agreed.


----------



## 16412

Tocqueville, one of the fears is guns. It wasn't that long ago children took guns to school and there was nothing to be afraid of. Some schools had classes teaching gun safety and shooting. Look at what Bernie says about guns. Bernie is thinking conservative thoughts about guns. Hillary is a total disaster on this subject. The right to walk into a gun store and buy a gun without questions asked is gone. The problem has never been guns. The problems today is people with problems getting the wrong answers. If they got the right answers, as in the past, they could go buy a gun and not be a threat. There are plenty of other fears the progressives use against us.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> _*Tocqueville, one of the fears is guns. It wasn't that long ago children took guns to school and there was nothing to be afraid of.*_ Some schools had classes teaching gun safety and shooting. Look at what Bernie says about guns. Bernie is thinking conservative thoughts about guns. Hillary is a total disaster on this subject. The right to walk into a gun store and buy a gun without questions asked is gone. The problem has never been guns. The problems today is people with problems getting the wrong answers. If they got the right answers, as in the past, they could go buy a gun and not be a threat.


Of course, nothing to be afraid of if children take guns to school!



WA said:


> There are plenty of other fears the progressives use against us.


Like what?


----------



## 16412

Chouan said:


> Of course, nothing to be afraid of if children take guns to school!
> 
> Like what?


Chouan, you gotta do better than that. When I was in high school children bought, sold and traded guns in the school parking lot. Today, can they even take a pocket knife to school? The progressives caused so much fear, some years ago, that laws were made so that even law enforcement was banned from coming on school property with guns. That is a tremendous amount of fear instead of intelligent thinking. A Canadian author tells in his book about most children in his school having trap lines on the way to school. They even taught a couple of school marms how to run a trap line. Anyway, some of the older children brought guns along because of the trap and shooting competitions behind the school. Fear is not an necessity around guns, except around foolish people. Besides, there are at least two types of fear. The progressives push the foolish. Healthy fear is wiser, so makes better decisions. So much wisdom of the past has been abandoned and replaced by pretend wisdom, because it sounds so good, but not working. I'd rather have the past wisdom, because of safety and freedom.


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> His temperament is to win and bury his opponent. He did that. Now time to move on. The guy's a fighter and he put away his opponent. Something Hillary can't seem to do with one dogged, septuagenarian socialist.
> 
> On Tuesday night he seemed to have nice words about Cruz.


Let's see if he can bury Hillary.

Both seem rather repellant, in their own way. What a choice - I do feel sorry for you American voters. However, other presidential candidates in the past have seemed highly unpromising, yet have turned out quite well.


----------



## rtd1

tocqueville said:


> Sullivan is always worth reading:
> 
> https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html


I've seen this riff on Plato and the inevitable descent of democracy into tyranny numerous times, and it smacks of equivocation. Democracy in the time of Plato meant direct democracy, and not just in legislative matters, in most matters of the state. All of the Athenian citizens had a say in almost everything. Of course, citizen also meant something different in those days, with fewer than 20% of the inhabitants of Athens qualifying as such. It's not a compelling argument against giving the people a greater say in a modern representative democracy.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Langham said:


> However, other presidential candidates in the past have seemed highly unpromising, yet have turned out quite well.


Yes, predicting human behavior is a perilous undertaking.

I am repelled by both candidates, and will not vote for either (a first for me), but that does not mean that I'd be shocked if the winner is successful in office notwithstanding my current opinion of him or her.


----------



## 16412

As crazy as Trump is, I think he will do better. Whereas, Hillary will drag us down the drain further.

Trump has more surprises. But, there not all bad.


----------



## expressingmyself

WA said:


> As crazy as Trump is, I think he will do better. Whereas, Hillary will drag us down the drain further.
> 
> Trump has more surprises. But, there not all bad.


The biggest surprise will be that a Trump presidency would end America's reign as the premiere superpower. Foreign nations will laugh and proceed to topple us. I despise Hillary, but I love America, which is why I shall vote for her.


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> I've seen this riff on Plato and the inevitable descent of democracy into tyranny numerous times, and it smacks of equivocation. Democracy in the time of Plato meant direct democracy, and not just in legislative matters, in most matters of the state. All of the Athenian citizens had a say in almost everything. Of course, citizen also meant something different in those days, with fewer than 20% of the inhabitants of Athens qualifying as such. It's not a compelling argument against giving the people a greater say in a modern representative democracy.


One need only to read Thucydides and what Pericles went through at the beginning of the war to see how dysfunctional Athenian democracy was.

Back to Trump, has anyone considered that he's campaigning? And when campaigning one says and does things that one must to get elected?

He's pitched a lot of deals. This is the biggest deal of his life.

I don't think he's all that isolationist or that backward thinking. Many career foreign policy experts have criticized NATO and member nations not spending the requisite amount on defense.

As for foreign intervention, he's pretty much echoing what a lot of people are echoing. We had no national interest in Libya but we toppled a relatively stable regime and look what happened. In Egypt we sat back while a friendly government went to the dogs. In Syria we drew a line in the sand and when the line was crossed, we sat back and did nothing. Talk about losing credibility and superpower status.

I don't think we should withdraw from the world, but we need to apply our power smartly and more effectively.


----------



## 16412

expressingmyself said:


> The biggest surprise will be that a Trump presidency would end America's reign as the premiere superpower. Foreign nations will laugh and proceed to topple us. I despise Hillary, but I love America, which is why I shall vote for her.


Hillary is like a ship out upon the sea without a rudder. Wherever the winds and tides goes it goes. Not a boat I want to be on.

Unions have become dumb. The democrat party is no longer for them. Enviro wackos are pushing out good union jobs and the democrat politicians side with them helping, and not with the unions. Big business and unions have something in common- better pay, they go hand and hand. The republicans are for all businesses. Enviroment is one thing. Wacko thinking about it is quite another. The politicians in the democrat party are listening to the latter group way to much.


----------



## ouinon

SG_67 said:


> When it's all said and done, and whether or not Trump will win in the end, the GOP will do a post mortem. My particular opinion is that the party should have clamped down a bit earlier and kept some of the clowns out of the race; Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki, Fiorina.
> 
> None of them really had a chance to begin with and unfortunately served as nothing more than a distraction from the others who probably had a better chance. Trump moved right in and cut his way through the noise. In the end it was too late.


Yes if nothing else this should be a cold splash of water for the GOP. A lot of people thought Trump's early success was a joke or based solely on his celebrity. The fact that it continued to the point where he's the only guy left in the race says a great deal about the state the Republican party.


----------



## ouinon

WA said:


> The right to walk into a gun store and buy a gun without questions asked is gone. The problem has never been guns. The problems today is people with problems getting the wrong answers. If they got the right answers, as in the past, they could go buy a gun and not be a threat.


What problems? What answers?


----------



## expressingmyself

SG_67 said:


> Back to Trump, has anyone considered that he's campaigning? And when campaigning one says and does things that one must to get elected?


Whether his outlandish statements were made in the spirit of a campaign or no, Trump has far too fragile an ego to backpedal from statements. We have already seen this. It would be even worse were he to take office.

Trump frames America as a sandbox in a global playground to which he holds the keys. It is a comforting and effective narrative which has won him many supporters. It is also completely unrealistic. Resolution of conflicts like those in the middle east will not be brokered by a man who can't even run a university. There is no way he is capable of running a country. I have faith the American people will come to realize this in the coming months.


----------



## expressingmyself

WA said:


> Hillary is like a ship out upon the sea without a rudder. Wherever the winds and tides goes it goes. Not a boat I want to be on.


In times like these I would much rather find myself in a rudderless boat than on a warship helmed by a tiny fingered man with a god complex. Bluster and a nuclear football isn't worth nearly as much as Trump's supporters seem to think it is.


----------



## expressingmyself

ouinon said:


> Yes if nothing else this should be a cold splash of water for the GOP. A lot of people thought Trump's early success was a joke or based solely on his celebrity. The fact that it continued to the point where he's the only guy left in the race says a great deal about the state the Republican party.


Agreed. If we think about it, the Republican party hasn't really existed as the Republican party since Reagan. Instead they gradually allowed themselves to become the Not-Democratic party, which didn't stand for anything in particular except vigorous opposition to whatever was being championed across the aisle. Abject failure to appreciate the fervor generated by tea partiers in recent cycles (a movement curbed only by the ineptitude of its leadership and a general lack of resources) left the door wide open for someone with a strong narrative to take it by the neck. Poor Ted Cruz thought it would be him.

I do think with enough time to prepare the core Republicans will be able to win back the narrative and reclaim the party. In effect Trump's interloping should strengthen the party by forcing it to develop a set of ideals and cogent leadership. Provided the whole thing doesn't come crashing down to the ground first, that is.


----------



## SG_67

expressingmyself said:


> Whether his outlandish statements were made in the spirit of a campaign or no, Trump has far too fragile an ego to backpedal from statements. We have already seen this. It would be even worse were he to take office.
> 
> Trump frames America as a sandbox in a global playground to which he holds the keys. It is a comforting and effective narrative which has won him many supporters. It is also completely unrealistic. Resolution of conflicts like those in the middle east will not be brokered by a man who can't even run a university. There is no way he is capable of running a country. I have faith the American people will come to realize this in the coming months.


Right now the American people, or at least some portion of them are liking him. As for the university comment, I'm sure it comforts you to say that but in the end he's not an operator of a university but a business man and he's done quite well.

Again, I look at the last 8 years and think, why not.


----------



## eagle2250

SG_67 said:


> His temperament is to win and bury his opponent. He did that. Now time to move on. The guy's a fighter and he put away his opponent. Something Hillary can't seem to do with one dogged, septuagenarian socialist.
> 
> On Tuesday night he seemed to have nice words about Cruz.


I can only hope his kind words about Cruz were insincere. Frankly John Boehner's characterization of Ted Cruz was spot-on...he strikes me as Lucifer in the flesh. Cruz has more in common than the shape of his lips, with lizards. He also has the emotional tenor of a reptile! Cruz, had he gotten the nomination, would have been only a marginally better candidate than Trump. Did anyone watch the video of his reaction when his running mate fell out of sight on the step risers, while introducing Cruz's family to the rally attendees. There was no reaction. Indeed, at best Cruz has the heart of a reptile ....and that could be insulting to the reptile! :crazy:


----------



## SG_67

He would actually have been worse. Cruz is ideologically rigid. Trump, as we have seen, can be swayed on certain things and also has deal making in his blood. 

For sure, Trump likes winning. The question is, can he find a way and can he orchestrate a winning campaign. 

One thing I will say, I wish the people who dropped out would either shut up and go away or get behind the nominee and forge ahead. Stop being babies!


----------



## expressingmyself

SG_67 said:


> Right now the American people, or at least some portion of them are liking him. As for the university comment, I'm sure it comforts you to say that but in the end he's not an operator of a university but a business man and he's done quite well.
> 
> Again, I look at the last 8 years and think, why not.


It's interesting to see where the logic starts and then stops with Trump supporters.

He is a successful businessman. Okay. (This in and of itself is a point of debate but not one I'll undertake.)

Yet, somehow, you don't think that having your name attached to a fraudulent university stains one's credentials as a businessman? Because the only way this happens is trump either

(1) lends his name out to the highest bidder without caring enough to conduct the appropriate diligence and oversight to make sure it is used correctly, or
(2) presided over the operation himself and is now publicly distancing himself in light of its failure

Either one is damning. Neither one is "good business." To suggest otherwise is to see what you want to see and perpetuate the narrative.


----------



## expressingmyself

SG_67 said:


> He would actually have been worse. Cruz is ideologically rigid.


Perhaps. In some ways Trump's saving grace is his complete lack of ideology -- he was a liberal but a few years ago! Unfortunately I believe that his ego will compensate for his lack of ideological compass, perhaps overly so.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Chouan, you gotta do better than that. When I was in high school children bought, sold and traded guns in the school parking lot.


You write that as if it were a good thing!



WA said:


> Today, can they even take a pocket knife to school?


Why would a child need to?



WA said:


> The progressives caused so much fear, some years ago, that laws were made so that even law enforcement was banned from coming on school property with guns.


Again, why would they need to? Or are American children really that dangerous?



WA said:


> That is a tremendous amount of fear instead of intelligent thinking. A Canadian author tells in his book about most children in his school having trap lines on the way to school. They even taught a couple of school marms how to run a trap line. Anyway, some of the older children brought guns along because of the trap and shooting competitions behind the school. Fear is not an necessity around guns, except around foolish people. Besides, there are at least two types of fear. The progressives push the foolish. Healthy fear is wiser, so makes better decisions. So much wisdom of the past has been abandoned and replaced by pretend wisdom, because it sounds so good, but not working. I'd rather have the past wisdom, because of safety and freedom.


I'm afraid that I'm not sure of what you're trying to say here, apart from more assertions that "progessives", whatever you mean by that, are pushing fear. Again, I can't see any evidence of what fear they are pushing in what you've written.


----------



## 16412

Chouan, where are you from? Do you live on the 50th floor of some skyscraper? Do you know nothing about rural living? As a boy, and even now, I carry a pocket knife everywhere. It's not for self defense. If you go hiking it is in the list of ten items in your survival kit. Some of the trails around here I've used it for pruning overhanging branches. I use it for opening envelops and boxes. Sometimes I make my own clothes and the pocket knife is a very quick way to cut open a seam I don't like. Those are only a few things I've used the pocket knife for. Most of the pocket knifes I've had were not made for self defense. Sometimes it isn't about need, it is about practical and freedom. I don't think you understand freedom.

Why isn't it a good thing to buy, sell and traded guns in the school parking lot?

In America law enforcement carry certain tools, such as a gun, handcuffs, etc. Like carpenters carry their tools, hammer, tape measure, etc. How old are you? Anyway, some progressives were so afraid they demanded, being a bunch of cowards, that the law enforcement leave their guns at, lets say, the police station. These chickens sure somehow ended up with a lot of power instead of being locked up in mental institutions.

Your last question. When people try to make it hard for innocent people to buy guns, try to ban guns, try to take away guns, try to make gun registries, and even blame gun manufacturers of crimes they didn't do- this is because of fear that even a shrink can't shrink. 

You really don't know what freedom is, do you, Chouan?


----------



## 16412

ouinon said:


> What problems? What answers?


Where are you from? Do you know about columbine shootings or Sandy Hook? While these are extreme tragedies and there were other shootings, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States, I don't remember if it was in the eighties or nineties when the nature of shootings changed. Anyway, fear began to take hold and laws started showing up that nobody even though of before. The media, being mostly left, really worked these stories up creating lots of fear. How many stabbings are reported across the US? Something unusual like a sword or machete will usually make the rounds. The media's interest is money and trying to act like a moral authority. No matter how you look at it fear has gotten out of hand. It is a tragedy when an innocent life is taken, no matter how it is done. Abortion is one of the biggest.


----------



## 16412

Expressingmyself, 
"Yet, somehow, you don't think that having your name attached to a fraudulent university stains one's credentials as a businessman? Because the only way this happens is trump either 

(1) lends his name out to the highest bidder without caring enough to conduct the appropriate diligence and oversight to make sure it is used correctly, or
(2) presided over the operation himself and is now publicly distancing himself in light of its failure"

You think Hillary isn't worse?! Highest bidder and failed operations, isn't that the story of her life? She is a political prostitute. She has her wet finger in the air to see where the wind is coming from, instead of being principled.


----------



## expressingmyself

WA said:


> You think Hillary isn't worse?! Highest bidder and failed operations, isn't that the story of her life? She is a political prostitute. She has her wet finger in the air to see where the wind is coming from, instead of being principled.


I tend to find that when ad hominem attacks are the best response one can muster, it's best to say nothing at all. Hillary's principles or lack thereof have absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump's merit as a business person, which is the matter at hand.

Unless by posting that you meant to concede that he is a terrible business person and merely the lesser of two evils, in which case I agree wholeheartedly on the first point and disagree with the second.


----------



## expressingmyself

WA said:


> Why isn't it a good thing to buy, sell and traded guns in the school parking lot?





WA said:


> Do you know about columbine shootings or Sandy Hook?


I think you answered your own question there, sir.


----------



## rtd1

The outcome of the Trump/Ryan meeting next week should be interesting. Ryan fancies himself a policy wonk first and foremost, and had been looking forward to using his new role as Speaker to advance a platform and policy agenda. To the extent that Trump has a policy agenda at all, I'd say 80% of it is in direct opposition to Ryan's storied conservative principles.


----------



## ouinon

WA said:


> Where are you from? Do you know about columbine shootings or Sandy Hook? While these are extreme tragedies and there were other shootings, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States, I don't remember if it was in the eighties or nineties when the nature of shootings changed. Anyway, fear began to take hold and laws started showing up that nobody even though of before. The media, being mostly left, really worked these stories up creating lots of fear. How many stabbings are reported across the US? Something unusual like a sword or machete will usually make the rounds. The media's interest is money and trying to act like a moral authority. No matter how you look at it fear has gotten out of hand. It is a tragedy when an innocent life is taken, no matter how it is done. Abortion is one of the biggest.


I'm from the east coast of Canada. Of course I know about school shootings, it seems like there's one every few months in your country.

You said, "The problems today is people with problems getting the wrong answers." Which vaguely sounded like you believe mental healthcare is a more important factor than gun control, so I was curious to see how you thought mental healthcare had declined over the years. However, you now seem to be saying that the rise in school shootings is due to new laws (which laws?) + more media coverage of shootings.

I can see where you're coming from with regard to the media. I rarely watch American news but I notice a stark difference in tone when I do. Whether it's contributed to the increased number of gun deaths I don't know, but I would argue that this culture of fear is what has led to such wild opposition to gun control. Everyone wants guns so they can defend themselves from all the baddies out there with guns. Then more people get guns so more people get shot so more fear swells.

I am still not sure what you meant earlier by "people with problems" and the answers they're getting though.


----------



## SG_67

How wonderful it must be to be Canadian, or anything other than American for that matter. 

What a perfect society and perfect government everyone else gets to enjoy. If only we could be that wonderful and enlightened.


----------



## ouinon

Canada has plenty of issues of its own, including gun violence, but there is a notable difference between our two countries in the culture surrounding gun ownership, the media coverage of shootings, and the sheer number of firearm-related homicides. I'm asking questions to try and understand those differences better, feel free to enlighten me further.


----------



## SG_67

The "culture" surrounding gun ownership is no different from gun ownership in any other country. 

We have a 2nd Amendment which guarantees us the right to bear arms. The problem with guns in this country is not that people own them, it's that criminals have them too.


----------



## 16412

expressingmyself said:


> I think you answered your own question there, sir.


That is a ridiculous answer. Because of road rage did you stay away from roads there after? Are you trying to shut down the auto industry because of a few idiots?

How many millions of guns have been taken to schools for show and tell, trade, bought and sold. Even teachers and principles looking at at some of these guns telling the student what a great buy. Your answer above lacks wisdom.

You don't seem to distinguish between good and bad, and because of a few bad you deem everybody is bad. That means good people are being punished.


----------



## Tiger

rtd1 said:


> The outcome of the Trump/Ryan meeting next week should be interesting. Ryan fancies himself a policy wonk first and foremost, and had been looking forward to using his new role as Speaker to advance a platform and policy agenda. To the extent that Trump has a policy agenda at all, I'd say 80% of it is in direct opposition to Ryan's storied conservative principles.


This is a thread I've stayed clear of (although tempted greatly to critique the faith in progressivism expressed by some), but I do wish to clarify - Paul Ryan is no conservative. Why anyone would believe that he possesses "storied conservative principles" is puzzling...


----------



## SG_67

^ I suppose it depends on the definition of the term.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> ^ I suppose it depends on the definition of the term.


Perhaps, and in comparison to whom. But no one will confuse Ryan with anyone holding traditionalist, constitutionalist, non-interventionist, and fiscally restrained policy positions.


----------



## expressingmyself

WA said:


> That is a ridiculous answer. Because of road rage did you stay away from roads there after? Are you trying to shut down the auto industry because of a few idiots?


If you could please consult this list of fallacies and attempt to refrain from using them in future posts so we can engage in legitimate debate, that would be much appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Unless you truly don't understand the difference between gun violence and road rage, in which case I suppose a few things about your responses to date make more sense to me. (Cars and guns are very, very different.)



> How many millions of guns have been taken to schools for show and tell, trade, bought and sold. Even teachers and principles looking at at some of these guns telling the student what a great buy. Your answer above lacks wisdom.


Simply put, you lack an appreciation of the fact that we no longer live in the 1950s. All your anecdotes are reminders of a life that is no longer. Were it the truth today, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not. End of story.



> You don't seem to distinguish between good and bad, and because of a few bad you deem everybody is bad. That means good people are being punished.


Yes, I agree with this. A violent and mentally unstable minority are absolutely ruining gun ownership for the responsible majority. Unfortunately assault rifles have a way of giving violent individuals disproportionate amounts of power. If you really wanted to do something about this, you could consider campaigning for better mental health services in our country, instead of campaigning to get more guns into the hands of people who are just going to make things worse for your cause.


----------



## rtd1

Tiger said:


> This is a thread I've stayed clear of (although tempted greatly to critique the faith in progressivism expressed by some), but I do wish to clarify - Paul Ryan is no conservative. Why anyone would believe that he possesses "storied conservative principles" is puzzling...


Perhaps not in the Burkean sense of the term (but who is these days?), however, as modern Republicans go, I would characterize him as pretty far to the right, on both social and fiscal issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Paul_Ryan


----------



## expressingmyself

Tiger said:


> This is a thread I've stayed clear of (although tempted greatly to critique the faith in progressivism expressed by some), but I do wish to clarify - Paul Ryan is no conservative. Why anyone would believe that he possesses "storied conservative principles" is puzzling...


Many folks participating in this thread seem very ready to take whatever candidates say about themselves at face value, regardless of the individual's actual history/track record. It's extremely alarming.


----------



## Tiger

rtd1 said:


> Perhaps not in the Burkean sense of the term (but who is these days?), however, as modern Republicans go, I would characterize him as pretty far to the right, on both social and fiscal issues.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Paul_Ryan


A fiscally responsible conservative would only support federal spending that was authorized by Article I Section Eight of the Constitution. Ryan, and the overwhelming majority of both major parties, reject this. Whether he is "conservative" relative to other, even more grandiose spenders does not make him an actual conservative.

Such relativity has served to destroy all founding principles...


----------



## 16412

ouinon said:


> I'm from the east coast of Canada. Of course I know about school shootings, it seems like there's one every few months in your country.
> 
> You said, "The problems today is people with problems getting the wrong answers." Which vaguely sounded like you believe mental healthcare is a more important factor than gun control, so I was curious to see how you thought mental healthcare had declined over the years. However, you now seem to be saying that the rise in school shootings is due to new laws (which laws?) + more media coverage of shootings.
> 
> I can see where you're coming from with regard to the media. I rarely watch American news but I notice a stark difference in tone when I do. Whether it's contributed to the increased number of gun deaths I don't know, but I would argue that this culture of fear is what has led to such wild opposition to gun control. Everyone wants guns so they can defend themselves from all the baddies out there with guns. Then more people get guns so more people get shot so more fear swells.
> 
> I am still not sure what you meant earlier by "people with problems" and the answers they're getting though.


When I saw that webpage I decided to write other issues while I think about what was upon the webpage. Before there were guns there were swords. Only a few people with swords used them aggressively for criminal intent. Now guns have replaced swords. Still, there are thousands of knife killings because nobody hears someone being killed by a knife. Shoot a gun and how many people are calling 911? Which kitchen doesn't have a knife in it? Since people are killed with knives, and you have one, we can't trust you, therefore, according to your reasoning, government should take all knives out of all kitchens as you say guns should be removed.

About mental healthcare. Before mental healthcare was the world better? It seems to me, since governments have turned to the professionals in mental healthcare we have more problems. They don't seem to understand poor behavior, much more what to do with it. It seems to me that they created a slippery slope that they are making steeper. Which means, we as a country, are sliding faster the wrong way. This new behavior in school killings came after the professionals in mental healthcare gained power. There have always been killings, and they didn't scare the general population. The new behavior in school killings is scarring people sinceless. Therefore, the wrong answers.

Many people buy guns for other reasons than safety. How many people have dozens of guns and yet, never carry one for safety? Is it 90% to 80% of gun owners fall into this category? Indeed the media works up gun fear, and make believe fear. Basically, progressives are the ones afraid. And too many of them have power to make foolish decisions for the rest of us.

How safe are we? A person was being beaten up near where I live. I called 911. Eventually a police showed up. I actually had to wave him down to talk and point him in the right direction. The police basically said, "Who cares. He is just a homeless person". And he drove off. If you are out of luck and homeless, is that the answer you want? How many dirty cops, prosecutors, judges and fixed juries are out there? Even in Canada your not safe from this. Anyway, I find it immoral that the right to life is taken away by gun laws and a phoney belief in government is to replace it.


----------



## expressingmyself

WA said:


> When I saw that webpage I decided to write other issues while I think about what was upon the webpage. Before there were guns there were swords. Only a few people with swords used them aggressively for criminal intent. Now guns have replaced swords. Still, there are thousands of knife killings because nobody hears someone being killed by a knife. Shoot a gun and how many people are calling 911? Which kitchen doesn't have a knife in it? Since people are killed with knives, and you have one, we can't trust you, therefore, according to your reasoning, government should take all knives out of all kitchens as you say guns should be removed.


Sigh, you don't like letting facts and logic get in the way of your arguments, do you? Why knives and assault rifles have nothing to do with each other (just like guns and cars), 101:

Gun homicides outpace knife deaths at a rate of 4:1 in this country. Source: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/off_selection.asp

Using a knife in a deadly fashion requires extended proximity and time.

Knives also have a high utility function in day to day life.

Therefore equating guns and kitchen knives is desperate and useless.



> About mental healthcare. Before mental healthcare was the world better? It seems to me, since governments have turned to the professionals in mental healthcare we have more problems. They don't seem to understand poor behavior, much more what to do with it. It seems to me that they created a slippery slope that they are making steeper. Which means, we as a country, are sliding faster the wrong way. This new behavior in school killings came after the professionals in mental healthcare gained power. There have always been killings, and they didn't scare the general population. The new behavior in school killings is scarring people sinceless. Therefore, the wrong answers.


"Professionals in mental healthcare gained power." So you're blaming school shootings on the American Psychiatric Association? That is a new one.



> Many people buy guns for other reasons than safety. How many people have dozens of guns and yet, never carry one for safety? Is it 90% to 80% of gun owners fall into this category? Indeed the media works up gun fear, and make believe fear. Basically, progressives are the ones afraid. And too many of them have power to make foolish decisions for the rest of us.


You could make up a number to substantiate your point, or you could actually... you know, find one?



> How safe are we? A person was being beaten up near where I live. I called 911. Eventually a police showed up. I actually had to wave him down to talk and point him in the right direction. The police basically said, "Who cares. He is just a homeless person". And he drove off. If you are out of luck and homeless, is that the answer you want? How many dirty cops, prosecutors, judges and fixed juries are out there? Even in Canada your not safe from this. Anyway, I find it immoral that the right to life is taken away by gun laws and a phoney belief in government is to replace it.


Here you reveal your true motives. You do not feel safe in this country. You would feel safer if you had a gun. Well, let me tell you something -- numerous studies have shown that gun ownership is far more likely to harm you than it is to protect you. https://www.slate.com/articles/heal...e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Ironically you would probably feel safer in another country....


----------



## expressingmyself

And with the nomination sealed, Trump's liberal leanings begin to emerge... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0XZ0I3

This is actually quite amusing.


----------



## rtd1

Tiger said:


> A fiscally responsible conservative would only support federal spending that was authorized by Article I Section Eight of the Constitution. Ryan, and the overwhelming majority of both major parties, reject this. Whether he is "conservative" relative to other, even more grandiose spenders does not make him an actual conservative.
> 
> Such relativity has served to destroy all founding principles...


"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare"

The "common defense and general welfare" is a fairly broad category, with a wide variety of reasonable interpretations.

Let's not forget that the purpose of the Constitution was not to limit the scope of the federal government, but rather to expand it, significantly, over what was allowed by the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## Tiger

rtd1 said:


> "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare" The "common defense and general welfare" is a fairly broad category, with a wide variety of reasonable interpretations. Let's not forget that the purpose of the Constitution was not to limit the scope of the federal government, but rather to expand it, significantly, over what was allowed by the Articles of Confederation.


You conveniently omitted the rest of Section Eight, which delineates/enumerates/specifies those legislative powers, making the clause you cited decidedly far less broad, and far more specific. The only people who cite the "general clause" are those seeking to greatly expand the power of the federal government - which is precisely what has happened over the past two centuries...but should not have, if we were true to founding ideals.

The Constitution increased the power of the general (federal) government vis-a-vis the Articles of Confederation, but greatly limited its scope. Both the initial document itself and the BIll of Rights (especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) are ipso facto proof of this. Ultimately, the Constitution was designed to restrain federal power and reserve the vast residuary of power to the States...that this did not continue is merely another casualty of the forces of centralization and progressivism.

I am entertaining guests as I type, and do not think I'll be able to participate further until much later this evening (perhaps), so please do not think me rude or acquiescent if I cannot respond...


----------



## ouinon

WA said:


> Since people are killed with knives, and you have one, we can't trust you, therefore, *according to your reasoning, government should take all knives out of all kitchens as you say guns should be removed*.


?? I have literally never said this.

You're making wild accusations, blaming school shootings on advances in mental healthcare, and confusing the "right to life" with the right to have unrestricted access to weapons. To bring our conversation back to the topic at hand: This is pretty good example of the rudderless Republican party as it is currently perceived.


----------



## Balfour

I'm beginning to wonder if WA is really a Dem fifth columnist.


----------



## rtd1

Tiger said:


> You conveniently omitted the rest of Section Eight, which delineates/enumerates/specifies those legislative powers, making the clause you cited decidedly far less broad, and far more specific. The only people who cite the "general clause" are those seeking to greatly expand the power of the federal government - which is precisely what has happened over the past two centuries...but should not have, if we were true to founding ideals.
> 
> The Constitution increased the power of the general (federal) government vis-a-vis the Articles of Confederation, but greatly limited its scope. Both the initial document itself and the BIll of Rights (especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) are ipso facto proof of this. Ultimately, the Constitution was designed to restrain federal power and reserve the vast residuary of power to the States...that this did not continue is merely another casualty of the forces of centralization and progressivism.
> 
> I am entertaining guests as I type, and do not think I'll be able to participate further until much later this evening (perhaps), so please do not think me rude or acquiescent if I cannot respond...


In 1789, there was no NRC, FAA, FCC, NHTSA, etc. because there were no nuclear reactors, airplanes, radio broadcasts, or automobiles. That is the problem with enumerated lists, and I would argue, why the framers included a "general welfare" clause.

Anyway, this is getting off topic, we were discussing, Trump, Ryan, and the GOP. The GOP voters have spoken, and they have soundly rejected rigid conservative dogma and ideological purity tests. Right, wrong, or indifferent, elections have consequences. Party members who cannot accept that are free to join the Libertarian Party or start their own party.


----------



## Tiger

rtd1 said:


> In 1789, there was no NRC, FAA, FCC, NHTSA, etc. because there were no nuclear reactors, airplanes, radio broadcasts, or automobiles. That is the problem with enumerated lists, and I would argue, why the framers included a "general welfare" clause.
> 
> Anyway, this is getting off topic, we were discussing, Trump, Ryan, and the GOP. The GOP voters have spoken, and they have soundly rejected rigid conservative dogma and ideological purity tests. Right, wrong, or indifferent, elections have consequences. Party members who cannot accept that are free to join the Libertarian Party or start their own party.


As to your first paragraph: If a federal power is needed, the Constitution can be amended. Simply violating it for expedient purposes is still unconstitutional, as is the willful misinterpretation of the 'general clause." Secondly, the federal government has usurped - even destroyed - the power of the States on so many issues that have nothing to do with "time period" issues, so using that as an excuse to destroy the system of federalism and enumerated powers is illegitimate.

I agree with your second paragraph, although I submit that any party other than the two major ones really has no chance - by the design/intent of those two parties...


----------



## eagle2250

In considering "The Donald" and Hillary as the presumptive candidates of the "two major parties" referenced above, at least Trump is not a career politician. Arguably, that's one plus! I doubt that our Founding Fathers ever envisioned the rise of career politicians to besmirch the beauty/genius of their creation! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Tempest

eagle2250 said:


> Arguably, that's one plus! I doubt that our Founding Fathers ever envisioned the rise of career politicians to besmirch the beauty/genius of their creation! :icon_scratch:


Indeed, as the original intent was for some esteemed man of the people to be chosen to represent them for a while, then return to his regular life.
The notion of lifelong hangers-on and the intrinsic arrogant detachment and corruption is antithetical to the original plan. I believe the natural leadership of Trump, and how he is running out of patriotic necessity rather than greed, is a slight change of tide in the right direction.


----------



## Joseph Peter

Tempest said:


> Indeed, as the original intent was for some esteemed man of the people to be chosen to represent them for a while, then return to his regular life.
> The notion of lifelong hangers-on and the intrinsic arrogant detachment and corruption is antithetical to the original plan. I believe the natural leadership of Trump, and how he is running out of patriotic necessity rather than greed, is a slight change of tide in the right direction.


I dont know that I agree with your assessment of Trump's qualities and motivation but fair enough. Call it as you see it.

I 100% agree with you about why he's being successful. Professional politicians and their associated heels/babyfaces in the media are the reason why he is doing well. All those IV degrees in Washington and about all they accomplish is lining their own pockets, get owned by whatever special interests through which they line their pockets, and tell every one else what a deal they have for them. The best part is they express shock - shock they say - about how they've misjudged the populace and how they are at risk of actually having to go to work for a change. So much for our socalled leaders.


----------



## SG_67

I can't wait for the debate when she (Hillary) touts her experience. 

The perfect response would be to ask her to name one substantive things she's done during her political career. Name one substantive piece of legislation that she's authored or one major and significant diplomatic achievement as SOS. 

Actually, she's been far more productive as a private citizen, when considering her significant speaking fees and her book.


----------



## Balfour

SG_67 said:


> ...
> Actually, she's been far more productive as a private citizen, when considering her significant speaking fees and her book.




extra text to post - why can one not simply respond with a smiley?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> How wonderful it must be to be Canadian, or anything other than American for that matter.
> 
> What a perfect society and perfect government everyone else gets to enjoy. If only we could be that wonderful and enlightened.


Indeed.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Chouan, where are you from? Do you live on the 50th floor of some skyscraper? Do you know nothing about rural living?


What does rural living have to do with children taking a knife to school?



WA said:


> As a boy, and even now, I carry a pocket knife everywhere. It's not for self defense. If you go hiking it is in the list of ten items in your survival kit. Some of the trails around here I've used it for pruning overhanging branches. I use it for opening envelops and boxes. Sometimes I make my own clothes and the pocket knife is a very quick way to cut open a seam I don't like. Those are only a few things I've used the pocket knife for. Most of the pocket knifes I've had were not made for self defense. Sometimes it isn't about need, it is about practical and freedom.


So why does a child need to take a knife to school? Not having a knife would have prevented this https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ne-death-aberdeen-schoolboy-row-over-biscuits



WA said:


> I don't think you understand freedom.


Don't you? On what basis have you reached that conclusion?



WA said:


> Why isn't it a good thing to buy, sell and traded guns in the school parking lot?


I find it hard to understand that you're even asking that question! https://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-powers/toddlers-involved-in-more_b_8650536.html



WA said:


> In America law enforcement carry certain tools, such as a gun, handcuffs, etc. Like carpenters carry their tools, hammer, tape measure, etc.


Your point is?



WA said:


> How old are you?


Why?



WA said:


> Anyway, some progressives were so afraid they demanded, being a bunch of cowards, that the law enforcement leave their guns at, lets say, the police station. These chickens sure somehow ended up with a lot of power instead of being locked up in mental institutions.


Again, you're using the "progressives" word, but you still haven't explained what you mean. In any case, you still appear to be arguing that American children are so dangerous that US policemen need to be armed in order to deal with them. In any case, why is it cowardly to not carry firearms?



WA said:


> Your last question. When people try to make it hard for innocent people to buy guns, try to ban guns, try to take away guns, try to make gun registries, and even blame gun manufacturers of crimes they didn't do- this is because of fear that even a shrink can't shrink.


Fear of guns, seems to be quite a reasonable thing to have fear of! https://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html



WA said:


> You really don't know what freedom is, do you, Chouan?


I'm fully aware of what my concept of freedom is, I find your concept of freedom quite difficult to understand.


----------



## SG_67

Balfour said:


> extra text to post - why can one not simply respond with a smiley?


Oh! And she is able to keep teams of lawyers employed as anyone who has ever had any remote connection with the Clintons will at some point need a good attorney.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Oh! And she is able to keep teams of lawyers employed as anyone who has ever had any remote connection with the Clintons will at some point need a good attorney.


I won't deny the veracity of that statement, however it no doubt can also be said of Trump given his string of business failures. I have no doubt that an army of highly skilled lawyers and accountants of done very well thanks to him.


----------



## SG_67

^ except that the lawyers are his unlike those who have been hired by those close to the Clintons for lying, obfuscating and covering up for them. 

Every person who has been in business fails at some point, in some endeavor. Steve Jobs was fired from his own company. 

At least Trump has lived in the real world and gotten his hands dirty. Sometimes he's swung and missed, and other times he's hit a home run. 

The difference in politics is that such failures seem not to matter. Nor do lies, at least in the case of the Clintons. 

Hillary clinton was the COO of America's foreign policy for 4 years; did she have any successes that matter? She did travel and talk a lot though. I guess by that measure, she was a success. 

She was a senator for 8 years yet failed to produce any legislation. 

In politics, doing matters less than talking.


----------



## 16412

expressingmyself said:


> Sigh, you don't like letting facts and logic get in the way of your arguments, do you? Why knives and assault rifles have nothing to do with each other (just like guns and cars), 101:
> 
> Gun homicides outpace knife deaths at a rate of 4:1 in this country. Source: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/off_selection.asp
> 
> Using a knife in a deadly fashion requires extended proximity and time.
> 
> Knives also have a high utility function in day to day life.
> 
> Therefore equating guns and kitchen knives is desperate and useless.
> 
> "Professionals in mental healthcare gained power." So you're blaming school shootings on the American Psychiatric Association? That is a new one.
> 
> You could make up a number to substantiate your point, or you could actually... you know, find one?
> 
> Here you reveal your true motives. You do not feel safe in this country. You would feel safer if you had a gun. Well, let me tell you something -- numerous studies have shown that gun ownership is far more likely to harm you than it is to protect you. https://www.slate.com/articles/heal...e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html
> 
> Ironically you would probably feel safer in another country....


The first thing you should have learned in college is not to believe everything you read. Don't they teach that anymore? Your gun knife ratio is not proven true. It is only what is counted. Organized crime is very active in killing people. Are all those people found and accounted for? Think about all those who have been pushed off a boat with cement shoes. Then there are the ones who have been buried. Organized crime has owned a number of garbage disposal companies, another easy way to get rid of people and not get caught. And then there is the famous statistics of how most women commit suicide. The last one is an easy way to put a body out to be counted that looks like no murder. 
mental healthcare. This is a good one. How many people get cured? Does the shrink profession have the highest depression rate of all occupations? The first question the answer I heard is 98% failure, which explains the highest rate of depression for occupations. How much of 50 years ago do they teach today? In another 50 years from now, how much of today's beliefs will have been abandoned? So what do they have? You have been taught to believe what you have been told by them, instead questioning. Back in the sixties the college students, that I talked to, said that they were taught the professors teachings were wrong by default. They were to look through literature, and hopefully they would find some truth.
My true motives? I don't even own a gun. I have been around organized crime for over thirty years. It is unbelievable how many crimes they do that never show up in any law enforcement reports. Honest law men and women that have been told to back off are terrified of these thugs. Your statistic of four to one, they are only counting what shows up on paper. They can't count more. How are they going to count the ones under water, buried under the tree just planted in the neighbors front yard, etc? Dumb criminals use guns. My granddad was a preacher who never had a gun for safety. He taught my dad to rely upon God for safety. And dad taught me that. Numerous attempts on my life, and I'm still here. Even today some of them were going to do the two car method by forcing the middle car to stop. They were breaking a mob rule, because of a third person, which means they might get beaten. I never did anything to make these people angry at me. And yet the threats and attempts never end. Some of these thugs have picked my side and told me to get a gun. If it can happen to me, it can happen to you. I do know this if some good people had guns they would still be alive. This is not about fear. It's about common sense, since nobody knows what their future will be. There is nothing like calling the police to hear them say, "We don't care if they beat you up. We don't care if they kill you. We are not going to help you. Hang up". Sometimes you might need more in life than yourself. God has always protected me. If I didn't have the right kind of faith in God I would have a gun. Before the mob I wanted guns just for shooting. Not at all for protection. No government has the right to take away an innocent pleasure.


----------



## 16412

About Trump. Who knows what he is. How many times has he changed his mind. I don't like everything he has said and done. Nor, Hillary, either. Reagan was an interesting person. He was a union man for awhile. Nixon got us off the gold standard. Eventually, got us out of Vietnam. Bush one was influenced by Reagan. Bush two hide in the middle east. Johnson is due some credit, but to much government dependent. Carter didn't achieve anything, and his last two years was a total loss. Clinton did a few things the republicans like, but nobody seems to notice, except the liberals got really angery, but the media didn't point it out, and his time there would have been worse if he hadn't. Obama got the cold war going again, reminds me of Jimmy Carter. All these people seem to have some direction good or bad. Hillary has no direction. Trump seems to very much. The people who are excited about Hillary reminds me of the neighbors dog. The neighbors would get their dog excited about nothing.


----------



## Joseph Peter

Chouan said:


> Indeed.


I shouldnt take the bait but I am unable to resist asking the logical end result question: if the other countries referenced do indeed have such perfect societies and governments, why arent they superpowers? Clearly, if the thesis is valid, they should be out front.


----------



## SG_67

Joseph Peter said:


> I shouldnt take the bait but I am unable to resist asking the logical end result question: if the other countries referenced do indeed have such perfect societies and governments, why arent they superpowers? Clearly, if the thesis is valid, they should be out front.


Yes but every little girl gets a pony.


----------



## Chouan

Joseph Peter said:


> I shouldnt take the bait but I am unable to resist asking the logical end result question: if the other countries referenced do indeed have such perfect societies and governments, why arent they superpowers? Clearly, if the thesis is valid, they should be out front.


Size of economy, and hence the ability to pay for military might is the usual determinant of superpower status, rather than quality of society or government. Look at China, for example.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Size of economy, and hence the ability to pay for military might is the usual determinant of superpower status, rather than quality of society or government. Look at China, for example.


China is hardly a super power. They are a regional power but cannot project their strength beyond their neighborhood.

And I'll put our quality of life up against anyone else. I'd still rather live here than anywhere else.


----------



## expressingmyself

WA said:


> lots of things


First and foremost, I am truly sorry to hear you are being persecuted by the mob. That must be very stressful for you. I do hope God keeps you and your family safe.

That said, your repeated rejection of figures in light of anecdotal evidence is a style of discourse that I am not versed in, nor particularly interested in learning, so pardon me for not taking you up on your invitation to speculate on the impact of signature mafia killings on gun control and ending our chat here. Best of luck!


----------



## expressingmyself

SG_67 said:


> And I'll put our quality of life up against anyone else./QUOTE]
> 
> FWIW, the average Norweigan has a vastly better QOL than the average American. And I'm sure the same is true for other countries I have yet to spend time in. The US is one of the best places to live if you're wealthy, but things change drastically closer to the bottom.


----------



## SG_67

^ Are you kidding? Any place is a great place to live if you're wealthy.


----------



## expressingmyself

SG_67 said:


> ^ Are you kidding? Any place is a great place to live if you're wealthy.


_You_ must be kidding. Try enjoying your millions in North Korea.


----------



## Trad-ish

SG_67 said:


> China is hardly a super power. They are a regional power but cannot project their strength beyond their neighborhood.
> 
> And I'll put our quality of life up against anyone else. I'd still rather live here than anywhere else.


I'm late to this party.

China is working very hard to be able to project power. A blue water navy is a huge priority for them. While they may be a "regional" power now, in ten years that may not be the case.


----------



## SG_67

You're right about needing a blue water navy. You're also right about their working hard on breaking out of their regional role into one more global. 

I think the Chinese economy will implode before it gets there.


----------



## SG_67

expressingmyself said:


> _You_ must be kidding. Try enjoying your millions in North Korea.


If you're part of the inner circle, life is indeed pretty good.


----------



## expressingmyself

SG_67 said:


> If you're part of the inner circle, life is indeed pretty good.


Wrong again. https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/04/south_korea_kim_jong_un_execut.html


----------



## smmrfld

WA said:


> Organized crime has owned a number of garbage disposal companies, another easy way to get rid of people and not get caught.


Wow. I'll never look at my InSinkErator the same way again. Who'da thunk?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> China is hardly a super power.


Really? Are you aware of the strength of China's economy, even it its current state? China can control world markets, and consequently other countries, without even using military might.



SG_67 said:


> They are a regional power but cannot project their strength beyond their neighborhood.


That is what defines a superpower is it?



SG_67 said:


> And I'll put our quality of life up against anyone else. I'd still rather live here than anywhere else.


Good for you. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Really? Are you aware of the strength of China's economy, even it its current state? China can control world markets, and consequently other countries, without even using military might.


China's economy is a fraction of the US in an absolute sense and per capita, it's even less. In fact, no one really even knows the real number because the Chinese government uses "Trump style" accounting to report it's GDP.

The bulk of its GDP is accounted for by government spending which basically amounts to building empty cities. There is little in the way of private property as we in the west know it. There is little in the way of private ownership of the tools of the economy; industry, commerce, etc.

The Chinese heavily sensor media and the internet. A government that cannot even trust it's own human capital is doomed to stagnation at best, failure at worst.



> That is what defines a superpower is it?


Yes....super powers project power.



> Good for you. Ignorance is bliss.


I could say the same of you so your comment is completely meaningless and devoid of any logic of semblance of ideas. It's basically your stock retort any time you're out of ideas.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> China's economy is a fraction of the US in an absolute sense and per capita, it's even less. In fact, no one really even knows the real number because the Chinese government uses "Trump style" accounting to report it's GDP.
> 
> The bulk of its GDP is accounted for by government spending which basically amounts to building empty cities. There is little in the way of private property as we in the west know it. There is little in the way of private ownership of the tools of the economy; industry, commerce, etc.


So? This wasn't a competition! or a comparison! It wasn't whether the US *or* China is a superpower! China pretty much economically controls the far east and much of Africa; they do this through economic power, not through military power. Whether you like their use of economic power, or like their economy isn't really relevant.



SG_67 said:


> The Chinese heavily sensor media and the internet. A government that cannot even trust it's own human capital is doomed to stagnation at best, failure at worst.


I'm afraid that moral judgements of government don't really change their superpower status. The final sentence is merely speculation.



SG_67 said:


> Yes....super powers project power.


Can power *only* be projected by military might?



SG_67 said:


> I could say the same of you so your comment is completely meaningless and devoid of any logic of semblance of ideas. It's basically your stock retort any time you're out of ideas.


Is it? Any evidence for that assertion? Or is it _*your *_stock retort when you're out of ideas? You made an assertion based on ignorance, unless you've lived in every developed country in the world, such that you are qualified to make such an assertion? Your opinion is, of course, your own, and one doesn't need evidence to form an opinion. However, that you'll "put our quality of life up against anyone else" is an assertion that needs substantiating. If you haven't lived in at least several other developed countries then your assertion is one that can only be based on ignorance. There could be many reasons why you would prefer to live in the US, but you'll be hard pressed to prove that it is because life in the US is better than anywhere else.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> So? This wasn't a competition! or a comparison! It wasn't whether the US *or* China is a superpower! China pretty much economically controls the far east and much of Africa; they do this through economic power, not through military power. Whether you like their use of economic power, or like their economy isn't really relevant.


They have an influence but they hardly control. Their currency is not even real. It's the monetary equivalent of a game token at a Dave & Busters! The Yuan is basically worthless outside of China. The only reason they are able to involve themselves in international affairs is because of their $ and Euro reserves.



> I'm afraid that moral judgements of government don't really change their superpower status. *The final sentence is merely speculation.*


Are you suggesting that China is an open society with freedom of speech?



> Can power *only* be projected by military might?


Real power? Yes. Sorry, but I have history on my side.



> Is it? Any evidence for that assertion? Or is it _*your *_stock retort when you're out of ideas? You made an assertion based on ignorance, unless you've lived in every developed country in the world, such that you are qualified to make such an assertion? Your opinion is, of course, your own, and one doesn't need evidence to form an opinion. However, that you'll "put our quality of life up against anyone else" is an assertion that needs substantiating. If you haven't lived in at least several other developed countries then your assertion is one that can only be based on ignorance. There could be many reasons why you would prefer to live in the US, but you'll be hard pressed to prove that it is because life in the US is better than anywhere else.


I'll let your comments stand. The one nice thing about being right is that I don't need to bend over backward to prove myself to you or anyone else.


----------



## Dmontez

SG_67 said:


> It's basically your stock retort any time you're out of ideas.


This is exactly why I urge people to quit biting the bait that chouan leaves out there. Once you have given him fact and logic, he uses speculation. It's his MO



Chouan said:


> The final sentence is merely speculation.US, but you'll be hard pressed to prove that it is because life in the US is better than anywhere else.


This is funny to me, because most of what you post in the interchange is merely speculation, yet you accuse someone of using speculation against you.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> This is exactly why I urge people to quit biting the bait that chouan leaves out there. Once you have given him fact and logic, he uses speculation. It's his MO


For somebody who is so keen to condemn my posts as trolling, you are always very keen to post to say so! Unfortunately, the content of such posts usually reveals that you have no real idea of what I have been posting, or that you are so desperate to condemn whatever I have posted that you don't bother to actually find out what the context is!

Just to clarify the situation, for your benefit (I'll use easily accessible language) friend SG posted that "I'll put our quality of life up against anyone else" without knowing what the quality of life of other countries is. An arrogant assertion, based on ignorance.
He is also denying China's superpower status, based on moral arguments about their form of government, which would have meant that the USSR wasn't a superpower, and based on ideological arguments about their economy, which would also have denied superpower status to the USSR, both of which arguments are entirely specious. Yet you accuse *me* of being a troll!
Seeing as you've accused me of relying on speculation to counter "fact and logic", could you kindly point out the speculation that I've used, and, of course, the "fact and logic" that I've used speculation to counter? Please?



Dmontez said:


> This is funny to me, because most of what you post in the interchange is merely speculation, yet you accuse someone of using speculation against you.


I'm glad that it is funny to you, I also find it amusing that you make such an accusation, about speculation, based on no evidence whatsoever. No doubt you'll respond with something like "I can't be bothered to find the evidence" or words to that effect...... Or, you won't respond at all, which is your normal response when challenged to provide evidence to support your assertions.

Surely such unsubstantiated ad hominen posts as this one of yours, which don't add to the argument, and which merely serve to express your dislike of a fellow member could only be described as trolling?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> They have an influence but they hardly control. Their currency is not even real. It's the monetary equivalent of a game token at a Dave & Busters! The Yuan is basically worthless outside of China. The only reason they are able to involve themselves in international affairs is because of their $ and Euro reserves.


Indeed. They can manipulate exchange rates at will, and their massive Euro and $ holdings allow them to operate internationally as they see fit, which is a role of a superpower. They aren't dependent on other powers, other powers are dependent upon them.



SG_67 said:


> Are you suggesting that China is an open society with freedom of speech?


No. Where have I suggested that? In any case, what relevance does that have to superpower status?



SG_67 said:


> Real power? Yes. Sorry, but I have history on my side.


Do you? In what way? Without substantiation that is as empty and pointless a statement as such things as "History tells us". Meaningless unless you support the assertion with evidence.



SG_67 said:


> I'll let your comments stand. The one nice thing about being right is that I don't need to bend over backward to prove myself to you or anyone else.


That's the nice thing about opinion over facts, one can consider one's self to be right no matter what the reality is. I still find it quite breathtaking that a person, of whichever country, can blithely assert that they can "put our quality of life up against anyone else" without knowing what other people's quality of life is!


----------



## Chouan




----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> You really don't know what freedom is, do you, Chouan?


I've thought about this question for a little while. You appear, and, correct me if I'm wrong, to believe that the possession of "freedom" is dependent upon the ability to carry guns and knives, even for children in school.
In my time at sea we often entertained US seamen, who were always pleased by the freedom that we had on our ships to be able to have a drink when off duty, a freedom that they were denied. Having the freedom to have a gin before one's dinner, for example, in effect being treated like an adult, was a freedom that we had, and which both Officers and other ranks of the US Navy very much envied.


----------



## Chouan

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ice-donald-trump-political-rise-election-2016
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/04/cnn-interview-donald-trump-celebrity-apprentice


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Indeed. They can manipulate exchange rates at will, and their massive Euro and $ holdings allow them to operate internationally as they see fit, which is a role of a superpower. They aren't dependent on other powers, other powers are dependent upon them.
> 
> No. Where have I suggested that? In any case, what relevance does that have to superpower status?
> 
> Do you? In what way? Without substantiation that is as empty and pointless a statement as such things as "History tells us". Meaningless unless you support the assertion with evidence.
> 
> That's the nice thing about opinion over facts, one can consider one's self to be right no matter what the reality is. I still find it quite breathtaking that a person, of whichever country, can blithely assert that they can "put our quality of life up against anyone else" without knowing what other people's quality of life is!


While I appreciate your comments and opinions to the contrary, I'll let history take its course and let events speak for themselves as they unfold.

And please don't tell me my opinions are based in ignorance. That alone is an ignorant comment coming from someone who likes to substantiate his claims by posting links to news sites. That really is the lowest and cheapest form of debate and argument as I can always find an alternative rag to substantiate my claims.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> While I appreciate your comments and opinions to the contrary, I'll let history take its course and let events speak for themselves as they unfold.


Quite. Speculation.



SG_67 said:


> And please don't tell me my opinions are based in ignorance.


If you claim that you can "put our quality of life up against anyone else" you must be able to substantiate that claim by basing it on knowledge. If you can't, your claim can only be based on ignorance. One either knows something or one doesn't.



SG_67 said:


> That alone is an ignorant comment coming from someone who likes to substantiate his claims by posting links to news sites. That really is the lowest and cheapest form of debate and argument as I can always find an alternative rag to substantiate my claims.


What claims are these that I am substantiating by posting links to news sites? I've recently posted some links here for the interest of the members, not to support my own views.


----------



## bernoulli

You are so, but so, wrong, it is not even funny.



SG_67 said:


> The bulk of its GDP is accounted for by government spending which basically amounts to building empty cities. There is little in the way of private property as we in the west know it. There is little in the way of private ownership of the tools of the economy; industry, commerce, etc.


----------



## SG_67

bernoulli said:


> You are so, but so, wrong, it is not even funny.


Really? The levers of the economy are not controlled by the government? The economy is not propped up by government spending on infrastructure?

I notice you live in Brazil. I trust you are a foreign national working there and not a native.


----------



## ouinon

Arguing about each other's arguing styles and which country's toughest is merely a distraction from the REAL issue here which is that one of our own is being hounded by THE SWITCHBLADE MAFIA!


----------



## expressingmyself

ouinon said:


> Arguing about each other's arguing styles and which country's toughest is merely a distraction from the REAL issue here which is that one of our own is being hounded by THE SWITCHBLADE MAFIA!


Modern cinema has produced an incredible temptation to joke about such troubles but fear is real, regardless of motivation.

Back to the topic at hand:

The Donald caught moonlighting as his own publicist?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-recording-john-miller-barron-fake-press/


----------



## SG_67

I call it creative marketing. 

After all, Hillary was moonlighting as her own IT security specialist. 

Our current POTUS has been masquerading as a leader for the past 8 years.


----------



## 16412

Chouan said:


> What does rural living have to do with children taking a knife to school?


Do you know what a pocket knife is? Most pocket knives are useless in a fight. Try it sometime and see how many fingers you have left. Why are you accusing people who like guns and knives as murders? Are you locked up in a padded cell in a mental institution?



> So why does a child need to take a knife to school? Not having a knife would have prevented this https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ne-death-aberdeen-schoolboy-row-over-biscuits


So you are accusing all boys of being crazy if they have a knife? Speak for yourself.

As far as need goes what about, instead, innocent want? If you can't have innocent want, then your freedom has been stolen.



> I find it hard to understand that you're even asking that question! https://www.huffingtonpost.com/benj...d.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html


So you are saying that if someone gave you a gun you might use it for Suicide? Or, are you afraid that you will you will run out and start shooting people dead. Surely, you have more control over your self than that.


----------



## 16412

Got a call from the Trump campaign. Trump is thoroughly stomping on Hillary. If Hillary hadn't been Secretary of state there wouldn't be so many dead people in a number of middle east countries. And she is saying Donald is dangerous. She badly mishandled.... However it was said it was short and sweet.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Do you know what a pocket knife is?


I do indeed. Why would children need one at school?



WA said:


> Why are you accusing people who like guns and knives as murders?


Straw man. I'm not, and haven't.



WA said:


> Are you locked up in a padded cell in a mental institution?


What a curious suggestion!



WA said:


> So you are accusing all boys of being crazy if they have a knife? Speak for yourself.


Another straw man. No. If you bother to read the article you'll see what the argument is.



WA said:


> Toddler? Do you know what a toddler is? You are grabbing at straws to bring in toddlers.


I do indeed; I was once one myself, I have to assume, as I don't remember. Why is giving you evidence of gun deaths and injuries caused by toddlers grabbing at straws?



WA said:


> When you were born makes a world of difference. Younger people wouldn't know about pop bottles and pop cans. How you going to open them? Sure, you can carry a special tool. Almost always opened the bottles at the store, it was much easier. But, if not near the store or home the pocket knife had a tool on it for that purpose. Few boys would get a pocket knife without that. Pop cans took a special tool to create holes in the top of the can. Always put two holes in. This tool would put a holes in your pants. No mom wanted that. So, these were not carried. A good pocket knife had a tool for putting holes in pop cans. What boy scout didn't have a pocket knife? Boys used pocket knives for many many things. Stabbing people was not one of them. That doesn't mean there were not areas where there weren't rules, but why falsely accuse millions upon millions of boys who had rules and were forced to follow them. Even the meanest kids in school wouldn't pull a knife on anyone. The fact that children do today says a lot of parents are terrible parents. But to blame good children is unhealthy.


Who is blaming good children? Again I ask the question, why would a child need to carry a knife to school?



WA said:


> So, you misunderstand again. In American all law enforcement carry guns. To walk into a school doesn't mean they are going to use them. Some parents are afraid of guns....


Justifiably so, given the appalling death rate in the US from guns.



WA said:


> So you are saying that if someone gave you a gun you might use it for Suicide? Or, are you afraid that you will you will run out and start shooting people dead. Surely, you have more control over your self than that.


Straw man again.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I notice you live in Brazil. I trust you are a foreign national working there and not a native.


That's rather a curious remark. What are you suggesting here?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> That's rather a curious remark. What are you suggesting here?


I'm suggesting that if he is a native of Brazil, the notion of government intrusion is nothing new or odd coming from a country who elected a socialist president a few years back.


----------



## Joseph Peter

Woa, we really went off course on this China & US business. Chouan, my followup question to your assertion that your country and government are "perfect" was why hasnt it become a superpower? Political science class drivel aside about what that term means - yours isnt even close to Webster's definition of it - do you mean to say that a perfect government and society's scope of influence ends at its shores/borders and that such a country has no responsibility to lead as to world affairs? 

As for whether you think the Communist Party of China provides a superior quality of life, so be it. However, under such a regime, your posts wont make onto the web. If that's your idea of a superior quality of life, ok.


----------



## Balfour

Joseph Peter said:


> ... Chouan, my followup question to your assertion that your country and government are "perfect" was why hasnt it become a superpower? ...


The UK was of course a superpower in the C19th / early C20th.

But please don't equate Chouan's views with those of the UK (either at all or in relation to global affairs). He writes from a doctrinaire leftist perspective.


----------



## ouinon

For anyone dizzied by these circular arguments: I pointed out that Canada has fewer school shootings / less fear-mongering news coverage than America, SG_67 made a sarcastic response about Canada / other countries being perfect, Chouan snidely agreed with him, and now folks are debating whether a non-"superpower" country could in fact be "perfect".

I find it curious that some seem to place a higher importance on their country's ability to influence other countries (ie "superpower" status) rather than the well-being of its citizens (taking nonexistent "perfection" out of the question of course). I do not think that one is necessarily linked to the other. Joseph Peter raises a very interesting question when he asks whether a perfect country would be obligated to lead others on a global level, but I think it's a question better suited to a separate, more philosophical thread.

Maybe bring things around to Trump's foreign policy platform?


----------



## SG_67

ouinon said:


> For anyone dizzied by these circular arguments: I pointed out that Canada has fewer school shootings / less fear-mongering news coverage than America, SG_67 made a sarcastic response about Canada / other countries being perfect, Chouan snidely agreed with him, and now folks are debating whether a non-"superpower" country could in fact be "perfect".
> 
> I find it curious that some seem to place a higher importance on their country's ability to influence other countries (ie "superpower" status) rather than the well-being of its citizens (taking nonexistent "perfection" out of the question of course). I do not think that one is necessarily linked to the other. Joseph Peter raises a very interesting question when he asks whether a perfect country would be obligated to lead others on a global level, but I think it's a question better suited to a separate, more philosophical thread.


Being a super power and taking care of one's citizens are not mutually exclusive.

As to the route that this thread has taken, why does this surprise you?


----------



## 16412

Super power has nothing to do with good living. Just look at the USSR. Two super powers at the same time. Which would you rather live in? USSR? Or, the USA back then?
Thanks to the progressives through Obama we're heading into a cold war again.
Didn't like those nuclear war drills at school. Never knew if they were real or not. Which means, are you ever going to see your parents again? How about brothers (in my family)? Relatives? Wouldn't be a home again, would there? Didn't want to go back to that world. Bomb shelters really don't help.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> The UK was of course a superpower in the C19th / early C20th.
> 
> But please don't equate Chouan's views with those of the UK (either at all or in relation to global affairs). He writes from a doctrinaire leftist perspective.


Only I don't. Never mind, don't let irritating things like facts get in the way of your prejudices. Perhaps you could have referred to my remarks as "shtick", that would have been in keeping with the usual level of your responses.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm suggesting that if he is a native of Brazil, the notion of government intrusion is nothing new or odd coming from a country who elected a socialist president a few years back.


Which remark makes no sense at all.


----------



## Chouan

Joseph Peter said:


> Woa, we really went off course on this China & US business. Chouan, my followup question to your assertion that your country and government are "perfect"


Please show where I made that assertion.



Joseph Peter said:


> was why hasnt it become a superpower? Political science class drivel aside about what that term means -


As has been posted elsewhere, the UK was a superpower, indeed, it could be described as the only superpower at that time.



Joseph Peter said:


> yours isnt even close to Webster's definition of it - do you mean to say that a perfect government and society's scope of influence ends at its shores/borders and that such a country has no responsibility to lead as to world affairs?


Again, please show where I made that assertion.



Joseph Peter said:


> As for whether you think the Communist Party of China provides a superior quality of life, so be it.


You appear to be confusing two separate arguments. Nobody, as far as I am aware, has made that assertion.



Joseph Peter said:


> However, under such a regime, your posts wont make onto the web. If that's your idea of a superior quality of life, ok.


Again, nobody has made that assertion. I urge you to read, and comprehend, the posts in this thread, as you appear to be chasing a chimera.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Super power has nothing to do with good living. Just look at the USSR. Two super powers at the same time.


Indeed. A sensible comment.



WA said:


> Which would you rather live in? USSR? Or, the USA back then?


Your point being?



WA said:


> Thanks to the progressives


The "progressive" word again. Which you still haven't explained



WA said:


> through Obama we're heading into a cold war again.


Really? Through Obama? By himself? Could you explain to me how Obama is to blame?



WA said:


> Didn't like those nuclear war drills at school. Never knew if they were real or not. Which means, are you ever going to see your parents again? How about brothers (in my family)? Relatives? Wouldn't be a home again, would there? Didn't want to go back to that world. Bomb shelters really don't help.


Neither would I.


----------



## ouinon

Snidely, mockingly. SG was being sarcastic, you said "indeed" to get his goat, and here we are two pages later. Post #982 is what Joseph is referring to.


----------



## Chouan

https://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-16...o-withdraw-divisive-stupid-and-wrong-comment/

Very statesmanlike...... Obviously his personal feelings are paramount.


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> https://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-16...o-withdraw-divisive-stupid-and-wrong-comment/
> 
> Very statesmanlike...... Obviously his personal feelings are paramount.


The traitor Cameron will be long departed by the time Trump is inaugurated.

Getting rid of the odious Khan might prove harder, but go he must.


----------



## 16412

The ones who say Trump is of hate are sure busy at his rallies showing us what hate and violence is.


----------



## Tempest

WA said:


> The ones who say Trump is of hate are sure busy at his rallies showing us what hate and violence is.


The Trump-haters have proven to be quite Orwellian.


----------



## Joseph Peter

To the extent my confronting Mr. C's apparent tangent about perfect countries took things off subject, my apologies to all on either side of the ball on the issue at the thread heading. I like this place and certainly dont want to get in trouble. 

Back to the topic, it is laughable that some believe they can protest a Trump rally and pass themselves off as Americans while displaying flags of other countries. A lot of what goes on in this sub-forum is, I submit, uniquely American. Gnashing of teeth, thrust and parry of debate, etc is great stuff. Who wants a county of lemmings? However, those opposing the Trump dont help their cause crashing police lines or waving flags from other countries. Downright silly in fact...that is part of the reason why Trump won the nomination.


----------



## SG_67

^ Never underestimate the righteous indignation and by virtue the license given for such behavior, often displayed by the left in this country.


----------



## 16412

Glad not everyone gets to vote.
Decades ago I went to the courthouse put one hand on the Bible, raised the other and swore an oath. A neighbor worked at the voting place, so I never needed to show ID. My name was on the list. Later I had to show ID. Now it is only mail in ballot, or drop box. Every State should do it this way. If it is mailed nobody knows what color you are. And, would get rid of the racial problems. Any legal person who wants to vote should register months ahead. Instead of last minute, and then complain about it. From what I read some States leave me wondering if foreigners are voting there.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Odradek said:


> Getting rid of the odious Khan might prove harder, but go he must.


You might have to settle for cryogenic sleep.


----------



## Chouan

Joseph Peter said:


> To the extent my confronting Mr. C's apparent tangent about perfect countries took things off subject, my apologies to all on either side of the ball on the issue at the thread heading. I like this place and certainly dont want to get in trouble.


My tangent? SG etc started off the tangent with his 
_"How wonderful it must be to be Canadian, or anything other than American for that matter. 

__What a perfect society and perfect government everyone else gets to enjoy. If only we could be that wonderful and enlightened."_

Others, such as yourself joined in: 
_"I shouldnt take the bait but I am unable to resist asking the logical end result question: if the other countries referenced do indeed have such perfect societies and governments, why arent they superpowers? Clearly, if the thesis is valid, they should be out front."_

Sadly, once your flawed thesis, outlined here, had been challenged you wish to return to the topic whilst blaming me for the digression!


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> My tangent? SG etc started off the tangent with his
> _"How wonderful it must be to be Canadian, or anything other than American for that matter.
> 
> __What a perfect society and perfect government everyone else gets to enjoy. If only we could be that wonderful and enlightened."_
> 
> Others, such as yourself joined in:
> _"I shouldnt take the bait but I am unable to resist asking the logical end result question: if the other countries referenced do indeed have such perfect societies and governments, why arent they superpowers? Clearly, if the thesis is valid, they should be out front."_
> 
> Sadly, once your flawed thesis, outlined here, had been challenged you wish to return to the topic whilst blaming me for the digression!


Actually ounian summed up the derailment more neutrally than you:



ouinon said:


> For anyone dizzied by these circular arguments: I pointed out that Canada has fewer school shootings / less fear-mongering news coverage than America, SG_67 made a sarcastic response about Canada / other countries being perfect, Chouan snidely agreed with him, and now folks are debating whether a non-"superpower" country could in fact be "perfect".
> ...


However, the vast amount of Chouanese shtick that a short comment from SG_67 generated was truly a wonder to behold.



Chouan said:


> ... Perhaps you could have referred to my remarks as "shtick", that would have been in keeping with the usual level of your responses.


There you go. It's called 'having got your number' and an accurate description of your posting style.


----------



## Dcr5468

Regarding the back and forth regarding Superpower status:
1) projecting power via blue water navy and overseas troops on every continent has certainly cemented the US status as the last remaining true superpower. Additionally, we tacitly protect free trade routes which have benefited everyone, including China.

2) we are the only country with the capacity to wage a sustained large scale conventional war on another continent. Period. War is an ugly aspect of humanity but this is a fact. To wit: European countries did not have the capability to carry on a campaign against Libya for Maori than a day or two. No incentive for NATO powers crippled with debt to spend on their military when they have our support.

3) economically, US is arguably the most powerful due to 1 simple fact: since WW 2 US sovereign debt is the safest in the world. During times of economic distress you don't see countries (or investors) piling into Far East debt. They buy US Treasuries.

I'm not as eloquent as SG but I believe these facts speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 16412

About time somebody is going after the judges. They have been getting a free ride for tooooo long. Way to much power without anyone doing anything about it for to long. They have certainly over stepped the laws.


----------



## SG_67

I disagree on the judge issue. There has to be at least one branch of government that is not given to the whims of the mob. 

I would argue that if you (the collective you, not you personally) have a problem with judges, vote for the proper decision makers when it comes time to nominate.


----------



## 16412

"There has to be at least one branch of government that is not given to the whims of the mob."

The liberal judges are part of the mob. History shows that a few presidents have stood up against their rulings and won. The supreme court was deliberately not given a way to enforce, so I was taught in school. Otherwise, a power without limits would become a ruler (human nature demonstrates this over and over). If the law is not understood and obeyed, then there is no true law.


----------



## Tempest

Happy 70th birthday to Donald Trump. Thursday will be the anniversary of announcing his candidacy.


----------



## RogerP

Tempest said:


> Happy 70th birthday to Donald Trump. Thursday will be the anniversary of announcing his candidacy.


That you are an ardent supporter of a racist, misogynist, hate-monger surprises me not at all.


----------



## Tempest

RogerP said:


> That you are an ardent supporter of a racist, misogynist, hate-monger surprises me not at all.


Oh yes, this again. Because "illegal immigrant from Mexico" is a race and treating women equally is misogynistic, a stance with which your soon-to-be neighbors Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, and Lena Dunham will surely agree.
I'm fine with the "hate" thing , but the hate of bad things by good people existed well before Trump showed up. He just gave us real hope. Well, enjoy the celebrities that we'll be sending your way!


----------



## 16412

Sometimes the truth hurts. 
I find the progressives have more hate.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Sometimes the truth hurts.
> I find the progressives have more hate.


Indeed. Racists and misogynists usually really dislike being called racists and misogynists; the truth often does hurt.
Oh, you're using the "progressives" word again. Unfortunately, despite my many requests, you have yet to explain what you mean. Any chance of your doing so, _*this*_ time?


----------



## Tempest

Clearly progressives are left-wingers that think they can put people on the defensive by labeling them with funny names like "rayciss" and "womyn-h8r" so they take control of the conversation. 
They have yet to learn that people are wise to this tactic, and sick of it. People that think they can get what they want by calling other people names are the ones still, still, bewildered by Trump's popularity.
The days of the PC, the SJW, and the cuckservative are extremely numbered. People have seen their fruits and are most displeased.


----------



## smmrfld

RogerP said:


> That you are an ardent supporter of a racist, misogynist, hate-monger surprises me not at all.


So, so true.


----------



## Tempest

Thank you for verifying my beliefs.
I assure you that should become concerned about yours, I will comment.

Bonus: How failed assassin Michael Steven Sandford is a typical anti-Trumper
*Autistic
*Not American
*Illegal alien
*Really bad planner
*Violent


----------



## 16412

Chouan said:


> Indeed. Racists and misogynists usually really dislike being called racists and misogynists; the truth often does hurt.
> Oh, you're using the "progressives" word again. Unfortunately, despite my many requests, you have yet to explain what you mean. Any chance of your doing so, _*this*_ time?


The way I see it is when they decide to be "tolerant" of something they become very intolerant of those who disagree. Their intolerance is often a form of hate. They deceive themselves so well into thinking they are right, by default, that they blind themselves.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> Thank you for verifying my beliefs.
> I assure you that should become concerned about yours, I will comment.
> 
> Bonus: How failed assassin Michael Steven Sandford is a typical anti-Trumper
> *Autistic
> *Not American
> *Illegal alien
> *Really bad planner
> *Violent


I can assure you that had this been an attempt or plot against HRC the dialogue would be focused on the hatred bred by right wing extremists.


----------



## Tempest

Indeed, almost all of the actual violence has been _against_ Trump, by the bringers of peace and love. Surely the media would by doing deep, boo-hoo, tsk-tsk sentimentalizing and shaming if the violence were going in the other direction.

Is anyone here old enough to remember George Will being noteworthy or conservative. It's a tad before my time, I fear. Anyway, he's presumably off to vote for Hilary because he is a sore loser whose least favorite candidate was most beloved by the voters. Personally, my heart is warmed by this voluntary purging of disconnected spoilsports leaving in shame.
https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/0...ty-george-will-goes-from-gop-to-unaffiliated/


----------



## CSG

A shame that most of the activity in a clothing forum takes place with politics and both sides, essentially, bashing the other to no avail. 

Is this forum here to show improved traffic? Because it sure as heck doesn't add to the site IMO.


----------



## smmrfld

CSG said:


> A shame that most of the activity in a clothing forum takes place with politics and both sides, essentially, bashing the other to no avail.
> 
> Is this forum here to show improved traffic? Because it sure as heck doesn't add to the site IMO.


Then why are you in the Interchange? SMH.


----------



## CSG

Other than to respond to this post, I won't be any longer.


----------



## tocqueville

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Why am I not surprised that cartoonists have this point of view.


----------



## vpkozel

Umm, that cartoon is 20 years old.....

And has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump


----------



## SG_67

^ So you're saying that someone photoshopped copyrighted material without permission of the author/artist and now it's displayed here?

Oh my!


----------



## cellochris

SG_67 said:


> ^ So you're saying that someone photoshopped copyrighted material without permission of the author/artist and now it's displayed here?
> 
> Oh my!


I'm curious who did the pasting of trump's head. tocqueville, what's the source?


----------



## Tempest

_https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/donald-and-hobbes

_I'm fond of the Carl the Cuck meme highlighting the inability of Trump detractors to make a valid point.


----------



## tocqueville

Funny, right? It's amazing how well it fits, as if the cartoon had been drawn about Trump. Here's a whole slew of them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tru...X&ved=0ahUKEwii7YjbnMvNAhVDQCYKHft5BeAQsAQIGw


----------



## cellochris

Very amusing!


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Why am I not surprised that cartoonists have this point of view.


Speaking of cartoonists, this is, well, scary, in part because it has a ring of truth to it:


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Speaking of cartoonists, this is, well, scary, in part because it has a ring of truth to it:


Do you find comfort in the notion that a pathological liar would instead sit in the oval office?


----------



## Tempest

I'm struggling to see how a man that can be very convincing and win people over is inherently a bad thing. It seems exactly like the type of man that I'd want on my side. Luckily, he pretty much already is on my side, and that of America.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Do you find comfort in the notion that a pathological liar would instead sit in the oval office?


I don't much care for her, or her politics, but is she *really* a pathological liar? You're not exaggerating just a little bit because she's a Democrat are you? 
Johnson and Gove have long been known to play fast and loose with the truth, and have been caught out in some quite significant porkies, but even I wouldn't refer to either of them as pathological liars! Proven liars, yes.


----------



## Tempest

I'd say that she is as bad as her husband, and that she definitely lies even when there is no need to, or it is a very bad risk to do so.
I mean we've all seen this, right?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
But given the reality that it was her husband, Bill's, outrageous lies that he "never had sex with that woman(!)", initiating the squandering of the dignity and integrity of the oval office, is it not right that Hillary should be allowed to continue the tradition? Based on the video clip shared in the post above, She seems so eloquently qualified to do so! 

Being a liar seems the least of her evils.


----------



## Shaver

Let us not forget Hillary's menagerie of vile friends; the Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd, as but one unlovely example.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I'd say that she is as bad as her husband, and that she definitely lies even when there is no need to, or it is a very bad risk to do so.
> I mean we've all seen this, right?


Up until now I've just been too busy to watch the full 12 minutes but what a finely crafted and edited video it is.

People may have their reservations about Donald Trump and I'll be the first to admit he wasn't my choice, but how can any reasonable person watch this montage of lies and think this woman is ready and capable of being the CIC and how she can be trusted with anything.

There's probably another 13 minute video waiting to be made of the shenanigans surrounding the sham of a charity that is the Clinton's foundation.


----------



## tocqueville




----------



## Chouan

Brilliant!


----------



## 16412

Has Trump changed his mind about abortion, and now, use any restroom you want, and gay marriage? If Hillary is the same, what is the difference? She has more government experience, why not vote for her if she is no worse than him? Or, is the media mixing things up?

This is the craziest presidential race I've ever seen. Wonder what will happen next. Hopefully something good.


----------



## Tempest

Despite his bluster, I think Trump offers some modicum of explanation for his changed views instead of bald-faced lying. So concession from the man described as arrogant, but lies from the woman described as a liar.

I'll be polite and just say that people cite Hillary as being experienced but are found lacking when asked to list accomplishments. Her opposition has no problem listing her failures, so that might become net negative.


----------



## SG_67

Government is the only occupation where just being present counts as experience and achievement. 

HRC has really only had one real job where getting something done mattered, that of SOS. Her record at the helm left much to be desired. And I'm being quite generous and reserved with that assessment. 

I'm not really sure what experience in government means. Judging by the abject failure of many government institutions, schools, the VA and the bloated bureaucracy as a whole, I'm not sure that kind of experience is a selling point.


----------



## SG_67

The "Never Trump" movement has really jumped the shark. 

Apparently some of the Cruz people tried unsuccessfully to get the rules changed for delegates and are now throwing a fit on the convention floor. 

There is just something pathetic about someone who has been beat fair and square yet can't bring themselves to just let it go. 

You really can't blame Trump for calling these guys losers and pathetic; they are. 

Jeb Bush couldn't even win his own state. Romney had every chance to win but didn't have the instinct to go in for the kill. 

Ted Cruz thought of nothing but running for president the day he walked into the senate and he didn't have what it took. In fact he's about as lousy and irritable a candidate as Hillary.


----------



## Tempest

Generally, these whiners are the sorest of losers because they still haven't figured out why Trump is so popular, and the fact that he's nearly the opposite of them is that reason.


----------



## SG_67

This is very much like Goldwater in 1964. 

Guys like Romney and Rockerfeller couldn't understand how this guy had appeal and kept badgering him. 

What the current Romeny and Jeb are doing is basically calling the republican primary voters idiots.


----------



## Tempest

Pat Buchanan had a column where he cited 1964 and noted that you can sink the candidate, but the movement had already taken hold and prospered for decades to come. The naivete they have in thinking that Trumpism can be erased is amazing. He has drawn more primary voters than any Republican ever, and it is a total pipe dream to imagine these voters returning to the old establishment candidates/policies in any foreseeable future.
As another site comments, good luck putting the cats back in the bag.


----------



## 16412

Cruz is creepy. We had two to many Bushes. The two we had didn't understand economics. Romney sounds like a good businessman. But, dealing with the worlds problems... maybe I under estimated him. He would have been much better than Obama. Tend to think Trump will out smart Putin. Whereas, Hillary, is incompetent. Tend to think Trump tares things apart to rebuild it better. Therefore, not all is damage with Trump.


----------



## Chouan

Trump, or his campaign manager(s) seems to be exploiting grief now. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lican-convention-trump-gop-grief-exploitation


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Generally, these whiners are the sorest of losers because they still haven't figured out why Trump is so popular, and the fact that he's nearly the opposite of them is that reason.


Could you explain this please, as I can't see your rationale for this assertion. Having closely followed his campaign, and his policy announcements, such as they are, he appears to be a populist demagogue with no principles, who merely says what he thinks the crowd want to hear, which changes from rally to rally. Are the mainstream Republicans, the opposite to that?


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Despite his bluster, I think Trump offers some modicum of explanation for his changed views instead of bald-faced lying. So concession from the man described as arrogant, but lies from the woman described as a liar.
> 
> I'll be polite and just say that people cite Hillary as being experienced but are found lacking when asked to list accomplishments. Her opposition has no problem listing her failures, so that might become net negative.


Are you sure that he isn't, or hasn't been, simply lying rather than "explaining his changing views"? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/17/donald-trump-lies-police-clinton-emails

More here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-fact-check-foreign-policy-taxes-business and here https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/donald-trump-fact-check-trade-immigration-campaign and here https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...es-saddam-hussein-terrorists-clinton-petraeus


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Trump, or his campaign manager(s) seems to be exploiting grief now. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lican-convention-trump-gop-grief-exploitation


how so, please explain?


----------



## SG_67

The fact is that there is open hostility toward police, coming from the top down. 

Obama opened the door with "The Cambridge police acted stupidly". What the POTUS is doing commenting on an arrest made by a local police dept. is beyond me.


----------



## Tempest

IMHO, the "neverTrump" crowd is all neo-cons. In general, people big on foreign intervention, "free trade", loose immigration, and other corporate/foreign interests that the typical voter absolutely abhors. 
The GOP voter is just not that into the neo-cons anymore. We've seen their fruits and want no more of it. And Hillary is basically a neo-con too, which is why the nevers rather unabashedly favor her. These neo-cons are like jilted women that can't accept that they are no longer wanted.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> how so, please explain?


You can read and comprehend can't you? Try reading the article to the end and see if you've been able to understand it.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> You can read and comprehend can't you? Try reading the article to the end and see if you've been able to understand it.


I refuse to read that leftist rag, they have proven themselves liars, as well as the author of the article I will never read anything he has written, please explain yourself in your comment about Trump exploiting grief.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I refuse to read that leftist rag, they have proven themselves liars, as well as the author of the article I will never read anything he has written, please explain yourself in your comment about Trump exploiting grief.


Try this article if you won't read the Grauniad. https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...c-2016-exploiting-private-grief-a7145011.html More here https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46800/republican-convention-weaponized-grief/ and here https://www.thenation.com/article/the-first-night-of-the-gop-was-a-cynical-exploitation-of-grief/ His has previous, of course https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando
Refusing to read a newspaper because you don't like its political stance is rather childish, don't you think? It's akin to putting your fingers in your ears and singing when you don't want to hear something being said that you don't like!
Anyway, try those other sources......


----------



## SG_67

^ When is the last time you read the National Review?


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Refusing to read a newspaper because you don't like its political stance is rather childish, don't you think? It's akin to putting your fingers in your ears and singing when you don't want to hear something being said that you don't like!
> Anyway, try those other sources......


I was being facetious, and I hope that you realize that you have made that exact argument before let me refresh your memory:



Chouan said:


> Sorry, as soon as I saw that the report was fronted by a proven liar I stopped watching it.





Chouan said:


> Distrust? No, he is a proven liar, as well as a vile bully, so I won't watch anything that he fronts. Fortunately, he doesn't appear on television in Britain, so that isn't a problem.





Chouan said:


> In any case, if the vile bully has nothing to do with the article why is he fronting it?


This was sometime ago, but I remember it very clearly this is when I realized you have no interest in having an actual debate, or getting to the heart of any problem. You are only here to instigate and to push your agenda on anyone who decides to call you on your BS. This is precisely why I continually call on people to stop responding to you.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tempest said:


> IMHO, the "neverTrump" crowd is all neo-cons. In general, people big on foreign intervention, "free trade", loose immigration, and other corporate/foreign interests that the typical voter absolutely abhors.
> The GOP voter is just not that into the neo-cons anymore. We've seen their fruits and want no more of it. And Hillary is basically a neo-con too, which is why the nevers rather unabashedly favor her. These neo-cons are like jilted women that can't accept that they are no longer wanted.


This is too simplistic. My wife and I cannot support Trump simply because he is a vulgarian manchild. As for neocons, for all we know Trump is one. Aside from demanding that Mexico build a wall, we don't really know what his policy positions are.


----------



## Tempest

I was unaware of any delegates being on the board here. Unlike some vestigial Bush-era types, Trump is not pretending that the Iraq occupation was a brilliant worthwhile idea, he's not pushing for TPP and in fact wants to end NAFTA. I believe Trump and Rand Paul were the only ones not salivating at thoughts of invading various nations. Lastly, and possibly most importantly, Trump is not beholden to donations from any foreign or corporate interest groups.

I may be wrong, but hasn't this thread established that the history of American Presidents is not really one of sedate and somber sages?


----------



## 16412

Mike Petrik said:


> ..., we don't really know what his policy positions are.


Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe that is a good thing. Look at Obama- closed minded. Knows it all. How do you negotiate with that? An open book is freedom. What does Hillary have to offer? Will your children know what they will be married to? A gorgeous women who spent his childhood in the boys locker room. Or, however it goes? Hillary, we already know is a disaster.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I was being facetious, and I hope that you realize that you have made that exact argument before let me refresh your memory:


I suggest that you read the quotes again, and work out how they're not relevant to the current situation; it shouldn't be hard for you to do!



Dmontez said:


> This was sometime ago, but I remember it very clearly this is when I realized you have no interest in having an actual debate, or getting to the heart of any problem. You are only here to instigate and to push your agenda on anyone who decides to call you on your BS. This is precisely why I continually call on people to stop responding to you.


Yet you yourself keep responding! However, you are also presenting your usual "argument", for want of a better word, that because I post views that do not coincide with yours, I must be trolling. This is not the case. I also note that, as usual, you haven't responded to the post that I made. Perhaps you *did* understand what was being written, about Trump's exploitation of grief, and can't really argue that he wasn't doing so? Or perhaps you think that he *should* be exploiting grief and is right to do so? I urge you to step back from your antipathetic stance and respond with a degree of maturity; I am genuinely interested in your view on this political strategy.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WA said:


> Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe that is a good thing. Look at Obama- closed minded. Knows it all. How do you negotiate with that? An open book is freedom. What does Hillary have to offer? Will your children know what they will be married to? A gorgeous women who spent his childhood in the boys locker room. Or, however it goes? Hillary, we already know is a disaster.


Trump has all the answers. Just ask him! His bombastic platitudinous bromides are enough to making any informed person wince.  Make no mistake. If I cast a ballot for President in November (not likely), it will more likely be for Trump than Clinton. I just lament our bizarrely inadequate choice.


----------



## Tempest

oxford cloth button down said:


> My concern with Donald Trump is that my once stable life and good job are no longer stable with someone that wants to institute with so much economic and foreign policy change....


Unless there is some explainable fear, isn't this the classic FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt, threat that those in power always use to stay in power?
I'm curious is one thinks that they, or the nation, has gotten any better off because of the current administration. I wonder if anyone sees Hillary as anything except a power-hungry variant of Obama?

As someone that has voted third party at the national level for a few decades, I'd like to hear from anyone that has much to say about the Libertarians or the Greens or whomever else. Not so much the ideologies, but the actual candidates and parties of today.


----------



## 16412

Wrote my name in one time. My vote wasn't going to count, anyway, that time.


----------



## SG_67

I don't see how trying to negotiate better trade deals and tightening our borders for a more orderly flow of immigrants creates instability. 

The left and the media, and unfortunately many in the Republican Party, have tried to paint Donald Trump as a bigot, xenophobe, racist or whatever other vile label is bandied about in the current political discourse. Yet I challenge anyone to actually give any proof of this either in his behavior or his public statements.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I don't see how trying to negotiate better trade deals and tightening our borders for a more orderly flow of immigrants creates instability.
> 
> The left and the media, and unfortunately many in the Republican Party, have tried to paint Donald Trump as a bigot, xenophobe, racist or whatever other vile label is bandied about in the current political discourse. Yet I challenge anyone to actually give any proof of this either in his behavior or his public statements.


Proof has already been given on this forum, even in this thread; I would suggest that you go back and look at his comments and refresh your memory.


----------



## SG_67

Opinion and hyperbole are no substitutes for facts. 

Just a word on his racism and bigotry. When Trump opened the Mar A Lago country club in Florida, he received a lot of flack and push back for allowing minorities and Jews to join. He ended up winning the argument.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Opinion and hyperbole are no substitutes for facts.
> 
> Just a word on his racism and bigotry. When Trump opened the Mar A Lago country club in Florida, he received a lot of flack and push back for allowing minorities and Jews to join. He ended up winning the argument.


Advocating a blanket ban on Muslims entering the US is merely "opinion and hyperbole"? Asserting that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists is also merely "opinion and hyperbole"? His opinion, I suppose!


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Advocating a blanket ban on Muslims entering the US is merely "opinion and hyperbole"? Asserting that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists is also merely "opinion and hyperbole"? His opinion, I suppose!


You act as though temporary bans of groups are not something that has been done very successfully throughout history.
I don't feel like doing your research, so present some facts that borderjumpers are great people that pay taxes and do not commit crimes at a drastically higher rate than domestic citizens. I'll wait.
Actually, a minute or two an d one finds things like:


> About 50 percent of the criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either assault, homicide, robbery, a sex offense, or kidnapping. About half of the criminal aliens were arrested at least once for a drug violation.


Note that the study population was 249,000.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Advocating a blanket ban on Muslims entering the US is merely "opinion and hyperbole"? Asserting that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists is also merely "opinion and hyperbole"? His opinion, I suppose!


Perhaps inartful and lacking some specificity but a ban or at the very least more rigorous vetting of people entering the country from regions known to harbor and incubate terrorism? I believe the majority of your countrymen took somewhat a similar viewpoint to the polls with them a few weeks ago.

As to Mexicans entering the country, what exactly is your probelm with a country wanting to exert some measure of control over its borders? Particularly a country whose northern half is basically run by drug gangs.


----------



## drlivingston

Mike Petrik said:


> I just lament our bizarrely inadequate choice.


Amen, brother...


----------



## eagle2250

^^
...and I'll second that Amen!


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> You act as though temporary bans of groups are not something that has been done very successfully throughout history.


You act as though a blanket ban on all people of a particular faith is somehow a good thing! I can see why you might like Trump.



Tempest said:


> I don't feel like doing your research, so present some facts that borderjumpers are great people that pay taxes and do not commit crimes at a drastically higher rate than domestic citizens. I'll wait.


Why? I haven't made a sweeping, stereotyping, assertion about a whole group of people , like Trump has. Stereotyping a whole people is a definition of racism. Not treating people as individuals, but basing judgement on their background is stereotyping, and is racism, if applied ethnically.



Tempest said:


> Actually, a minute or two an d one finds things like:
> 
> Note that the study population was 249,000.


So? Your quoted study suggests that about 50% of the study population have never been arrested at all, for anything. How many of *your* 50% were found guilty as charged? Or is being arrested proof of guilt? How does your "fact" that 50% of a sample had been arrested at some point support Trumps's assertion that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists? Note that he didn't say _*some*_ Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists, but that *they*, the Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps inartful and lacking some specificity


Something of an understatement! He stated that "Muslims" be banned, not some, but "Muslims".



SG_67 said:


> but a ban or at the very least more rigorous vetting of people entering the country from regions known to harbor and incubate terrorism?


But he didn't say that. He said that "Muslims" should be banned, not people from regions that might harbour terrorism.



SG_67 said:


> I believe the majority of your countrymen took somewhat a similar viewpoint to the polls with them a few weeks ago.


Do you? On what basis?



SG_67 said:


> As to Mexicans entering the country, what exactly is your probelm with a country wanting to exert some measure of control over its borders?


Straw Man. I have no problem with with a country wanting to exert some measure of control over its borders, I do have a problem with a politician who asserts that  Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists; racial stereotyping *is* something that I have a problem with. 



SG_67 said:


> Particularly a country whose northern half is basically run by drug gangs.


Is it? Or are you racially, or at least ethnically, stereotyping as well? Again, these comments help to explain your support for Trump.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I was being facetious, and I hope that you realize that you have made that exact argument before let me refresh your memory:
> 
> This was sometime ago, but I remember it very clearly this is when I realized you have no interest in having an actual debate, or getting to the heart of any problem. You are only here to instigate and to push your agenda on anyone who decides to call you on your BS. This is precisely why I continually call on people to stop responding to you.


Still no response beyond your usual ad hom?


----------



## Tempest

We see yet again that Dmontez, as well as several others, has once again been vindicated as the OP demonstrates a level of obtuse disingenuousness that must be deliberate.

First, please always refer to the proposed _temporary_ Muslim travel ban as _temporary_. Were a fatal communicable virus endemic to certain group of people, we know who would advocate against quarantine.

Next, let's end the deliberate misinterpretation on that old quote. 


> When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people


To deny this is to believe that Mexico is deporting all of their morally upright wholesome citizens to the US, because that makes sense. :laughing:


> Let's take homicide as an example. The GAO estimates "criminal aliens" were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates.
> By comparison, the FBI reports the murder rates for the entire U.S. from 2003 through 2009 varied from 5.0 to 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for an average rate of 5.5. To be clear, 5.5 is much lower than either 14.2 or 58.0.
> Or look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52% to 8.25% of the population.


https://www.americanthinker.com/art...t_a_much_higher_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> I suggest that you read the quotes again, and work out how they're not relevant to the current situation; it shouldn't be hard for you to do!
> 
> Yet you yourself keep responding! However, you are also presenting your usual "argument", for want of a better word, that because I post views that do not coincide with yours, I must be trolling. This is not the case. I also note that, as usual, you haven't responded to the post that I made. Perhaps you *did* understand what was being written, about Trump's exploitation of grief, and can't really argue that he wasn't doing so? Or perhaps you think that he *should* be exploiting grief and is right to do so? I urge you to step back from your antipathetic stance and respond with a degree of maturity; I am genuinely interested in your view on this political strategy.


Okay, lets get this straight.

Chouan: I started watching the video, but immediately stopped when I saw that it was fronted by a vile human that is a proven liar
this is okay in your books.

Me: I refuse to read the article you have posted because they are leftist, proven liar, and the author of the article is a proven liar
this is childish according to you.

I would also say that this is moving the goal posts to make your argument work, which is something else I have seen you use a lot.

I will say it again, you are not here to have a sincere argument or get to the heart of a problem, you are here simply to instigate, and push your agenda.

I would not say I have "arguments" with you, but I do enjoy calling you out on your BS, or when you flat out lie. I will go ahead and do that again here.



Chouan said:


> Advocating a blanket ban on Muslims entering the US is merely "opinion and hyperbole"? Asserting that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists is also merely "opinion and hyperbole"? His opinion, I suppose!


Muslim is not a race, therefore it is not racism. 
He never said that ALL illegal Mexicans are rapists, you can continue to TRY to make his statement a blanket one, but you will always be wrong, and I will always call you on that.



Chouan said:


> Why? I haven't made a sweeping, stereotyping, assertion about a whole group of people , like Trump has. Stereotyping a whole people is a definition of racism. Not treating people as individuals, but basing judgement on their background is stereotyping, and is racism, if applied ethnically.


you forgot that in order for it to fit the definition you must also add the caveat that those differences create and inherent superiority of a particular race.

again, not arguing with you, I am only calling you on your BS/Lies.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> We see yet again that Dmontez, as well as several others, has once again been vindicated as the OP demonstrates a level of obtuse disingenuousness that must be deliberate.


Does it? Or are you, like Mr.Montez also deliberating ignoring the points made and using the ad homs to disguise your inability to respond?



Tempest said:


> First, please always refer to the proposed _temporary_ Muslim travel ban as _temporary_. Were a fatal communicable virus endemic to certain group of people, we know who would advocate against quarantine.


Interesting response. You're not denying that he demanded an absolute ban on Muslim entry to the US, but your justifying it on the basis that it was temporary! So that makes a ban alright then does it? Secondly, are you really comparing Muslims to a virus?



Tempest said:


> Next, let's end the deliberate misinterpretation on that old quote.


No, it's a quote that doesn't have an alternative interpretation. One either describes Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists, or not. If one says that "they are rapists" then that's what one means, not some are rapists. No room for interpretation, it is clearly stated.



Tempest said:


> To deny this is to believe that Mexico is deporting all of their morally upright wholesome citizens to the US, because that makes sense. :laughing:


Straw Man. Again. To argue against Trump's assertion that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists one doesn't need to prove that all Mexican illegal immigrants are beyond reproach.
Your final quote is meaningless, as to prove Trump's assertion right you'll need to prove that all Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists, and your evidence, such as it is, doesn't prove that.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Does it? Or are you, like Mr.Montez also deliberating ignoring the points made and using the ad homs to disguise your inability to respond?


Do you think anyone is fooled by this non-sequitor question trick?:deadhorse-a:


> So that makes a ban alright then does it? Secondly, are you really comparing Muslims to a virus?


I may have missed it if you explained why it is "wrong" for a nation to ban anyone at all for any reason. So you'd be one fighting for tubercular coughers to board your plane. I knew it. 
Yes, is not extremist terrorism something spread inside a group and then affecting those outside it? Instead of pointless questions, tell us where we are wrong. If you can.


> One either describes Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists, or not. If one says that "they are rapists" then that's what one means, not some are rapists. No room for interpretation, it is clearly stated.


You are taunting with deliberate stupidity. So by your interpretation, some of these "rapists" that are "bring drugs" are also "good people" according to Mr. Trump. To anyone with their faculties intact, it is clear that they are generalizations on a group. And they are true, not that truth or fact seems to matter to you.


----------



## SG_67

^ You act as though we should have some sort of tolerance for illegal immigrants as not "all of them are rapists." As though it's something we should just get used to and accept a certain level of criminal activity. Is this the price we must pay for placating your concerns?


----------



## Tempest

Thank you for the above, which makes me belatedly call out the NAXALT silliness.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> Okay, lets get this straight.


This might be good!



Dmontez said:


> Chouan: I started watching the video, but immediately stopped when I saw that it was fronted by a vile human that is a proven liar
> this is okay in your books.


Apart from misquoting me, and missing out both the context and the rest of what I wrote, you're alright so far.....



Dmontez said:


> Me: I refuse to read the article you have posted because they are leftist, proven liar, and the author of the article is a proven liar
> this is childish according to you.


Now you appear to be losing your direction. You appear to be confusing an individual and an organisation. You are also confusing opinion with fact. A proven liar giving his opinion is not worth listening to. Why would I, or anybody else, wish to hear the opinion of a liar? Note, not him presenting fact, but presenting his opinion. The newspaper article, however, is, in this case presenting fact. It was showing Trump's campaign exploiting the grief of parents and partners of Americans who have been killed. The exploitation is there to see (I even gave links to other news organisations, both British and American as corroboration). Now, you may, of course, dislike or refuse to accept the opinion being given, but that doesn't render the facts untrue. Where you get the ideas that The Guardian is a) Left wing, b) proven liars, or c) that the author of the article is a proven liar from is a different matter. Perhaps you can justify these views, as I justified my view of the person I wrote of.

Sadly, you haven't got this straight at all.



Dmontez said:


> I would also say that this is moving the goal posts to make your argument work, which is something else I have seen you use a lot.


Have you? Any evidence of that?



Dmontez said:


> I will say it again, you are not here to have a sincere argument or get to the heart of a problem,


I your opinion, with no evidence to justify it of any kind!



Dmontez said:


> you are here simply to instigate, and push your agenda.


Indeed? What agenda is that?



Dmontez said:


> I would not say I have "arguments" with you, but I do enjoy calling you out on your BS, or when you flat out lie. I will go ahead and do that again here.


Lie? When? What lies are you "calling me out on"?



Dmontez said:


> Muslim is not a race, therefore it is not racism.


When did I say that it was?



Dmontez said:


> He never said that ALL illegal Mexicans are rapists, you can continue to TRY to make his statement a blanket one, but you will always be wrong, and I will always call you on that.


He said that illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists. That is a blanket statement. It is just as wrong as it would be if one asserted that "Mexicans are stupid" or "Black people are good at basketball". One doesn't have to add the "all" to make it a blanket statement. How can you "call me out" on something that is factually and grammatically correct?



Dmontez said:


> you forgot that in order for it to fit the definition you must also add the caveat that those differences create and inherent superiority of a particular race.


Only I didn't, because one doesn't.



Dmontez said:


> again, not arguing with you, I am only calling you on your BS/Lies.


And what lies are those? More pointless assertions and unsupported ad hominems, and still no response to the actual content of my post. Can I assume, therefore, that you agree with Trump exploiting grief?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ You act as though we should have some sort of tolerance for illegal immigrants as not "all of them are rapists." As though it's something we should just get used to and accept a certain level of criminal activity. Is this the price we must pay for placating your concerns?


Not at all. 
It is: 
1) Simply factually incorrect to assert that illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists.
2) Stereotyping and generalising to assert that illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists.

Defending such a view suggests that you agree with it.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> I may have missed it if you explained why it is "wrong" for a nation to ban anyone at all for any reason. So you'd be one fighting for tubercular coughers to board your plane. I knew it.


If one can identify those with tuberculosis, one can stop them from entering one's country. However, generalising a whole religion and denying them entry to one's country is not the same thing, as you well know. At least you've admitted that he did demand that Muslims be banned from entering the US. Perhaps you would have welcomed a ban on Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, from entering the US during the Troubles?



Tempest said:


> Yes, is not extremist terrorism something spread inside a group and then affecting those outside it? Instead of pointless questions, tell us where we are wrong. If you can.


What pointless questions?



Tempest said:


> You are taunting with deliberate stupidity. So by your interpretation, some of these "rapists" that are "bring drugs" are also "good people" according to Mr. Trump. To anyone with their faculties intact, it is clear that they are generalizations on a group.


Indeed. As far as I remember, Trump stated "some of them are good people". Note that he said "some of them", which is an expression that he could have used about illegal Mexican immigrants. He could have said "Some of them are rapists." But instead he chose to say "They're rapists", which is a gross generalisation. Perhaps I'm missing your point here, perhaps you are arguing this because you agree with Trump's view on Mexican illegal immigrants?



Tempest said:


> And they are true, not that truth or fact seems to matter to you.


Indeed. Stating that Mexican illegal immigrants is indeed a generalisation, and it, clearly, isn't true. Even the evidence that you've offered doesn't support that view!


----------



## Andy

It doesn't matter that they (and I'm in Southern California and it's not just citizens of Mexico, but those from all countries south of the USA border) are murderers, drug dealers, rapists, mother's, children, grandmothers, etc. It matters that they are* illegal!*

Most of the legal Hispanics here (in in most of So Cal Caucasians are a minority), are for Trump (surprise?) because they are more against illegals than the rest of us. They did it the right way and feel they are being discriminated against for doing things right.

Many countries ban whole races/religions - Japan for example - from citizen hood. Heard of any terrorist attacks in Japan?


----------



## SG_67

Interesting that none other than Caesar Chavez was against illegal immigration as it devalued and undermined legal immigrant labor and wages.


----------



## Tempest

Is anyone else suspicious about this speech "plagiarizing" thing? Melania's speech contained a few generic phrases that one could expect to find in any valedictory or civic address but someone somewhere recognized them from a Michelle Obama speech. This is the type of laziness that snares stoner college kids, not professional speechwriters (or alternatively, a woman fluent in several languages) and it was caught immediately despite the banality of it all. This reeks of a set up to me, and to top it off, this:




Albeit, Trump will never run around and desert you.


----------



## SG_67

Well, it really shouldn't stop her from seeking the Presidency or even the VP spot one day:

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/...ays-it-was-not-malevolent.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Tempest

I suspect that bringing it up saves us from a Liz Warren VP candidacy as well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rd-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.html


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I suspect that bringing it up saves us from a Liz Warren VP candidacy as well.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rd-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.html


From the article:

"The 1984 cookbook Pow Wow Chow was edited by Mrs Warren's cousin Candy Rowsey and is billed as a collection of recipes from _*The Five Civilized Tribes*_."**

This micro aggression will not stand!

** - bolding and italicization are mine.


----------



## Chouan

Andy said:


> Many countries ban whole races/religions - Japan for example - from citizen hood. *Heard of any terrorist attacks in Japan?*


Yes, attacks using Sarin on the Tokyo underground, and others. Have you forgotten, or are only Islamic extremists *real* terrorists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsumoto_incident


----------



## Chouan

Andy said:


> It doesn't matter that they (and I'm in Southern California and it's not just citizens of Mexico, but those from all countries south of the USA border) are murderers, drug dealers, rapists, mother's, children, grandmothers, etc. It matters that they are* illegal!*


Which is entirely irrelevant. Just because an immigrant has immigrated illegally does not entitle one to label them indiscriminately as rapists.



Andy said:


> Most of the legal Hispanics here (in in most of So Cal Caucasians are a minority), are for Trump (surprise?) because they are more against illegals than the rest of us. They did it the right way and feel they are being discriminated against for doing things right.


Or are they concerned with pulling up the ladder behind them? Now that they're safely established they don't want others coming in and disturbing them. It is a familiar pattern. Those in Britain most opposed to Eastern European immigrants are those first and second generation immigrants from the West Indies, Africa and the sub-continent. When Jews were granted civil rights in France in 1793, those most opposed to this were the established Sephardic Jews already in France, as they wanted to not be associated with the uncivilised, in their view, Hasidic Jews.


----------



## Chouan

All of this, of course, distracts from Trump exploiting grief in the convention. Just to remind you all: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lican-convention-trump-gop-grief-exploitation https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...c-2016-exploiting-private-grief-a7145011.html https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46800/republican-convention-weaponized-grief/

Are you Trump supporters happy about this?


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> You act as though a blanket ban on all people of a particular faith is somehow a good thing!


Brother Chouan, are you able to conceive of a hypothetical religion, one being perhaps so hostile to your principles, corrosive to your values, and engaged towards the destruction of your culture, that you may consider curtailing their practices?


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Or are they concerned with pulling up the ladder behind them? Now that they're safely established they don't want others coming in and disturbing them.


1. Does Chouan consider those wishing to deny immigration of their own kind racist?
2. Is Chouan admitting that immigrants disturb things?
3. How is any of this opposition to further immigration a bad thing? And I mean morally, ethically, and/or legally bad, as the developed world is rather through pretending that open borders help _their_ economies.


----------



## SG_67

I believe Chouan's examples are the perfect jumping off point for admitting that identity politics ends where ones wallet begins. 

Instead of some mercurial notion of openness and multi-culturalism, what really matters to most people, and I assume it did to some degree during the Brexit vote, is how does this impact me. 

Of course to elites who live behind gated communities whose only interactions with illegal immigrants is when their lawn is trimmed and their cars waxed, the matter is academic. 

To those who actually have to punch a clock and see the value of their contribution cheapened by lower wage workers the matter is different. 

Again, I'm not necessarily against immigrant labor. I just want to know who it is who is entering my country.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Again, I'm not necessarily against immigrant labor. _*I just want to know who it is who is entering my country.*_


And supporting a man who categorises illegal immigrants as rapists and who has called for a wall to separate the US from Mexico, at Mexico's expense will achieve that aim?


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> 1. Does Chouan consider those wishing to deny immigration of their own kind racist?


If their opposition to immigration is based on the race of the immigrant, then yes, it is racist.



Tempest said:


> 2. Is Chouan admitting that immigrants disturb things?


Read my post again, as you appear to have extrapolated from a particular to universal.



Tempest said:


> 3. How is any of this opposition to further immigration a bad thing? And I mean morally, ethically, and/or legally bad, as the developed world is rather through pretending that open borders help _their_ economies.


Partly, I suppose, through the reason for opposing immigration. Actually, the citizens of a nation that is built on the premise of immigration, where the vast majority of the population are the descendants of immigrants, condemning the people who wish to emulate them seems to be a remarkable irony.


----------



## Shaver




----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> And supporting a man who categorises illegal immigrants as rapists and who has called for a wall to separate the US from Mexico, at Mexico's expense will achieve that aim?


It wouldn't hurt.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


>


Quite!


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> It wouldn't hurt.


Conversely, categorizing illegal immigrants as nice neighborly folk that mean you no harm is like petting strange dogs. 
https://kxan.com/2016/03/28/kyle-man-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-impregnating-12-year-old/
https://fox59.com/2016/04/12/three-...ly-raped-three-minors-at-jasper-county-motel/
Exactly what percentage or quantity of rapes perpetrated by illegal aliens would be sufficient for one to agree with the generalization? It has already been shown that the murder rate is magnitudes higher. I'd be very willing to bet that sexual assault statistics, as muddy as they may be, follow the trend.


----------



## SG_67

^ Not to mention the unreported crime perpetrated by illegal immigrants on other illegal immigrants. 

I'd prefer such criminal conduct stay south of the border as we have enough to deal with here.


----------



## Chouan

Any response to the Trump campaign's exploitation of grief? Can I assume that the lack of response means that either you're happy about it, or that you're uncomfortable with it, but can't respond as it would mean criticising Trump?


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> I'd be very willing to bet that sexual assault statistics, as muddy as they may be, follow the trend.


Do you know, I'm not surprised.


----------



## Tempest

I'm failing to see how giving a public voice to grieving families is exploitative. Would one rather that they are hidden away and silenced? This is a very odd spin to use. I guess it must be desperate times for people that don't like to see the fruit of their favored policies. 
Did any of the speakers claim to be exploited, or is this elites believing that they can read minds again?


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> I'm failing to see how giving a public voice to grieving families is exploitative. Would one rather that they are hidden away and silenced? This is a very odd spin to use. I guess it must be desperate times for people that don't like to see the fruit of their favored policies.
> Did any of the speakers claim to be exploited, or is this elites believing that they can read minds again?


So you're happy to see grieving families on a political platform, allowing their private grief to be used to further a politician's career? Just so that we know.


----------



## Dmontez

I wouldn't say it was exploitation at all, where they treated unfairly, or were these people happy to speak about the dangers we could face with another liberal in office?


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I wouldn't say it was exploitation at all, where they treated unfairly, or were these people happy to speak about the dangers we could face with another liberal in office?


So you're also happy use obviously distressed, vulnerable, grieving people to further a politician's career?
Just so that I'm clear about this, you are happy to confirm that Republicans, or at least Trump supporters, are happy to use grief stricken people to further Trump's political career. 
Thanks.


----------



## Tempest

Dmontez said:


> I wouldn't say it was exploitation at all, where they treated unfairly, or were these people happy to speak about the dangers we could face with another liberal in office?


Exactly. Why the condescending assumption that these voluntary advocates are being duped? Some people understand mutually beneficial relationships and don't always resort to trickery and deceit. Honest people do exist. 
I may start a thread for the victimfest that we're guaranteed next week though.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> Exactly. Why the condescending assumption that these voluntary advocates are being duped? Some people understand mutually beneficial relationships and don't always resort to trickery and deceit. Honest people do exist.
> I may start a thread for the victimfest that we're guaranteed next week though.


I didn't say that they were being duped. I was just confirming that you think it perfectly acceptable to use the grief of bereaved families to further Trump's career. You've confirmed that. Thanks.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Any response to the Trump campaign's exploitation of grief? Can I assume that the lack of response means that either you're happy about it, or that you're uncomfortable with it, but can't respond as it would mean criticising Trump?


Shall I provide examples of the exploitation of minorities and women in this country for the benefit of the Democratic party? The list is long and features many luminaries.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Shall I provide examples of the exploitation of minorities and women in this country for the benefit of the Democratic party? The list is long and features many luminaries.


If you like; if you wish to indulge in "whatabouteries" please feel free to do so. However, it won't alter the fact that this campaign tactic has been used by Trump. Do _*you*_ think it acceptable, or even laudable, as some here appear to?


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> I didn't say that they were being duped. I was just confirming that you think it perfectly acceptable to use the grief of bereaved families to further Trump's career. You've confirmed that. Thanks.


As usual, one fails to see the forest for the trees. You shoot the messenger of the grief and duck the proper laying of blame on those that caused said grief.

Personally, I am unmoved by sob stories, so the only one of these things that I heard a bit of was the dead SEAL's mother. I didn't really know what she was on about with the limited rules of engagement talk, really.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> If you like; if you wish to indulge in "whatabouteries" please feel free to do so. However, it won't alter the fact that this campaign tactic has been used by Trump. Do _*you*_ think it acceptable, or even laudable, as some here appear to?


You're free to call it exploitation if you'd like but each of those people appeared freely and gave their story as they saw fit. They made a choice and if that's exploitation to you then I wonder about your perception of free will.

I suppose you'd make some Chomsky-esque argument that they lacked free will but I'd like to think that they were just pissed off and tired of being lied to by politicians.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> You're free to call it exploitation if you'd like but each of those people appeared freely and gave their story as they saw fit. They made a choice and if that's exploitation to you then I wonder about your perception of free will.
> 
> I suppose you'd make some Chomsky-esque argument that they lacked free will but I'd like to think that they were just pissed off and tired of being lied to by politicians.


Indeed, in a distraught and vulnerable condition. Still, that you are defending such an election strategy tells me all that I need to know. Thank you for confirming that you see nothing wrong with such a tactic.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Indeed, in a distraught and vulnerable condition. Still, that you are defending such an election strategy tells me all that I need to know. Thank you for confirming that you see nothing wrong with such a tactic.


What exactly does that tell you?


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> What exactly does that tell you?


That you, and others, think that such a campaign tactic is acceptable, that exploiting the grief of distraught and vulnerable people to further a politician's career is an acceptable strategy. That was what I was seeking to find out, you and your mates have confirmed it.


----------



## Dmontez

And what exactly is your definition of word exploitation?


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan,

I ask because I really don't enjoy beating around the bush, I prefer to get to the heart of the problem, so here is your problem within the interchange.

You don't use the full definition of a word when using them, you pick and choose the parts of a definition that helps prove your point, but the fact remains that you are either ignorant to the full definition, or you do this knowingly I'm not sure which is worse. I can see how it's easy to be ignorant to the full definition, because when you google some these words you use against anyone that doesn't hold your same point of view like racism, and exploitation Google gives a simple definition which sometimes doesn't give the full and correct definition. I prefer Merriam Webster or the Oxford dictionary.

Now you keep saying Donald trump is a racist, yet you haven't given a sliver of proof of this, in fact I've never seen proof that trump is a racist, and I think it's because you use a simple definition of racism, but both the Oxford and MW dictionaries have this caveat that even if someone is using a generalization they must ALSO believe that it makes one race or the other is superior towards another. I remember a few years ago dictionaries used to lead with "the belief that ones race is superior to another" but nowadays that doesn't fit so it's at the end of the full definition. 

So when I generally say that Mexicans really enjoys beans, eggs and tortillas for breakfast that is not racism that's an observation.

You also keep saying that people are being exploited at the RNC by trump and if you use one of the simple definitions you may be correct, but the real dictionaries use a full definitions that means that Trump must either be treating those people unfairly, or be gaining and unfair advantage in his campaign. 

Now I don't think you can say those people are being treated unfairly they have all been quite outspoken on their beliefs and where they lay blame for the cause of their grief.

You might be trying to say that it's unfair to bring up Clintons failures and that's how Trump is exploring those peoples grief.

Next time you want to use one of the vile nasty words to describe the actions or someone whose political beliefs do not align with yours, please understand the definition of the word fully.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> Chouan,
> 
> I ask because I really don't enjoy beating around the bush, I prefer to get to the heart of the problem, so here is your problem within the interchange.
> 
> You don't use the full definition of a word when using them, you pick and choose the parts of a definition that helps prove your point, but the fact remains that you are either ignorant to the full definition, or you do this knowingly I'm not sure which is worse. I can see how it's easy to be ignorant to the full definition, because when you google some these words you use against anyone that doesn't hold your same point of view like racism, and exploitation Google gives a simple definition which sometimes doesn't give the full and correct definition. I prefer Merriam Webster or the Oxford dictionary.
> 
> Now you keep saying Donald trump is a racist, yet you haven't given a sliver of proof of this, in fact I've never seen proof that trump is a racist, and I think it's because you use a simple definition of racism, but both the Oxford and MW dictionaries have this caveat that even if someone is using a generalization they must ALSO believe that it makes one race or the other is superior towards another. I remember a few years ago dictionaries used to lead with "the belief that ones race is superior to another" but nowadays that doesn't fit so it's at the end of the full definition.
> 
> So when I generally say that Mexicans really enjoys beans, eggs and tortillas for breakfast that is not racism that's an observation.
> 
> You also keep saying that people are being exploited at the RNC by trump and if you use one of the simple definitions you may be correct, but the real dictionaries use a full definitions that means that Trump must either be treating those people unfairly, or be gaining and unfair advantage in his campaign.
> 
> Now I don't think you can say those people are being treated unfairly they have all been quite outspoken on their beliefs and where they lay blame for the cause of their grief.
> 
> You might be trying to say that it's unfair to bring up Clintons failures and that's how Trump is exploring those peoples grief.
> 
> Next time you want to use one of the vile nasty words to describe the actions or someone whose political beliefs do not align with yours, please understand the definition of the word fully.


I understand the definitions fully; again, thank you for confirming your views on this matter.


----------



## drlivingston

Tempest said:


> I may start a thread for the victimfest that we're guaranteed next week though.


I hope that you have a lot of time on your hands. Because, you will have PLENTY of source material to choose from. They will trot out the parents of each thug... err... I mean "victim" that was killed by police. It will be a veritable smorgasbord of "he was an altar boy and a pillar in the community" nonsense. Al Sharpton will certainly make a few cameo appearances.


----------



## Howard

I created my very own meme ↑


----------



## SG_67

drlivingston said:


> I hope that you have a lot of time on your hands. Because, you will have PLENTY of source material to choose from. They will trot out the parents of each thug... err... I mean "victim" that was killed by police. It will be a veritable smorgasbord of "he was an altar boy and a pillar in the community" nonsense. Al Sharpton will certainly make a few cameo appearances.


Yeah this strikes me as rather odd. Say whatever you want about Michael Brown, he committed a strong arm robbery prior to being shot and the reason he was shot is because he charged a police officer.

I do feel bad for a parent who has lost a child but I'm having a difficult time getting too worked up over it.


----------



## Chouan

Judging by trump's acceptance speech, the US must be a dreadful place in which to live; such a culture of violence and criminality, with, apparently a shockingly bad economy and dreadful levels of unemployment. Before I get a legion attacking me for lying, that is what Trump himself said, so surely this is a picture that our American members will recognise?


----------



## SG_67

Relative to what we have had before, it is. GDP growth in the last 8 years has been abysmal and the labor participation rate is at the lowest levels in about 30-40 years. 

That's the domestic picture. I won't even go into foreign policy as the "whiz kid" had that figured out from day one.


----------



## Chouan

You have my commiserations.


----------



## Tempest

Last night was filled with pandering to women. I mean he made valid points and all, but buzzwords like safety and security are squarely aimed at female voters. It's also a contrast to the other party that pretends we live in a parallel universe where police are just randomly hunting the citizenry (because racism) despite all facts to the contrary.
The acceptance speech was pretty simplistic red meat. Trump, like Limbaugh and O'Reilly and others, is really good at dumbing things way down to a very accessible level. The plus is that you get wide support, the downside is that the partially astute actually believe that the speaker only has that displayed level of intellect.


----------



## eagle2250

I know the speech was written by others, but think this was certainly one of Trumps better, if not best, efforts at speaking like a valid nominee for the Republican party. Agreeing with much of what member Tempest say's in the preceding post, I sensed that the comments about our future security and safety were more gender neutral, than focused on just the females in our midst. I continue to think Trump's a bit of a nut, but his children sure have turned out well and that says something very positive, in and of itself!


----------



## Shaver

"If Ted wins Donald Trump's hair would like to quickly file a simliar law suit".


----------



## Shaver




----------



## drlivingston

Chouan said:


> Judging by trump's acceptance speech, the US must be a dreadful place in which to live; such a culture of violence and criminality, with, apparently a shockingly bad economy and dreadful levels of unemployment.


You will not receive any rebuke from me. Unfortunately, your rather distasteful description is spot-on. This current version of America is not the country that I once knew. It is a bastardized cesspool of corruption and greed that the millennials are hell bent on turning into a socialist welfare state. Weak leadership on both sides of the aisle has made us the laughing stock of the civilized world.


----------



## Shaver

^I would endorse this post were but the derogatory mention of socialism excised. Even I, sociopath as I am, possess sufficient empathy to nurture the unfortunate.

The cesspool of bastards is the lido of capitalism.


----------



## SG_67

Tocqueville talked about the nature of Americans as something akin to what we would call "The Hustle." It's nothing new. It's nothing new really for all mankind; we Americans just happen to be good at it and open about it. 

As for the welfare state, I agree with Shaver in that we need to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. The problem is that the term "unfortunate" is one that is measured by mathematics and the math keeps changing. 

Shaver may now know about the ridiculousness of our social security disability system or how whole law firms are built on nothing more than pressing such claims forward for their clients. 

The stories of fraud, waste and abuse both of social welfare resources as well as just within the functioning of government are legion. There's definitely a lot to clean up as far as this goes.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> You have my commiserations.


Thank you. I'll assume you mean that sarcastically though. I'm sorry that our expectation ofnour government and elected leaders is a cut above what you're willing to settle for.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Tocqueville talked about the nature of Americans as something akin to what we would call "The Hustle." It's nothing new. It's nothing new really for all mankind; we Americans just happen to be good at it and open about it.
> 
> As for the welfare state, I agree with Shaver in that we need to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. The problem is that the term "unfortunate" is one that is measured by mathematics and the math keeps changing.
> 
> Shaver may now know about the ridiculousness of our social security disability system or how whole law firms are built on nothing more than pressing such claims forward for their clients.
> 
> The stories of fraud, waste and abuse both of social welfare resources as well as just within the functioning of government are legion. There's definitely a lot to clean up as far as this goes.


My friend, welfare is automatically open to abuse. If I must tolerate a percentage of the tax I pay to support the unfortunate being drained by shirkers then so be it. Conversely big business and financial jiggerypokery I would punish by death.


----------



## SG_67

I get the abuse part but something needs to be done more than is done now.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I get the abuse part but something needs to be done more than is done now.


I disagree, old boy, the minor financial inconvenience of the cheating poor pales beside the robbing rich.


----------



## Gurdon

Shaver said:


> I disagree, old boy, the minor financial inconvenience of the cheating poor pales beside the robbing rich.


Saver,
Thank you for stating the obvious so clearly. 
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> I disagree, old boy, the minor financial inconvenience of the cheating poor pales beside the robbing rich.


I loathe thieves of all types. I don't believe we should settle; good government should do a better job of eradicating thievery, regardless of social/economic strata.


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> I loathe thieves of all types. I don't believe we should settle; good government should do a better job of eradicating thievery, regardless of social/economic strata.


Hmm. Well, when every single corporate criminal is convicted, each tax dodging multinational forced to cough up, all the wrongs made right, then I might possibly be comfortable supporting a crack down on welfare cheats.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> Hmm. Well, when every single corporate criminal is convicted, each tax dodging multinational forced to cough up, all the wrongs made right, then I might possibly be comfortable supporting a crack down on welfare cheats.


But why must we tolerate either? Why permit one while cracking down on the other? I believe neither should be tolerated, with both types of thievery eliminated and punished.


----------



## Shaver

A question of compassion. It is easy to be rich and tough to be poor. Greed and need are motives which morality should distinguish between.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> A question of compassion. It is easy to be rich and tough to be poor. Greed and need are motives which morality should distinguish between.


Generally agree, but in New York and other American cities, we have drug dealers and other criminals of all types collecting social welfare benefits, and their incomes are greater than mine! We also have the women with multiple children from different fathers, collecting increasingly larger amounts of benefits for each child out of wedlock.

Such largesse without appropriate oversight creates an incentive for thievery, with little or no encouragement to get off the public dole. This benefits no one except the thieves...


----------



## bernoulli

If one puts number to these stories, Shaver wins by multiples of thousands, if not millions. I will also tolerate money going to children out of wedlock and drug offenders. I have been poor. Much easier to judge people's choice from an almighty moral pedestal.



Tiger said:


> Generally agree, but in New York and other American cities, we have drug dealers and other criminals of all types collecting social welfare benefits, and their incomes are greater than mine! We also have the women with multiple children from different fathers, collecting increasingly larger amounts of benefits for each child out of wedlock.
> 
> Such largesse without appropriate oversight creates an incentive for thievery, with little or no encouragement to get off the public dole. This benefits no one except the thieves...


----------



## SG_67

bernoulli said:


> If one puts number to these stories, Shaver wins by multiples of thousands, if not millions. I will also tolerate money going to children out of wedlock and drug offenders. I have been poor. Much easier to judge people's choice from an almighty moral pedestal.


You're certainly free to tolerate that with your own money, but please don't speak for me or what I earn.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> If one puts number to these stories, Shaver wins by multiples of thousands, if not millions. I will also tolerate money going to children out of wedlock and drug offenders. I have been poor. Much easier to judge people's choice from an almighty moral pedestal.


I grew up very poor, yet never resorted to crime of any type.

No one is on "an almighty pedestal" here; the point was simply that thievery is wrong no matter where it emanates.

Social welfare programs are necessary, but they should not be abused. This in no way means that I tolerate corporate crime, as I've made clear. This is not a choice of which thievery do we prefer/tolerate; neither should be.


----------



## SG_67

The problem with social welfare programs is that once initiated, they are hard to contain. It's so easy and so tempting for politicians to keep expanding the eligibility for said programs once they realize that those on the receiving end, will vote for them.

It's one thing to buy votes, it's quite convenient to buy those votes with other peoples' money.

Here's a GAO report on Head Start:

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-733T

While this is not the whole of the fraud and abuse we have to endure, but it does provide a small glimpse into the nonsense that goes on with our money.


----------



## Shaver

Politicians bribing the poor for their votes? What a bleak description of programs which provide some hope of dignity to the disadvantaged.

In the UK DWP figures suggest around 3 billion is lost to administrative error. Conservative speculation indicates 10 billion goes unclaimed by those who are eligible. By comparison, just 1 billion, it is estimated, is fraudulently obtained.*

Now- can anyone name the cost to the UK taxpayer of bailing out the greedy bankers?


* Figures are adjusted annual averages and in pounds sterling.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Politicians bribing the poor for their votes? What a bleak description of programs which provide some hope of dignity to the disadvantaged.
> 
> In the UK DWP figures suggest around 3 billion is lost to administrative error. Conservative speculation indicates 10 billion goes unclaimed by those who are eligible. By comparison, just 1 billion, it is estimated, is fraudulently obtained.*
> 
> Now- can anyone name the cost to the UK taxpayer of bailing out the greedy bankers?
> 
> * Figures are adjusted annual averages and in pounds sterling.


Indeed. One of my politics students became nearly apoplectic with fury when I told him that benefit fraud didn't annoy me, because it is so rare and so small. As you so rightly say, fraud by the rich is very much more serious, in every sense, than benefit fraud. The populist news media love publishing stories about benefit fraud, and have successfully created a perception that it is a serious problem, when it simply isn't.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Indeed. One of my politics students became nearly apoplectic with fury when I told him that benefit fraud didn't annoy me, because it is so rare and so small. As you so rightly say, fraud by the rich is very much more serious, in every sense, than benefit fraud. The populist news media love publishing stories about benefit fraud, and have successfully created a perception that it is a serious problem, when it simply isn't.


Both types of fraud are very problematic in the United States, especially in the large cities and in, of course, Washington, D.C.


----------



## SG_67

I'm going to assume that we Americans are unique in our intolerance of government waste and abuse of taxpayer money. 

By the way, if you're willing to put up with fraud at the street level, then you should be as equally tolerant of said fraud at the boardroom level. 

Also, do either of my friends across the pond have a particular dollar amount on what they will tolerate?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Given the levels at which we are taxed and the percentage of the Federal budget targeted to fund entitlement programs, I would think we should be and certainly would be concerned about any fraud, waste and abuse associated with such programs. Don't misunderstand me, I do care greatly about the truly needy, the genuinely downtrodden and am personally arguably benevolent in my private giving (church, selected charities, etc.) to correct such ills. However, should the truth be known, when the government gets involved in combating such ills, the money is, as often as not, poorly spent....sad, but true!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed. One of my politics students became nearly apoplectic with fury when I told him that benefit fraud didn't annoy me, because it is so rare and so small. As you so rightly say, fraud by the rich is very much more serious, in every sense, than benefit fraud. The populist news media love publishing stories about benefit fraud, and have successfully created a perception that it is a serious problem, when it simply isn't.


I am assuming the figure for fraudulent welfare claims Shaver quotes is in US billions, rather than British billions. If not it would equate to roughly £15,000 per inhabitant of the UK in fraudulent claims, hardly a trivial sum. Even a US billion of taxpayers' money might be put to more worthwhile use.


----------



## SG_67

^ it's not even outright fraud, but gross waste and incompetence. I supposed when one is playing with other peoples' money it's easy to be careless. 

The federal government list of programs is festooned with duplicate services, as well as expenditures that go no where.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I am assuming the figure for fraudulent welfare claims Shaver quotes is in US billions, rather than British billions. If not it would equate to roughly £15,000 per inhabitant of the UK in fraudulent claims, hardly a trivial sum. Even a US billion of taxpayers' money might be put to more worthwhile use.


Unfortunately the old British billion has ceased to exist, a billion now being recognised as a paltry 1,000x a million.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I'm going to assume that we Americans are unique in our intolerance of government waste and abuse of taxpayer money.
> 
> By the way, if you're willing to put up with fraud at the street level, then you should be as equally tolerant of said fraud at the boardroom level.
> 
> Also, do either of my friends across the pond have *a particular dollar amount on what they will tolerate?*


Such a threshold would be a nonsense.

To the current event - Sir Philip Green, is currently loafing around the mediterranean in his £100 million super-yacht, having trousered multi millions from his plundering asset stripping of BHS, which also leaves 11,000 unemployed and 22,000 pensions potentially bankrupt.

Still worrying about benefit fraud?


----------



## Langham

^ At least he is going to be stripped of his knighthood. I'm sure the BHS pensioners will agree that will make things all right.


----------



## Flanderian

One might think that the only two alternatives are for the U.S. to be run either by the financial services industry or a bad government. 

The political theater that is periodically staged reminds me of a puppeteer with a different puppet on each hand engaged in violent but ultimately pointless struggle that does little more than determine who receives patronage.


----------



## Tiger

Flanderian said:


> One might think that the only two alternatives are for the U.S. to be run either by the financial services industry or a bad government.
> 
> The political theater that is periodically staged reminds me of a puppeteer with a different puppet on each hand engaged in violent but ultimately pointless struggle that does little more than determine who receives patronage.


Such cynicism is well-founded. Despite the rhetoric and histrionics of both major parties in the U.S., they govern essentially in the same manner. As I've adduced before, both parties accumulate massive deficits and overall debt, possess an interventionist foreign policy, believe all power lies with the general (federal) government, and absolutely ignore the Constitution, except on issues of minutiae.

The puppeteer has successfully defrauded the audience!


----------



## Joseph Peter

Tiger said:


> Such cynicism is well-founded. Despite the rhetoric and histrionics of both major parties in the U.S., they govern essentially in the same manner. As I've adduced before, both parties accumulate massive deficits and overall debt, possess an interventionist foreign policy, believe all power lies with the general (federal) government, and absolutely ignore the Constitution, except on issues of minutiae.
> 
> The puppeteer has successfully defrauded the audience!


Well said Tiger. Also, a very good explanation of the Trump and Sanders emergence. Despite a few general sops to each party's long standing doctrines such as abortion and law enforcement, each acceptance speech was inconsistent with the parties' main stream actions over the past several years. HRC's speech was essentially Sanders-lite and Trump's was just a general railing attacking Pelosi-ian snobbery. Intriguing to see where this goes.


----------



## SG_67

^ except that most if not all of what Trump was talking about he's been saying for about as long as he's been a candidate. 

HRC is new to most of this and has arrived at some of these positions out of convenience. Once the election is over she'll have more flexibility.....I recall hearing something like that once before.


----------



## drlivingston

Gary Johnson 2016...


----------



## Chouan

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html?_r=0 An interesting "sacrifice"?


----------



## SG_67

Interesting how all of a sudden the media has found a new interest in service and sacrifice on the part of Presidential candidates as a topic worth discussing.


----------



## Chouan

Indeed. If only he hadn't compared *his* sacrifice (what sacrifice?) with theirs.


----------



## Tempest

A bone spur, particularly on a foot, is likely to be something that will nullify one from the military.
I do differentiate Trump from the chickenhawks that dodged but went on to be vocal advocates for dubious wars for others. 
This topic was obviously brought up by the DNC's shameless "exploitation of grieving family members" piece de reisistance, Mr. (and Mrs.) Khan, and his mistaken belief that his son's sacrifice was somehow his own sacrifice.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> A bone spur, particularly on a foot, is likely to be something that will nullify one from the military.
> I do differentiate Trump from the chickenhawks that dodged but went on to be vocal advocates for dubious wars for others.


Indeed? I have one on both feet, but it didn't stop me from completing the *PRMC (*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_Royal_Marine_Course) at CTCRM at Lympstone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Training_Centre_Royal_Marines)!



Tempest said:


> This topic was obviously brought up by the DNC's shameless "exploitation of grieving family members" piece de reisistance, Mr. (and Mrs.) Khan, and his mistaken belief that his son's sacrifice was somehow his own sacrifice.


Surely, echoing another Republican's words, the only way one speaks to or of the parents of one who died in such a way is with respect? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...p-s-controversial-remarks-khan-family-n620481


----------



## SG_67

Foot problems as such will disqualify someone from military service here. 

As for the Khan's where do I begin. Their son certainly made the ultimate sacrifice but why would the parents cheapen it back turning it into a political punch line?

I'm sorry but being a gold star parent does not give one license to go after a candidate personally complete with phony allusions to the constitution. No where in the constitution is there a right of foreign born individuals to enter our country at will.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Indeed. If only he hadn't compared *his* sacrifice (what sacrifice?) with theirs.


I notice no one is asking HRC if she's ever sacrificed anything. Well, I suppose she has sacrificed her own dignity and self respect first with a philandering husband and then selling herself to banks and anyone else willing to pay $250k for access.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Foot problems as such will disqualify someone from military service here.
> 
> As for the Khan's where do I begin. Their son certainly made the ultimate sacrifice but why would the parents cheapen it back turning it into a political punch line?
> 
> _*I'm sorry but being a gold star parent does not give one license to go after a candidate personally complete with phony allusions to the constitution*_. No where in the constitution is there a right of foreign born individuals to enter our country at will.


Why not? Surely free speech exists in the US? Surely a more mature and measured and reasonable response from Trump would have been to ignore it.


----------



## SG_67

Yes there is free speech and he had every right to say what he did, but by doing so he entered into the political arena what was a family tragedy. By the way, I would say the same for those parents on the other side. 

Mr. Khan could have stood up and talked about his son and his service. But he chose instead to politicize it so I have some trouble finding too much sympathy for him. The grandstanding with the constitution was a bit contrived and I'm sure he doesn't walk around with it in his pocket. He claimed Trump has never read the constitution and has never sacrificed anything. Odd comments to make about a man whom he has never met. 

Also, though I'm sure he wrote whatever he said, I'm willing to bet it was vetted by the DNC. Trump is Trump. He doesn't talk pretty.

Hillary Clinton said of the Benghazi parents that, and I paraphrase, in their emotional state the misremembered what she said. Of course how such a hallucination could afflict multiple people is a case study for any psych. post doctoral fellow. She just is more adept at political speak than her opponent. So her claim that they're lying just sounds better.


----------



## SG_67

HRC in a newspaper interview in December 2015:

When asked about the claim that she denies telling family members that the cause of the attacks was a video:

_"Somebody is lying," said McLaughlin."Who is it?
_
_Clinton replied, "Not me, that's all I can tell you."
_
Source:

Quite an odd answer to a question and claim made about what she told grieving parents. I don't hear the MSM chasing after this.


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> The grandstanding with the constitution was a bit contrived and I'm sure he doesn't walk around with it in his pocket.


I forgot to mention that theatric moment in the victimfest thread! I immediately thought of Ron Paul, who actually did carry around a pocket Constitution and was mocked for it. Of course this same action becomes laudable when advantageous, apparently. Also, it was very odd for the "grieving parent" to be attacking a man that had nothing to do with the war while stumping for a lady that literally voted for it.
And I'm no medical expert, but I have reasonable faith that when inducting foot soldiers, musculoskeletal problems are likely deferments. This is not to say anything of motive in seeking deferment, just that it is not a far stretch.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I forgot to mention that theatric moment in the victimfest thread! I immediately thought of Ron Paul, who actually did carry around a pocket Constitution and was mocked for it. Of course this same action becomes laudable when advantageous, apparently. Also, it was very odd for the "grieving parent" to be attacking a man that had nothing to do with the war while stumping for a lady that literally voted for it.
> And I'm no medical expert, but I have reasonable faith that when inducting foot soldiers, musculoskeletal problems are likely deferments. This is not to say anything of motive in seeking deferment, just that it is not a far stretch.


I'm really not sure as to his issue with Trump. How does his son dying in combat, at the hands of terrorists and Islamic radicals have anything to do with Trump's call to curb immigration from countries known to produce said radicals.

I'm not sure the blessings of liberty and equality under the law applies to foreign nationals who live abroad. I think it might be Mr. Khan who should brush up on his constitution.


----------



## Tiger

Tempest said:


> I forgot to mention that theatric moment in the victimfest thread! I immediately thought of Ron Paul, who actually did carry around a pocket Constitution and was mocked for it. Of course this same action becomes laudable when advantageous, apparently. Also, it was very odd for the "grieving parent" to be attacking a man that had nothing to do with the war while stumping for a lady that literally voted for it.


Superb points, Tempest!


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> I'm really not sure as to his issue with Trump. How does his son dying in combat, at the hands of terrorists and Islamic radicals have anything to do with Trump's call to curb immigration from countries known to produce said radicals.
> 
> I'm not sure the blessings of liberty and equality under the law applies to foreign nationals who live abroad. I think it might be Mr. Khan who should brush up on his constitution.


More good stuff here!

It's interesting how so many Americans purport to know about the Constitution, when in actuality, they know little. I especially enjoy when our politicians - of both major parties - quote from the _Declaration of Independence_ and think the verbiage and underlying concepts are from the Constitution. As if we needed additional proof of their idiocy!

I'm definitely voting for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. He may get three votes - his, mine, and his mother's - but at least I'll be voting for a candidate who supports the principles that I do.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> And I'm no medical expert, but I have reasonable faith that when inducting foot soldiers, musculoskeletal problems are likely deferments. This is not to say anything of motive in seeking deferment, just that it is not a far stretch.


Indeed; such a condition, in an otherwise fit, healthy, indeed, athletic young man who was, at the time, engaging in team sports, would serve as a reasonable impediment to service, if that was desired.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Yes there is free speech and he had every right to say what he did, but by doing so he entered into the political arena what was a family tragedy. By the way, I would say the same for those parents on the other side.


He did indeed, as did they. They're still being exploited though, by both parties.



SG_67 said:


> Mr. Khan could have stood up and talked about his son and his service. But he chose instead to politicize it so I have some trouble finding too much sympathy for him. The grandstanding with the constitution was a bit contrived and I'm sure he doesn't walk around with it in his pocket. He claimed Trump has never read the constitution and has never sacrificed anything. Odd comments to make about a man whom he has never met.


He could indeed. However, Mr.Khan isn't standing for great political office, whereas Trump is. It is Trump's rather intemperate response that is the issue. As I said above, he would have come out of this rather better had he said nothing. By entering a rather squalid squabble over this he has made himself look rather petty. The fact is that it shouldn't matter to a presidential candidate what the father of an American war hero has publicly said, or that he wife didn't speak, no matter how irritating it might have been. As a presidential candidate he should have had the dignity to rise above it, instead, it appears that his ego took over.


----------



## Chouan

That Trump's ego is an issue has been further highlighted by what appears to be a personality driven reluctance to endorse supposedly fellow Republicans https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-to-back-paul-ryan-and-john-mccain-for-re-el/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ng-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election-live
On a lighter note, he doesn't appear to like small children either! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/02/trump-crying-baby-get-out-of-here Why a mother would bring a young baby to a political rally is a different question, of course!


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> He did indeed, as did they. They're still being exploited though, by both parties.
> 
> He could indeed. However, Mr.Khan isn't standing for great political office, whereas Trump is. It is Trump's rather intemperate response that is the issue. As I said above, he would have come out of this rather better had he said nothing. By entering a rather squalid squabble over this he has made himself look rather petty. The fact is that it shouldn't matter to a presidential candidate what the father of an American war hero has publicly said, or that he wife didn't speak, no matter how irritating it might have been. As a presidential candidate he should have had the dignity to rise above it, instead, it appears that his ego took over.


You're right, he should have left it alone but he didn't. That's his nature. He's certainly not alone in undignified behavior and in the end there are other issues that I'm more concerned with.


----------



## culverwood

What Trump has done for the suit, an amusing article from the Economist:
https://www.1843magazine.com/style/last-trump-for-the-suit


----------



## Tempest

^ this article is humorous and actually very insightful about the style, really. I did note that when backlit Trump walked onstage at the convention, that his silhouette was immediately recognizable, almost iconic.

I think that line of branding, consistency, etc. may be why Trump is driving his campaign manager nuts by not being more toned down and reserved, which I do actually believe he has the capability to do. I suspect that in the same way repeat plays of an initially annoying song become infectious, he knows that making himself ubiquitous and familiar will make him grow on people. This is in dire contrast to Hillary, as they are pushing her as an idea because the more people hear her the more grating and objectionable they find her.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> You're right, he should have left it alone but he didn't. That's his nature. He's certainly not alone in undignified behavior and in the end there are other issues that I'm more concerned with.


Indeed there are, beyond his egoism and petulance.


----------



## SG_67

^ Show me a politician who is not egotistical and petulant. He's just not as adept at hiding it from the public view.


----------



## Dcr5468

Trump may not be a very good choice but I fail to understand how anyone could vote with a clear conscience for a member of a corrupt political dynasty that has had scandal after scandal dating to the 70s. Far more serious issues than insulting someone. Things that would result in any of us being in Federal prison. My kids, in their 20s, did not believe me until I told them to google Clinton/whitewater/rose law firm, etc. sleezy, greedy, power hungry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

Dcr5468 said:


> Trump may not be a very good choice but I fail to understand how anyone could vote with a clear conscience for a member of a corrupt political dynasty that has had scandal after scandal dating to the 70s. Far more serious issues than insulting someone. Things that would result in any of us being in Federal prison. My kids, in their 20s, did not believe me until I told them to google Clinton/whitewater/rose law firm, etc. sleezy, greedy, power hungry.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Indeed. And your alternative is Trump..... What a choice!


----------



## SG_67

^ then it's a good thing you're not an American, yes? 

The Clintons are a family of political whores. Everything they've done has been in the interest of accumulating power and money. I usually give a pass to the kids but even Chelsea gets in on it. I'm sure it wasn't without an eye toward something else when NBC basically gave her a $600k no show job as a correspondent and she accepted without batting an eye.


----------



## SG_67

Here's an interesting story:

Report: US airlifted $400 million to Iran as detained Americans were released
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...iran-as-detained-americans-were-released.html

Makes me wonder if it will get any coverage. I recall Reagan being raked over the coals for something like this.


----------



## eagle2250

^^Indeed for a Presidential candidate who campaigned on having the most transparent administration the American public had yet to experience, Obama and the Obamamanians are pretty closed mouthed about their dirty dealings! It may have been Bill Bennett, but I'm not really sure of the source, that first observed, President Clinton's indiscretions in an anteroom of the Oval office and his subsequent betrayal of the American public with his lies about it, would prove to be the act that would result of the ultimate death of integrity in the office. Looks like whomever it was that originally said that was right!


----------



## SG_67

^ Bill Clinton definitely set the bar quite high with respect to vulgar and crude behavior. Apparently though having the correct letter after one's name makes all the difference in the world for how the press treats someone. 

HRC is no better. She gave cover to him so that she could be right where she is right now. Trump may appear rude, crass and impolitic but at least he hasn't sold his soul and speaks what's on his mind.


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL. Other that with respect to the direction in which Bill Clinton moved the bar (low vs high!) I cannot disagree with a thing that you say in the post above.


----------



## Mike Petrik

I can understand why someone would hold his nose and vote for Clinton just to prevent a Trump presidency. And I can understand why someone would hold his nose and vote for Trump just to prevent a Clinton presidency. What I cannot understand is why anyone would vote enthusiastically for either of these odious creatures.


----------



## SG_67

I'm never enthusiastic about anyone. I look to see who represents my particular concerns and interests better. For me, it's always been the GOP. It's a balance sheet. 

Honestly though, I don't get why people are so "shocked" by Trump. I get it that the media acts this way and why skittish and nervous politicians do, but I haven't really found him to be so offensive. 

He actually bucks the most of the GOP CW. He's easy on gay marriage and he's on record for saying that if Caitlin Jenner wanted to use the women's room at Trump Tower, she'd be welcome to. 

If nothing else, he's wrestled away control of the GOP from the religious right and bringing back the working class. I don't hear the same silly social issues being discussed this cycle.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Dcr5468 said:


> ...things [scandals, so-called, involving the Clintons] that would result in any of us being in Federal prison. *My kids, in their 20s, did not believe me* until I told them to google Clinton/whitewater/rose law firm, etc.


Your kids in their 20s are not alone. I in my 70s don't believe you either.

After six years, count 'em, six lousy, stinking, expensive years of hounding a sitting President with bogus accusations of shady loan and land dealings, the Independent Council issued this statement:

"This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty, C.M.S., or Whitewater Development or knew of such conduct."

And with that they shut the investigation down. But not in your mind apparently. There was no indictment and no trial. So they should have gone to Federal Prison, you suggest, on what, a Right Wing hunch?


----------



## Dcr5468

Peak and Pine said:


> Your kids in their 20s are not alone. I in my 70s don't believe you either.
> 
> After six years, count 'em, six lousy, stinking, expensive years of hounding a sitting President with bogus accusations of shady loan and land dealings, the Independent Council issued this statement:
> 
> "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty, C.M.S., or Whitewater Development or knew of such conduct."
> 
> And with that they shut the investigation down. But not in your mind apparently. There was no indictment and no trial. So they should have gone to Federal Prison, you suggest, on what, a Right Wing hunch?


I live in Louisiana where ultra corrupt politics is a way of life. It's not much different in other Southern states such as Arkansas. I am quite confident that once a politician reaches a certain level they have the ability to become nearly untouchable. At the very least, the are judged differently than you or I would be.

Of course this is nothing new, as politics and corruption go hand in hand. It's the very smart ones that are able to evade prosecution. Our former governor, Edwin Edwards was indicted multiple times and the only reason he was caught and convicted was due to his son being not so smart having phone conversations on a wire tapped hard line.

Perhaps I am overly cynical, but we don't have many national politicians that have any interest in public service. It's all about creating wealth and power, and access. A few can do it while in office, most do it after 20 years in office as lobbyists.

I would not argue the Clintons belong in Federal Prison, but stating Trump is unfit for office as opposed to HRC is really a stretch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Peak and Pine

SG_67 said:


> The Clintons are a family of political whores. Everything they've done has been in the interest of accumulating power and money.


Your Interchange cred has always been marginal with me, but now you've oozed completely into the Trumpian world of huffing and puffing.



SG_67 said:


> I'm never enthusiastic about anyone. I look to see who represents my particular concerns and interests better. For me, it's always been the GOP.


Well there. That about sums up why _anybody _votes GOP. You're in it for you. Exclusively. Which is not to say that I don't think similarly, but you know what? I don't. I have few esoteric wants that need to be satisfied by the Federal Government, so I take an occasional peek at what my neighbors might need.

For example, the Mexicans. Though I've never seen one. But I hear tell they could use a leg up. Particularly those that swam across the Rio Grande by moon light with everything they owned stuffed in their pants. Yes, the Mexicans, the culture and people the Right Wing makes a pinata of each election cycle. Legalize 'em all. That way you don't have to smuggle them into your yard to cut your grass. You can give them the five bucks right up front.

Understand please that I am not an American by choice. A fact I assume you share. I just happened to pop out of my mom in Bangor, Maine, as you probably did somewhere in the Midwest. Not that you and I regret that. But we both could have slid into the world in Guadalajara. I never forget that. And you may never have thought of it in the first place.


----------



## jfo2010

70+ yrs old and never seen a Mexican?? Sounds like something HC would say. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tempest

Peak and Pine said:


> For example, the Mexicans. Though I've never seen one. But I hear tell they could use a leg up.


Yes, Maine is a rare state with more Canadian immigrants than Mexicans.

But I'm from a God helps those that help themselves mentality. I don't think charity comes at the barrel of a gun. As they always say, if government is the answer, it must be a pretty stupid question.

But let us get to the reality of immigration. The people of America have the government they deserve, as do the people of other lands. Ours is currently better, right? What benefit is it to let people of failed states come in and wreck ours? 
To be parochial, if us New Jerseyans all moved up to Maine and started asking for every little town to have independent police, fire, and school systems (like we are used to) and your property taxes quadrupled or more... how thankful would you be?


----------



## SG_67

Peak and Pine said:


> Your Interchange cred has always been marginal with me, but now you've oozed completely into the Trumpian world of huffing and puffing.
> 
> Well there. That about sums up why _anybody _votes GOP. You're in it for you. Exclusively. Which is not to say that I don't think similarly, but you know what? I don't. I have few esoteric wants that need to be satisfied by the Federal Government, so I take an occasional peek at what my neighbors might need.
> 
> For example, the Mexicans. Though I've never seen one. But I hear tell they could use a leg up. Particularly those that swam across the Rio Grande by moon light with everything they owned stuffed in their pants. Yes, the Mexicans, the culture and people the Right Wing makes a pinata of each election cycle. Legalize 'em all. That way you don't have to smuggle them into your yard to cut your grass. You can give them the five bucks right up front.
> 
> Understand please that I am not an American by choice. A fact I assume you share. I just happened to pop out of my mom in Bangor, Maine, as you probably did somewhere in the Midwest. Not that you and I regret that. But we both could have slid into the world in Guadalajara. I never forget that. And you may never have thought of it in the first place.


I don't post to gain your approval. In fact, I don't post with you in mind.

As for a leg up, that's why the Mexican government exists. The failings of a 3rd world country and a politically complacent culture that sings folk songs glorifying killers is not my responsibility nor that of this country.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty, C.M.S., or Whitewater Development or knew of such conduct."


----------



## SG_67

Funny how it's always the people in the Clintons' orbit that end up in trouble with the law and going to jail but never the Clintons themselves.


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> Funny how it's always the people in the Clintons' orbit that end up in trouble with the law and going to jail but never the Clintons themselves.


Or dying under mysterious circumstances, like Seth Conrad Rich just last month.


----------



## Dmontez

Peak and Pine said:


> For example, the Mexicans. Though I've never seen one. But I hear tell they could use a leg up. Particularly those that swam across the Rio Grande by moon light with everything they owned stuffed in their pants. Yes, the Mexicans, the culture and people the Right Wing makes a pinata of each election cycle. Legalize 'em all. That way you don't have to smuggle them into your yard to cut your grass. You can give them the five bucks right up front.


You've never seen(or known) a Mexican, yet you believe they should all be able to move throughout the US freely, and as citizens?

I guess my opinion differs because I see them on a daily basis in South Texas, and know naturalized citizens who feel the same way that I do. We need to know exactly who it is that is coming into the US, and what intentions they have once they are given permanent resident status(green card). The LEGAL immigration system needs reform, I have heard of people waiting 2+ years to become a permanent resident this is before they can become a naturalized citizen. People that hire Illegal Immigrants need to be harshly fined. There is NO good that comes out of Illegal Immigration, most often times they are taken advantage of by their coyotes(smuggler).

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USBP Stats FY2015 sector profile.pdf
What worries me the most is that 43% of people caught along the southewestern border are OTM(other than mexican) This is just apprehensions, so we don't know how many people successfully crossed, and where they are from, or who they are. I remember when my dad was a Border Patrol Agent around 96-98 he would get sent to Brownsville, Texas for operation "x" where they had a vehicle stationed every 1/4 mile along the Rio Grande River and were only to make an arrest if the alien came up to them and essentially asked to be arrested, so this brought down apprehension numbers for the Clinton administration, which then turned around and said look our #s are down we are safer, there are not as many people crossing.

My father questioned this strategy with his superiors, and publicly through a newsletter he published as the president of the union. He was fired in 2000 for having one of his buttons on his uniform undone showing the cross he was wearing underneath his uniform. He posthumously won a wrongful termination case against the agency in 2002.


----------



## Peak and Pine

SG_67 said:


> I don't post to gain your approval. In fact, I don't post with you in mind.


I doubt if you post with anyone in mind but yourself. Those who post as prolifically as you cheapen their message, as in _Oh him again_, thus I seldom read you, but the depiction of Hillary Clinton as a whore did catch my eye.


----------



## Peak and Pine

jfo2010 said:


> 70+ yrs old and never seen a Mexican?? Sounds like something HC would say.


That must be the first post of mine you've ever read.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Dmontez said:


> You've never seen(or known) a Mexican,etc.


I'm almost out of battery and I'm sucking down free Wi-Fi at McD's, so can't fully read you yet. It looks to be thoughtful and thoughtout though. Thnx much.

Peak


----------



## SG_67

Peak and Pine said:


> I doubt if you post with anyone in mind but yourself. Those who post as prolifically as you cheapen their message, as in _Oh him again_, thus I seldom read you, *but the depiction of Hillary Clinton as a whore did catch my eye*.


Then my work here is done....;-)


----------



## Acct2000

And hopefully the near catfight doesn't escalate - - - -


----------



## Tempest

I hope that we can all support the decision of Trump, but inexplicably not Clinton's wife, to sign the The Children's Internet Safety Presidential Pledge.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...i-porn-pledge-clinton-refuses/article/2598269


----------



## Peak and Pine

Dmontez,

I've recharged this thing and am sitting in a parking lot someplace, KFC it looks like, sucking on their free wi-fi. (Nix to the chicken.)

I've had a chance to read your post. What happened to your dad was sickeningly unjust and I can understand the feelings you probably hold. I cannot sway you this way or that. It's your story. But make absolutely sure it was Democrat/Republican politics and not just plain old, sh***y work-place politics. Not that that makes it any easier to smooth over what to a superior is a snap of the fingers, to the person being snapped a life altering decision. Your story touches. I cannot say I've been there. Sort of maybe. But this was your family's story. I won't gung it up with mine.


As for illegals running willy-nilly throughout the USA as my earlier post would seem to promote, yeah, in a way. But I would have to be made King first. And after granting all citizens a lifetime supply of Little Debbies I would immediately do away with the Canadian and Mexican borders. We would become the United States of North America. We would all have the same national interests of peace and prosperity. Unlike Europe a continent of tiny countries all in it for themselves, we'd be one big jolly hunk of land producing Chevies, enchiladas and hockey sticks. There has never been a rivalry of note between us (get over that Pancho Villa thing, and the new Texas motto 'Forget the Alamo'). So let's all join up. No more border crossings, no more borders. Except whatever is just south of Mexico. Panama maybe. Shoot those bastards on sight.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I hope that we can all support the decision of Trump, but inexplicably not Clinton's wife, to sign the The Children's Internet Safety Presidential Pledge.
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...i-porn-pledge-clinton-refuses/article/2598269


It's typical of politicians I suppose as they fear anything that may box them in. In HRC's defense I suppose it's possible that public opinion may turn on the issue of children being exposed to pornography and she'll have to defend her position despite the public outrage.

This is akin to Obama putting troops into Afghanistan with a commensurate declaration of a pull out date; always hedge your bets.

It gives you a bit of insight into the workings of her mind. She cannot bring herself to commit or take a position on anything.


----------



## jfo2010

Peak and Pine said:


> That must be the first post of mine you've ever read.


First but regrettably not the last. I find them bitter and distasteful. Posted on 4G. No free wifi needed

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

This has been a really bad news week for Trump...it seems he is wholly incapable of opening his mouth, without putting his foot in it. Not to worry...I have no intention of reciting his seemingly endless list of verbal blunders, but rather to suggest to you that one thing Trump has said repeatedly that is absolutely true is that "the system in rigged!" Republicans and Democrats alike have been subverted by their personal greed and seemingly to every single man/woman, they have been bought and paid for by special interests....and it is not in the nature of such special interests to fade quietly into the night. We should not kid ourselves...the system is rigged!


----------



## Shaver

jfo2010 said:


> First but regrettably not the last. I find them bitter and distasteful. Posted on 4G. No free wifi needed


I urge you to examine Peaky's posts more carefully as you may well find that his sharp wit comes into focus, not to mention a refreshingly engaging modality.


----------



## Tiger

I'm astounded by the ostensibly Republican politicians and citizenry that are supporting Clinton because they find Trump odious and Clinton somewhat less so. Wouldn't the more logical response be to support neither of these choices, and vote for a third party candidate that embraces the ideals that one believes in, rather than always applying the "voting for the lesser of two evils" mentality?

Such a mentality always leads to supporting "evil" and assures that the monopoly of the two major parties (the "two wings of the same bird of prey" as Patrick Buchanan labeled the parties) continues indefinitely. This pernicious cycle needs to be broken eventually - why not start now?


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> This has been a really bad news week for Trump...it seems he is wholly incapable of opening his mouth, without putting his foot in it. Not to worry...I have no intention of reciting his seemingly endless list of verbal blunders, but rather to suggest to you that one thing Trump has said repeatedly that is absolutely true is that "the system in rigged!" Republicans and Democrats alike have been subverted by their personal greed and seemingly to every single man/woman, they have been bought and paid for by special interests....and it is not in the nature of such special interests to fade quietly into the night. We should not kid ourselves...the system is rigged!


It's just that the media seems to relish in covering his gaffes more than hers. He's certainly made his share of stupid mistakes but Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that she never lied to the American people about her emails. Not a peep about this from anyone.

Trump is not PC and given to verbal gaffes. HRC is just plain dishonest and a liar. And yes, the Clinton's are political whores. And so is her running mate who accepted graft as Gov. of VA.


----------



## Tempest

Tiger said:


> Wouldn't the more logical response be to support neither of these choices, and vote for a third party candidate that embraces the ideals that one believes in, rather than always applying the "voting for the lesser of two evils" mentality?


It's better to vote for what you want and lose that to vote for something you don't want and win.

As previously mentioned, Hillary's plan is to be thorough inaccessible and to be reported on in a very oblique, filtered way. Trump, of course, is out in the open, warts and all, almost every day.
If HRC was meeting with a non-syncophantic press with any regularity, there would be a whole lot of "You've got to try this cold chai" bye!


----------



## SG_67

^ That's really funny!

If news media were actually hiring and training real reporters instead of these 20-something ding bats coming out J schools hoping to maybe make it on TV and live the easy life, we wouldn't get this. Those girls are too star struck. They'd do better chasing after Beyoncé than doing real journalism.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> I urge you to examine Peaky's posts more carefully as you may well find that his sharp wit comes into focus, not to mention a refreshingly engaging modality.


Amen, brother.


----------



## culverwood

I suppose if the vineyard story shows how he is going to negotiate with his allies and enemies at least we are all pre-warned, not illegal but shady.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/...d-trump-took-over-virginias-biggest-vineyard/


----------



## FLMike

culverwood said:


> I suppose if the vineyard story shows how he is going to negotiate with his allies and enemies at least we are all pre-warned, not illegal but shady.
> 
> https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/...d-trump-took-over-virginias-biggest-vineyard/


You don't work in real estate, clearly. Shady? No. Shrewd? Absolutely.


----------



## culverwood

We all have our euphemisms Mike, being in real estate you will know that well.


----------



## Dcr5468

I work with real estate developers every day. To create wealth on a large scale usually takes a certain type of high risk taking tolerance. A lot of developers have trump-like personality and behavior.

More importantly, how does risk tolerance correlate to being commander in chief of the worlds most powerful military? Tough to say but I can assure you Reagan was a risk taker. He basically laid down a marker with the Soviets by pushing 600 ship navy, 1st strike capable nukes in Europe, etc. 

It worked for Reagan but the world is a complicated place today. Consistently projecting weakness and lack of support for long time allies for 8 years has exponentially increased the mess that needs to be cleaned up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Interesting how the terms "shady" are used in conjunction with business in general, Donald Trump specifically. I'm not sure where shady comes from. It's sort of like the term "unindicted co-conspirator". It's either legal or illegal.

I'd say shady is foreign governments giving millions of dollars to a phony foundation when one of the principals works as the SOS.

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Banks-Clinton-Foundation/232015

At least the Trump deal is between private entities.

As big a target as Trump may be given his verbal gaffes, it's amazing that news organization aren't looking into this ferkakta "foundation". Of course, that would involve real effort and work.

Judging by the dimwittedness of some of these 20-something "journalists" covering the campaigns, I can understand why it's not happening.


----------



## Shaver




----------



## Chouan

Indeed. As was said about this comment, politicians need to be careful, not just about what they say, but also about what people may hear.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Indeed. As was said about this comment, politicians need to be careful, not just about what they say, but also about what people may hear.


Some people hear what they want to hear. I'm sorry but I did not come away thinking anything was odd about what he said.

I think it says more about the people up in arms about this. So I suppose anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment is prone to violence?


----------



## culverwood

What would the Trump have to say to make you disagree with him, SG_67. 

Please tell me because, whatever it is, I bet he says it at some point before the election


----------



## eagle2250

Trump would be better served if he would just keep his mouth shut and allow his kids to do the talking for him! They seem to think before they engage their respective mouths. 

PS: Just to keep it all in perspective....I am a lifelong Republican! :redface:


----------



## SG_67

culverwood said:


> What would the Trump have to say to make you disagree with him, SG_67.
> 
> Please tell me because, whatever it is, I bet he says it at some point before the election


I disagree with him on some of his sentiments regarding trade. Perhaps some of it is hyperbole.

I also disagree with him when he went after the Khans. Though he had every right to, it was a distraction.

He's not perfect but he's certainly better than the alternative. But this statement and the fuss being made of it is just silly. Like I said, it says more about the people grumbling about it and their views on gun owners than anything else.


----------



## Tempest

I think that resoundingly answers Mr. Kahn's query about Trump's familiarity with the Constitution.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Some people hear what they want to hear. I'm sorry but I did not come away thinking anything was odd about what he said.


Apart from the blatant lie about Hilary Clinton abolishing the Second Amendment?


----------



## Chouan

culverwood said:


> What would the Trump have to say to make you disagree with him, SG_67.
> 
> Please tell me because, whatever it is, I bet he says it at some point before the election


Indeed! Now he is accusing Obama of having founded Daesh! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/11/trump-charges-obama-with-being-founder-isis.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/11/donald-trump-calls-barack-obama-the-founder-of-isis https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...es-barack-obama-of-being-the-founder-of-isis/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/politics/trump-rally.html?_r=0
Do you think that his supporters here will agree with this as well?


----------



## SG_67

^ your fascination with our politics is remarkable. Why not move here and become a citizen?

You've already got most of it down; you just eat up anything the news media throws out without any scrutiny or critique. 

While I'm sure you take pleasure in DNC talking points, there's also a story out there about how HRC, in her capacity as SoS, helped to triangulate efforts with her phony foundation to steer money into Russia's IT sector, opening up the possibility that our tech companies could be spied on. 

But of course, it takes much less critical thinking to poke fun and gossip about Trump then it does to do some actual investigative work. 

Yes, you'd fit right in I think. Just make sure you register as a democrat.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Apart from the blatant lie about Hilary Clinton abolishing the Second Amendment?


"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment,"
Can anyone argue the essence part? Mortally wounding and killing are essentially the same thing.


----------



## SG_67

^ no Dem will admit this of course but if they could wave a wand and make any part of the bill of rights disappear, it would be the 2nd amendment. 

For the life of me I've never been able to figure out their hostility toward gun owners. 

I'm quite sure the roots are political and not based on anything principled.


----------



## Tempest

IMHO, they seek to be the rogue (totalitarian) government against which the founding fathers wanted an armed populace as a safeguard.
They would indeed eradicate it all if they could, but instead must use the death of a thousand cuts, bad faith negotiating where they nibble away a bit at a time till there is really nothing left. In all this prattle over "common sense gun control" has there ever been anything of benefit offered to the gun owner? I heard John Lott on the radio recently discussing background checks, and he made the point that if anyone believing them to be a societal good would want them to be publicly funded. Oddly the regressive nature of these fees is not protested by the left!


----------



## culverwood

SG_67 said:


> For the life of me I've never been able to figure out their hostility toward gun owners.


It's like marrying your sister. Nobody is harmed by the act but no good will come of it. (See GoT)


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ your fascination with our politics is remarkable.


Is it? Did you not read the thread from the beginning?



SG_67 said:


> Why not move here and become a citizen?


Why would I want to?



SG_67 said:


> You've already got most of it down; you just eat up anything the news media throws out without any scrutiny or critique.


So you're denying that he said the things indicated? Really?



SG_67 said:


> While I'm sure you take pleasure in DNC talking points, there's also a story out there about how HRC, in her capacity as SoS, helped to triangulate efforts with her phony foundation to steer money into Russia's IT sector, opening up the possibility that our tech companies could be spied on.


What has Hilary and the Democrats got to do with Trump's anti-truth rhetoric?



SG_67 said:


> But of course, it takes much less critical thinking to poke fun and gossip about Trump then it does to do some actual investigative work.


Again, are you denying the truth of the reports above? I've even heard the speech! About 30 seconds in [video]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-barack-obama-isis-latest-speech-terrorism-claims-election-2016-a7184536.html[/video] Are you still denying that he said it?



SG_67 said:


> Yes, you'd fit right in I think. Just make sure you register as a democrat.


Why would I want to? I see very little difference between the two main parties, and I couldn't vote for either presidential candidate.


----------



## SG_67

Nothing wrong with a news agency covering a candidate but much of what passes as journalism these days is opinion. Take the 2nd amendment comment trump made. 

It's always like this for the GOP. They can rest assured that stories inconvenient for the dems will get scant if any coverage. 

What's worse? Political hyperbole which in and of itself is a redundant phrase, or actual corruption and potentially criminal activity?

Here's a perfect example of a political act that is real and affecting millions of Americans. 

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160130/ISSUE01/301309989/losses-threaten-obamacare-co-op

And yet another story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/11/19/obamacares-problems-get-worse/?utm_term=.3d2e4658f1f3

This is real and it's impacting people far worse than Trump's hyperbole. But of course it requires real work and most people tune out. Opinion journalists do better when reporting on more salacious matters such as gossip and what someone says.


----------



## culverwood

I am sure if there is actual corruption or criminal activity in the GOP or anywhere else the US legal system will deal with it.


----------



## SG_67

^ doubtful. Our DOJ seems to be occupied with harassing local police departments about traffic citations and stops and telling local schools how many bathrooms they should have.


----------



## culverwood

Much like this side of the Atlantic. When one of my employees reported a crime referring to the perpetrators as "gypsies" they were more interested in finding out who had reported the crime than actually going to the factory and arresting the thieves. 

You may think I am a socialist but my leanings are to the right, I am just sad to see Trump hijack the Republican Party.


----------



## SG_67

^ he got the vote fair and square by campaigning. 

It wasn't too long ago when all the candidates too a pledge to support the nominee. Few have done so. 

Who knows what will happen in November. Trump could still pull it off but if he doesn't, the GOP needs to do some soul searching. 

The GOP establishment turned their backs on Trump for really no good reason. I've never seen a bigger bunch of whiners and babies.


----------



## Tempest

culverwood said:


> You may think I am a socialist but my leanings are to the right, I am just sad to see Trump hijack the Republican Party.


When you realize from who he, no we, did this, it is much more acceptable. A coup was needed. Watered down liberalism was not a sufficient second party.

BTW, I must admit that I have no idea what this Obama founded ISIS stuff is about, not that I'm following it. I thought the conventional wisdom was that they were a CIA/Mossad collaboration. One of the few Obama positions that I approve of is his indifference to Israel. And several Obama predecessors were at least as guilty of whatever he is being charged with regarding oogah-boogah Middle East terror.


----------



## culverwood

I have a great deal of respect for the Republican Party and where it came from but Trump seems like a populist demagogue. If that is not a tautology.


----------



## Tempest

culverwood said:


> I have a great deal of respect for the Republican Party and where it came from but Trump seems like a populist demagogue. If that is not a tautology.


I'm very confused by statements like this. Do you respect the Republicans of the 1850s or the ones that thought McCain/Palin was a great idea, or that awful Bush regime? And would I be wrong in thinking that the opposite of "populist demagogue" is "elitist ideologue", because I trust the allegedly ignorant and biased populace more than the plutocrats at this point, and I'm clearly not alone.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tempest said:


> When you realize from who he, no we, did this, it is much more acceptable. A coup was needed. Watered down liberalism was not a sufficient second party.


Nor is angry incoherent populism.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> The GOP establishment turned their backs on Trump for really no good reason. I've never seen a bigger bunch of whiners and babies.


Now that is rich. The GOP establishment is acting like a bunch of babies for not endorsing a toddler for president. Heh.


----------



## Dmontez

Mike Petrik said:


> Nor is angry incoherent populism.


I know, right?


----------



## Tempest

Mike Petrik said:


> Nor is angry incoherent populism.


1. Unless one is peachy keen with the way Obama is (and Hillary might) run the country, shouldn't one be angry?
2. Incoherent as opposed to whom? I think there is often a larger comprehension failure.
3. Again, what is inherently bad about appealing to people? Is the corporatocracy better? Should government be elites indifferent, if not antagonistic, to the will of the people?


Dmontez said:


> I know, right?


Oh noes, Trump is inciting violence again! So hateful! He mesmerizes his opponents into frenzied rage!


----------



## Mike Petrik

universitystripe said:


> I stopped by to see just how far the usual suspects would go in defending Trump. You did not disappoint.
> 
> For what it's worth, I live in an area where the wide majority of citizens support Donald Trump. You cannot convince me that his coalition is held together by more than racism and fear of the decline of white superiority in America. I've heard it from the source.


This is not my experience. I know many Trump supporters. None are motivated by racism. Instead, they believe that America is in decline due to a large inept government that pursues policies that favor only the rich or connected. And they believe that Clinton is the poster child of such practices. They are angry and they see Trump as the only candidate who affirms that anger.

Personally, I think most of that anger is misplaced and that Trump is at best an idiot-savant. The Dems for years have fabricated and exaggerated grievances in order to build voting coalitions, and now Trump has done the same to build his. Although the grievances he sells have little to do with racism, the Dems predictably characterize it as such because that characterization aligns conveniently with their own time-honored grievance-oriented strategy.


----------



## Tempest

Despite having a more optimistic assessment of Trump, I largely agree with the above.


----------



## Tiger

Tempest said:


> Despite having a more optimistic assessment of Trump, I largely agree with the above.


As a supporter of the Constitution Party and one who views both major party candidates as unequivocally unacceptable, I also agree with Mr. Petrik's assessment.


----------



## Tiger

_Here's an excerpt from *The American Conservative* magazine's Scott O'Connell on the rise of Donald Trump:
_
"Trump clearly has some gifts as a candidate-a good public performer, enormously energetic, courageous. His business success allows him the much appreciated talking point that he is independent of the D.C.-establishment lobbyists. But his weaknesses are obvious as well-a shallow grasp of policy, a tendency frequently to say things that are probably not true, an impulse to personalize conflicts and create unnecessary antagonisms. Few would describe his character as "presidential."

Yet he managed to prevail-to mount the most astonishingly successful insurgent campaign against a party establishment in our lifetimes. For all of Trump's talents, his victory probably owed as much to underlying political currents as to his brilliance as a leader and political tactician.

Donald Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee because he won the GOP's untapped residue of nationalist voters, in a system where the elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists. He won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American. He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable. He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation. He won many who consciously or unconsciously identified with the pre-multicultural America that existed for most of the last century. And he won with backing from the growing group of Republicans who understand that the Iraq War was an unmitigated disaster."


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> Now that is rich. The GOP establishment is acting like a bunch of babies for not endorsing a toddler for president. Heh.


The guy ran and won the votes. The others promised to back the candidate who won all thinking that never in a million years would it have been Trump.

A lot of the trashing of fellow republicans has only come about due to their not endorsing him.


----------



## SG_67

Another word for populism is saying the masses. Rather, what appeals to the most people. 

When I hear the term populist I cringe. What's wrong with appealing to what the most number of people. 

In other words, populism becomes a dirty word because it is used by elitists and self proscribed aristocrats within government and culture who have a disdain for regular people. 

What was it Nancy Pelosi said a couple of weeks ago? "The 3 G's"....yes I seem to recall something like that.


----------



## FLMike

Mike Petrik said:


> This is not my experience. I know many Trump supporters. None are motivated by racism. Instead, they believe that America is in decline due to a large inept government that pursues policies that favor only the rich or connected. And they believe that Clinton is the poster child of such practices. They are angry and they see Trump as the only candidate who affirms that anger.
> 
> Personally, I think most of that anger is misplaced and that Trump is at best an idiot-savant. The Dems for years have fabricated and exaggerated grievances in order to build voting coalitions, and now Trump has done the same to build his. Although the grievances he sells have little to do with racism, the Dems predictably characterize it as such because that characterization aligns conveniently with their own time-honored grievance-oriented strategy.


This is pretty spot-on.


----------



## eagle2250

^^+1. 
It is at once the most accurate, complete and also succinct assessment of this political train wreck we (less than) affectionately refer to as "The Donald!" Now he is saying, "so what if I lose...if that occurs, I will be taking a very long and well deserved vacation." Sorta makes one question the sincerity of his candidacy in the first place. Has this been mothing more that a current day demagogues publicity ploy?  :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

I think it's refreshing. Don't get me wrong, I hope he wins for no other reason than I want to keep that corrupt power couple from residing in the white house again. 

Our government was envisioned as people serving as citizens first, doing their duty and then stepping aside. Hillary Clinton wants to be president because she has nothing else to live for. She is a professional politician. It is the pinnacle of her professional endeavors. 

HRC could not survive in the real world. Her entire life has been spent in government; either a spectator when she was FLOTUS and then as a Senator and then SOS. During that time she accomplished nothing of note. All of her efforts and energy were focused on becoming president. 

Donald Trump will give it a shot. She has a vision and an agenda whether one agrees with it or not. If he wins, he wins. If he loses, he goes back to his life.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Eagle et al -- thank you.

SG -- For the record, I have no quarrel whatsoever with your considered decision to vote for Trump because you regard Clinton as simply unacceptable. Nor do I have a quarrel with those who have decided to vote for Clinton only because they regard Trump as unacceptable. Finally, I also understand how a voter might not be able to bring himself to vote for either of these embarrassing candidates. IMO each of these three prudential calculuses is within the bounds of reason. What I cannot understand is how any informed rational American can endorse, with genuine enthusiasm, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I note with some relief that this last category seemingly describes few AA Interchange participants.


----------



## SG_67

^ I never saw it as a quarrel, but thank you. 

Trump represents a threat to the pols. That someone who has never been in politics or government can become the nominee is anathema to those collective wisdom. It's a threat to their livelihood. For decades professional politicians have pulled the wool over the eyes of many; vote for us because we're the only ones who know how to do this. Anything else would be catastrophic. 

In many ways, theirs is the same reaction unions have when their precious monopoly is threatened. If it's teachers then kids will stop learning. Auto workers? Cars won't get built and we will go into a depression. Never mind that all of these groups have utterly failed in their bargain with society. 

Politicians have done the same but they keep saying theyre the only ones who can solve the problem. 

Seen in that light, one can understand the appeal of Trump. He may be an imperfect vessel but who is? He may speak off the cuff and may come off as crude and rude, but he says in public what pols only dare say in private. 

That's what was so great about the DNC email hack. References to Bernie's Judaism or his lack thereof. They are just as crude and vulgar in how they approach politics but do so in a way that is hidden from public, usually! 

So yes, I of sound mind and body enthusiastically endorse Trump not because he's a savior, but hopefully the first in a long line of true citizen politicians who can actually make government work, which sometimes means doing less.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG, I think you misdiagnose my fellow longstanding Republicans' chief discomfort with Trump. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is a celebrity real estate mogul rather than a career politician, but instead has everything to do with the fact that he behaves like a vulgarian toddler. Moreover, like the "masses" you claim he represents, he routinely expresses confident passionate views unencumbered by any knowledge or information. The fact that I nonetheless cannot even consider voting for his opponent reveals volumes about my opinion of her.

While I disagree strongly with your prudential assessment of Trump's acumen, I certainly hope that if he is elected he proves you right. I don't claim to bat 1.000 on my assessments, political or otherwise.

Best,

Mike


----------



## SG_67

^ Sure he's vulgar but so what? At least he does it out in the open. 

As for the issues, do any of the others have a grasp on things? Of all of the candidates running, none really articulated anything of substance. 

I know you're no Clinton apologist but she and her kind haven't a clue either. 

On both sides of the aisle, policy decisions and initiatives are made with the primary concern of either getting elected or re-elected. 

None of these guys can really take credit for any of the success had in their states. At best they got out of the way and what does that in the end say about government?

So I'm not really sure what this business of not having a grasp of the issues really means.


----------



## FLMike

SG_67 said:


> So I'm not really sure what this business of not having a grasp of the issues really means.


It just means both candidates suck. That's what Mike P was saying.


----------



## SG_67

^ they always suck though. They're always flawed and always fall short of what they promise.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> ^ they always suck though. They're always flawed and always fall short of what they promise.


Agreed...which is why we should look to vote for people of integrity, knowledge, and a fealty to federalism and constitutionalism - even if they happen to be heading up a ticket on a third party!


----------



## SG_67

^ You're assuming all of those attributes. 

Third parties don't stand a chance. I understand the romanticism involved in that, but it's just a political fact. 

Look for the candidate that will do the least damage.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> ^ You're assuming all of those attributes.
> 
> Third parties don't stand a chance. I understand the romanticism involved in that, but it's just a political fact.
> 
> Look for the candidate that will do the least damage.


Then we will continue ad infinitum with this same process of choosing between two odious characters. How is that beneficial? Why not begin the process of changing this dynamic by voting for minority party candidates who might actually be high quality people?


----------



## culverwood

SG_67 said:


> Look for the candidate that will do the least damage.


And you think that's Trump. I wish I had your faith.


----------



## Tempest

Mike Petrik said:


> What I cannot understand is how any informed rational American can endorse, with genuine enthusiasm, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.


The answer is exactly the same as why Chris Rock won't see the new Whoopi Goldberg movie, which is merely him listing her most recent movies. As a registered Republican, I think Dole was the last GOP Presidential candidate that I voted for, and that was kneejerk "team sports" either/or selection. I've been a third party "vote of no confidence" at the national level ever since then. 
The GOP candidates of the last two decades have been such a selection of non-entities and cowardly puppets that DJT is a true breath of fresh air. When you've been offered gruel long enough, that hot dog looks pretty good and you don't care that it's not steak.

The #nevertrump crowd wants the GOP to be a country club that they control. It is not. They hate this. Period. I cheer for the snobs vs. the slobs in most movies, but this is Dangerfield in Caddyshack coming in and stirring things up.


----------



## SG_67

culverwood said:


> And you think that's Trump. I wish I had your faith.


I believe his instinct is to do less. It's sort of hard to undo what hasn't been done. Unlike his opponent.


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> I believe his instinct is to do less. It's sort of hard to undo what hasn't been done. Unlike his opponent.


The dilemma is whether one wants Hillary to come in with her already entrenched army of lackeys ready to implement her awful plans or have Trump come in and be fought tooth and nail at every turn. If you disagree with both, the less effective one would be preferable, I'd think.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> The dilemma is whether one wants Hillary to come in with her already entrenched army of lackeys ready to implement her awful plans or have Trump come in and be fought tooth and nail at every turn. If you disagree with both, the less effective one would be preferable, I'd think.


We already know what a Hillary admin would look like. Just look back on the Clinton years. I remember it was him who said "you get two for one" referring to how integral his wife would be. I can't imagine Bill sitting back and not taking some active, albeit clandestine, role in an HRC administration.

Whatever her agenda may be, and she's so all over the place that it's hard to pin her down, it will be mired by controversy and scandal.

If she wins, and after the obligatory honeymoon with the press, they will find religion and we'll start seeing stories about the Foundation.


----------



## Shaver

Extreme vetting? This would seem a thoroughly unworkable idea. One imagines that were a terrorist to be asked, prior to entering the U.S., "are you intent on overthrowing the Great Satan?" they would merely reply "no, of course not".


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Extreme vetting? This would seem a thoroughly unworkable idea. One imagines that were a terrorist to be asked, prior to entering the U.S., "are you intent on overthrowing the Great Satan?" they would merely reply "no, of course not".


It's a trick question. They did not deny the Great Satan. They simply indicated a lack of intent.


----------



## Tempest

I'd hope that this entrance test is only veiled as a true/false sheet and is really a personal assessment where officials are allowed to use their own discretion and bar dicey characters instead of being confined by arbitrary guidelines. It's a simpler and more effective route, and is how Israel does their airport security.


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> I'd hope that this entrance test is only veiled as a true/false sheet and is really a personal assessment where officials are allowed to use their own discretion and bar dicey characters instead of being confined by arbitrary guidelines. It's a simpler and more effective route, and is how Israel does their airport security.


Still it is a troubling notion. Why, I myself am a 'dicey' character.


----------



## Tiger

A nation has the right to protect its sovereignty, as well as to determine who can - and cannot - enter its territory. Since there really is no way to accurately vet anyone (especially people without documentation), all but the most essential entry to the United States should be halted.


----------



## culverwood

That seems excessive and I think the tourist industry may object. Are you talking about turning the USA into some kind of North Korea? Will visitors need minders?


----------



## Tiger

culverwood said:


> That seems excessive and I think the tourist industry may object. Are you talking about turning the USA into some kind of North Korea? Will visitors need minders?


Aren't we discussing immigration - people seeking to live in the U.S. - not tourists with proper documentation? Haven't countries limited immigration in the past?

Nothing about a temporary moratorium on immigration is unprecedented, especially when it comes to undocumented people from high-risk countries.

There is no universal right that everyone in the world possesses to live in the U.S., or anywhere else. Nations have the right to decide who can enter their countries. Common sense dictates prudence in such situations.


----------



## SG_67

culverwood said:


> That seems excessive and I think the tourist industry may object. Are you talking about turning the USA into some kind of North Korea? Will visitors need minders?


That's such a straw man argument. I believe your own fellow countrymen as well as a growing number of Europeans are starting to rethink such liberal immigration policies and it's doubtful any of them want to turn their country into North Korea.

If you happen to go onto the US governments own website it has pretty explicit instruction and regulations on how one is to enter the U.S. It includes exclusions to admission as well.

Reading it, one comes away with the feeling that it is incredibly difficult. Yet we have an estimated 12-13 million undocumented immigrants in this country.

All those of us on this side of the issue are saying is where is this falling apart? We just want our laws enforced, that's it.

I recall a story, which of course was buried and never pursued, about how the terrorist wife of the San Bernardino terrorist lied on her visa application and gave false information. A cursory investigation into this determined that the information was false, yet somehow the "vetting" that is taking place by our government failed to realize this.

That's just one example. Unfortunately, this mistake ended up costing American lives. But hey, we have to be compassionate and keep our doors open because everyone from anywhere has the God given right to feed off of the fat of our land, despite having made a complete s**t hole of their own country.


----------



## Tiger

Many great points, SG_67. 

I think many rational people would be placated by an immigration policy that actually followed extant U.S. law, including its enforcement. I prefer something along the lines of the Immigration Act of 1924, with a bit of tailoring to fit current realities.


----------



## culverwood

Tiger said:


> A nation has the right to protect its sovereignty, as well as to determine who can - and cannot - enter its territory. Since there really is no way to accurately vet anyone (especially people without documentation), all but the most essential entry to the United States should be halted.


Was what was said - I see no limitation to permanent immigrants above (though people without documents are highlighted). I do not see tourism as essential entry.


----------



## SG_67

^ There really should be no such thing as essential entry. All entry to the U.S. is discretionary and should be based on a multitude of reasons. 

The only people that should have essential entry are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.


----------



## Tiger

culverwood said:


> Was what was said - I see no limitation to permanent immigrants above (though people without documents are highlighted). I do not see tourism as essential entry.


Again, the context was immigration, not "entry of any type imaginable." I apologize for not specifying what I thought was obvious, considering the topic under discussion.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> ^ There really should be no such thing as essential entry. All entry to the U.S. is discretionary and should be based on a multitude of reasons.
> 
> The only people that should have essential entry are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.


By "essential" I was referring to the need to allow certain people to immigrate (with all due precautions taken, of course) who may possess a certain skill or knowledge base that was needed in the United States. So, "essential" entrants would still be subject to U.S. discretion...


----------



## SG_67

^ I don't consider that essential. It's still discretionary. I get it that a lot of kids can't handle the math and science and we need to import labor for such things, but it's still discretionary. But I get your point about essential being more of an economic term. 

Perhaps that says something about our education system.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> ^ I don't consider that essential. It's still discretionary. I get it that a lot of kids can't handle the math and science and we need to import labor for such things, but it's still discretionary. But I get your point about essential being more of an economic term.
> 
> Perhaps that says something about our education system.


One of the definitions of "essential" is something necessary, and that is how I was using the term. I agree with you; such essentialities would also be discretionary.

The U.S. education system is an embarrassment...


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> One of the definitions of "essential" is something necessary, and that is how I was using the term. I agree with you; such essentialities would also be discretionary.
> 
> *The U.S. education system is an embarrassment.*..


As evidenced rather frequently on this very forum*. :devil:



*Not by Tiger nor SG, I hasten to add, for the avoidance of any potential misunderstanding.


----------



## Tempest

Shaver said:


> As evidenced rather frequently on this very forum*. :devil:


:teacha:The internets has maid it ez to find out wear you furrin countrys are on maps! I now ur calling me a looser from over their.

Anyway, to paraphrase the latest news, Trump has restructured his campaign management stating explicitly that he prefers the brash uncensored Trump, as do the people. I personally like the lack of sugar coating, but am not sure how this will go with those dopey undecided voters.


----------



## SG_67

^ I've never really understood the whole "undecided" thing. How can anyone paying attention be undecided. 

I believe undecided is an incorrect term applied here. Uninterested may be more appropriate.


----------



## Hockey Tom

Uninformed may be the better term (though this likely does stem from a lack of interest). A frighteningly large number of people have little to no knowledge of any of the candidates in the race, save a few opinion pieces that pop up on their Facebook feed (right under "Which Game of Thrones character are you? Take this quiz to find out!", which immediately asserts itself to the top of their priorities).


----------



## Tempest

I have to agree with the low-information voter. IME, they sway to the left because, well, they are rather vapid emotion-driven people with no agency. To circle back to Trump's campaign management restructuring, the losers that lost the last GOP elections are deriding it, so it may be for the best. And if it appeals to the mouthbreathers, that may well be a major portion of the low-information/undecided voter block.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Tempest said:


> ...Trump has restructured his campaign management stating explicitly that he prefers the brash uncensored Trump, as do the people. I personally like the lack of sugar coating, but am not sure how this will go with those dopey undecided voters.


The Trump campaign is conducting itself similarly to how I conducted my 1962 campaign for president of the student council. Of course I had not then stacked up three beautiful wives, a wonderful family, a highly-rated tv show or parlayed a million bucks of dad's cash into a few billion. Nor would I ever. But he did. And I was only 17. He's 69. So just what is his excuse?

I am surprised this thread still grinds on. The election's over. Hillary and I, we're just running out the clock.

Tempest, this won't be a ghost post. Have extended its Best Buy date to 11/08/16.


----------



## Shaver

^Don't ask Hillary to read the time from that clock. She couldn't even be trusted to tell the truth about that.


----------



## Tempest

Peak and Pine said:


> The Trump campaign is conducting itself similarly to how I conducted my 1962 campaign for president of the student council...Hillary and I, we're just running out the clock.


So you were the student council president? Awesome! I'm sure there is _way_ more time on your clock than on Hillary's. I mean you're able to stand on your own two feet, last I saw. She's grabbing on to railings and tables as though her life depends on it.


----------



## SG_67

^ it's a sign of her awkwardness and unease at dealing with people. She's looking for something to do with her hands and looking for security. 

I'm not entirely certain she even likes people. She certainly doesn't trust anyone and I suppose in some corner of my mind I'm sympathetic with her as her husband is a complete pig.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> As evidenced rather frequently on this very forum*. :devil:
> 
> *Not by Tiger nor SG, I hasten to add, for the avoidance of any potential misunderstanding.


No disclaimer needed - my inability to articulate properly in English is ipso facto proof of my woefully inadequate American education!


----------



## rtd1

Tempest said:


> I have to agree with the low-information voter. IME, they sway to the left because, well, they are rather vapid emotion-driven people with no agency.


There are roughly equal percentages of low information voters on both sides, and I'd go so far as to say that the majority of the American electorate falls into that category.


----------



## Tiger

rtd1 said:


> There are roughly equal percentages of low information voters on both sides, and I'd go so far as to say that the majority of the American electorate falls into that category.


Probably no way to ascertain such percentages, but there's no doubt that many Americans are interested (obsessed?) far more in sports and entertainment than they are in our history, politics, economics, international relations, and current events.

There's a very disturbing "bread and circuses" aspect to all of this...


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> Probably no way to ascertain such percentages, but there's no doubt that many Americans are interested (obsessed?) far more in sports and entertainment than they are in our history, politics, economics, international relations, and current events.
> 
> There's a very disturbing "bread and circuses" aspect to all of this...


I think it is a bit more layered. 
First, I will bet serious dough that self-described conservatives are generally more knowledgeable about both history and current events than self-described liberals.
Second, the fact that most Americans are ignorant of American history and the basics of our political system is deplorable.
Finally, the fact that most Americans do not follow current politics closely could mean that they don't regard it as important in their lives, and that actually could signal a healthy self-reliance impulse.


----------



## SG_67

^ conservatives in this country are forced to actually think and reason given the fact that the default position as described by media and the culture in general is that conservatives are the devil and racist to the last. 

Liberals, on the other hand, occupy the safe ground and are caring and compassionate, right? 

I'd love to agree with Mike's last statement and in theory it is true. The problem becomes when we are not interested, the tomfoolery in DC ramps into overdrive and we get thinks like Obamacare and shovel ready projects. Whether we are self reliant or not, our tax dollars get spent by those who have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from political payouts. 

The reason most kids, and adults for that matter, are ignorant of history and the way our government works is because we have abdicated that responsibility to government run institutions. 

One of my sisters-in-law has 5 children. At some point she home schooled three of them over the course of I think 4-5 years. The main reason is that it was just getting too damned expensive to send them to private school and she wasn't about to let them into the cesspools that our public schools have become, even those in well heeled suburbs. 

Neighbors and friends chuckled but the three received a great education, learned a variety of things above and beyond the assigned curriculum (the classics, history, etc.) and are now well ahead of their peers in their respective night school classes. 

This was a mom with no formal education training. Teaching kids isn't hard; they want to learn. The problem is a depraved public education system more interested in graft and teachers unions more interested in extracting as much from tax payers and holding the public hostage if they don't get their way than in actually educating children.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> I think it is a bit more layered.
> First, I will bet serious dough that self-described conservatives are generally more knowledgeable about both history and current events than self-described liberals.
> Second, the fact that most Americans are ignorant of American history and the basics of our political system is deplorable.
> Finally, the fact that most Americans do not follow current politics closely could mean that they don't regard it as important in their lives, and that actually could signal a healthy self-reliance impulse.


You may well be correct re: your first point, Mike; I simply am unfamiliar with any metrics on the topic, and don't wish to rely on the anecdotal.

No arguing your second point, my friend!

Your third point, as SG_67 mentioned, has an appealing theoretical aspect to it, but I fear in actuality that our ignorance of current events and the political sphere has left us exposed to the predatory instincts of the political class. A republic - as warned by many of the Founders - must be based on wisdom and virtue. I believe the American public in general has a dearth of wisdom and a wanting sense of virtue, thus providing us with political leaders of the same stripe. To paraphrase Mencken, we're getting what we deserve - good and hard!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Gents,
As for my initial point a 10 second Google search discovered: https://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/
As for my third point, I agree with your mutual observation and do not regard it as incompatible with mine.
Cheers,
Mike


----------



## Tempest

I've stated it before, but lest anyone still fall for the old "Trump mocks the handicap" scam, it is dispelled here by Ann Coulter as she properly excoriates the media that created and perpetuated this lie.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/31/ann-coulter-media-invented-lie-trump-mocking-disabled-reporter/


Spoiler



Just when you think the media could not possibly become more loathsome, the Fourth Estate bullies prove you wrong again. The Washington Post's latest ugliness was to exploit the disability of a newspaper reporter in order to smear the Republican nominee for president. Then - and this is the least surprising part of the story - the Post lied about it. Other than the subject of that paragraph - which I slyly switched from Trump to the media - that is an exact paraphrase of the Post's opening lines from an editorial hawking the media's most successful lie about Donald Trump: that he mocked a man for being disabled.
I have a chapter on that lie in my new book, In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, It was perfectly obvious that Trump was not mimicking any disability that Serge has, but I didn't have the smoking gun to prove that the media were lying and knew they were lying. Now we have it.

A group called Catholics 4 Trump has posted a video clip of another part of that same speech, in which Trump imitates a flustered general. Guess what? _He does the exact same arm flailing._
_ In another speech, Trump pretended to be a timorous Ted Cruz. Again, he does the exact same arm flailing. You can see the videos here.
 Neither the general nor Cruz is disabled.
If a jury ever saw these videos, it would acquit Trump immediately. Trump's impression of a groveling reporter is just like his imitation of a groveling general and just like his imitation of a groveling U.S. senator. He's like Rich Little that way: All his impressions look the same.
Perhaps Trump is not a subtle actor, but he's utterly innocent of making fun of a disabled person.
Now consider the media's role in manufacturing, and then protecting, this lie. Reporters were at Trump's speech. They were filming it. They saw him do the identical imitation of a general during that same speech.
The media knew damn well that Trump does the arm-waving routine whenever he's pretending to be a flustered person. But they never allowed the public to see the clip of Trump doing the same imitation of a general.
That is proof that the media knew they were lying.
And isn't it curious that in the midst of the frenzy over Trump's allegedly mocking a disabled reporter, you've never seen the reporter interviewed? Why don't they show us Serge, so that the public can gasp in horror and say, Why Trump's imitation is the spitting image of Serge Kovaleski!
 The reason the media won't show an interview with Serge is that if you ever saw him speaking, it would be blindingly obvious that Trump's imitation isn't in the same universe as Serge's affliction. Serge speaks perfectly calmly. He does not twitch, jerk or flail his arms. (That's (((Debbie Wasserman Schultz))) you're thinking of.)
There's an old interview with Serge here.
The absence of a current Serge interview is the dog that didn't bark. The only reason you will never see anything but a still photo of Serge is so that the media can trick the public into believing he has something like cerebral palsy.
In fact, his disability is almost the exact opposite of what Trump was doing: Serge has arthrogryposis, which locks his wrists in place, actually preventing movement.
We also have proof that the media know they are lying about Trump mocking a disabled man. In the "Comments" section to a Washington Post article pushing this lie, someone posted a perfectly respectful response that included the Catholics 4 Trump videos - of Trump doing the exact same imitation of a general and of Serge being interviewed. The Post deleted the comment - and pronto!
Why did the Post instantly remove those videos from the "Comments" section? To hide the evidence of its lying.
That's consciousness of guilt. The Post couldn't allow anyone to see those videos because then everyone would see that this is how Trump imitates any frightened person. Maybe he won't be hired by "Saturday Night Live" as a sketch comedian - and as you know, that show will hire almost anybody these days - but Trump did not "mock" a disabled man.
None of the media's other hysterical anti-Trump campaigns are getting any traction. Trump said a Hispanic judge was biased against him? It's hard for people to be outraged when our entire justice system is premised on the idea that all-white juries can't be trusted to deliver fair verdicts to black defendants.
Trump criticized a Gold Star Dad? Yes, but that Gold Star Dad also happened to be a snarling Muslim who took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in order to viciously lecture Trump, saying he has no right to venture opinions because his kid didn't die in Iraq. Khizr Khan isn't exactly a baby seal.
Trump called Hillary the "MVP" of ISIS? Most people didn't need the media's earnest "fact-checks" establishing beyond dispute that ISIS has not, in fact, given Hillary the MVP award. Nor "Most Improved." Nor "Best Spirit."
Of all things Trump has been accused of, the claim that he made fun of a disabled person is the only one that has hurt him - and justly so, if it were true. But now we know it was a big, fat, intentional lie by our guardians of truth and justice in the media.

_


----------



## eagle2250

^^Alas, Ann Coulter has proven nothing other than Trump is an equal opportunity insulter (of virtually anyone) and that essentially no one is safe from the mockery of this pathological simpleton...not very presidential, in any event!


----------



## SG_67

I give some benefit to someone willing to at least insult or otherwise mock someone publically than behind closed doors.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Perhaps, but...still "not very Presidential!" What have we come to as a country if Trump and Hillary are the very best we can do?


----------



## Shaver

Acerbic comments aimed at one's rivals may be made by even those considered the best of presidents:

"They remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But 'a living dog is better than a dead lion.' Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one"

- Honest Abe (referencing Ecclesiastes 9:4)
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67

We have a country where only 50% of the electorate votes, and that 50% is made up of a majority of people who get their news from late night comedians and satirists.


----------



## Tempest

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Alas, Ann Coulter has proven nothing other than Trump is an equal opportunity insulter (of virtually anyone) and that essentially no one is safe from the mockery of this pathological simpleton...not very presidential, in any event!


Any comments on her accusations about the press misleading, by omitting the other identical "impressions" of others in the same exact speech, the convenient press blackout on speaking video of the "mocked" reporter?

I rather prefer the real Trump to this pandering one we have this week. Hopefully it's just a phase. Luckily Hilliary has a new _supposedly_ anti-Trump ad, reminiscent of LBJ's Daisy ad against Goldwater level paranoia, to remind us of the man in top form.


----------



## Dhaller

Mike Petrik said:


> I think it is a bit more layered.
> First, I will bet serious dough that self-described conservatives are generally more knowledgeable about both history and current events than self-described liberals.


Oh, I don't think so - visit any university History department, and the vast majority of PhDs in History are going to be left-leaning. Educated people lean left.

What liberal folk do, regardless of educational level, that I find very counterproductive from any kind of real policy standpoint, is to look at the world _as they feel it should be_ rather than _as it actually is. _That's less "ignorance" than it is a species of incorrigibility. They are _idealists_, which is usually the worst kind of position to take in a world with real problems; this tendency rises to its apex in the "social justice" community, with its bizarre focus on the most minuscule of perceived injustices ("silence about black transwomen is racist, ableist, and violent!" while millions drop dead from malaria and starvation).

I'm a self-confessed admirer of Otto von Bismarck, a man who could Get it Done: _realpolitik. _That never seems to be on the table anymore, but frankly, the modern world is 19th Century enough to merit it.

Now, Trump, if he actually meant what he said, would be (an extraordinarily vulgar and crass) version of that kind of character - but of course Trump means nothing that he says (and may be, at best, semi-self-aware). So there's just no such candidate in American politics.

As for voters - when has there ever been a "high information" voting public? Democracy has always defaulted to charisma - always. How can it not?

DH


----------



## Dmontez

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Perhaps, but...still "not very Presidential!" What have we come to as a country if Trump and Hillary are the very best we can do?


Eagle, I've followed this thread pretty closely, and from what I keep seeing is that you just don't feel that Trump is "presidential" enough, now for arguments sake lets say the last 3-4 presidents were "presidential" enough, look at where that has gotten us today. Maybe it is time for a president that doesn't have a diplomatic answer for every question, someone that tells us like it is, rather than trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Bill Clinton is a rapist and adulterer, that's not very presidential.
George W. was an alcoholic and used cocaine, that's not very presidential
Obama counts terrorists as friends (Bill Ayers), that's not very presidential


----------



## Dhaller

Dmontez said:


> Eagle, I've followed this thread pretty closely, and from what I keep seeing is that you just don't feel that Trump is "presidential" enough, now for arguments sake lets say the last 3-4 presidents were "presidential" enough, look at where that has gotten us today. Maybe it is time for a president that doesn't have a diplomatic answer for every question, someone that tells us like it is, rather than trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
> 
> Bill Clinton is a rapist and adulterer, that's not very presidential.
> George W. was an alcoholic and used cocaine, that's not very presidential
> Obama counts terrorists as friends (Bill Ayers), that's not very presidential


Actually, counting terrorists as friends is probably pretty "Presidential" - a head of state is more likely to consort with villains than the man on the street!

As for Trump, he hardly "tells us like it is" (PolitiFact scores his "True" statements at 4%, and he essentially lies 85% of the time); he absolutely is a wool-puller, since his whole campaign strategy is "say whatever will generate buzz, positive, negative, it doesn't matter".

That said, "telling lies" isn't necessarily "un-Presidential", since maintaining national security - that it, lying as part of your job - is a key element of Presidential duty.

He's unpresidential because he's a loud, vulgar oaf.

DH


----------



## Dmontez

Dhaller said:


> Actually, counting terrorists as friends is probably pretty "Presidential" - a head of state is more likely to consort with villains than the man on the street!


There is no way the numbers would support that.



Dhaller said:


> As for Trump, he hardly "tells us like it is" (PolitiFact scores his "True" statements at 4%, and he essentially lies 85% of the time); he absolutely is a wool-puller, since his whole campaign strategy is "say whatever will generate buzz, positive, negative, it doesn't matter".


 I've never actually been to the website politifact, this is my first time, and when you click on people the first person you see is Donald Trump so I clicked his name and they have a feed there of 4 statements ranging from true to pants on fire. The one that was rated as "pants on fire" is an opinion that no one in the world could say is either true or false, yet politifact rates it as liar liar pants on fire. I would take whatever they say with a grain of salt.

What I mean when I say "tells us like it is" is that he speaks his mind however un-popular that may be.



Dhaller said:


> That said, "telling lies" isn't necessarily "un-Presidential", since maintaining national security - that it, lying as part of your job - is a key element of Presidential duty.


That is correct, I would say that as president you do have to keep some secrets, or lie to the General Public. I am more interested in behavior.



Dhaller said:


> He's unpresidential because he's a loud, vulgar oaf.


This makes the point I was getting at in my response to Eagle. He is loud, vulgar, and oaf, the opposite of the last 3, and look where that has gotten us today.


----------



## Tempest

How many times need I point out that the US has a long, proud history of Presidents that were not polite dainty little aristocrats, but garrulous and petulant me? I'll be lazy and say Teddy Roosevelt, but a large percentage of our leaders, and usually the better ones, were not timid but outspoken, and brazenly so.
I must also point out that is akin to women that vote for the taller or handsomer candidate. That's called jusdging a book by the cover. Looking or talking in an established, accepted style is just not enough. That is, as Dmontez points out, asking for copies of copies, a degeneration by pretenders and lackeys. This is the exact opposite of greatness and inspiration.


----------



## SG_67

^ What you call vulgar and loud, I call representing what many people feel about the way this country is going. 

Tell you what, we've tried cool, calm and hip for 8 years. It's gotten us little. 

I'd love someone to define "unpresidential" to me. What exactly does it mean? Does it mean lying to the American public about how legislation like the ACA works? 

Would dereliction of duty be an example, where a commander in chief calls a terrorist organization the JV team, when evidence suggested otherwise?

Is being paranoid and constant lying an example? As in so paranoid that you hide official email on a private server?


----------



## Tempest

I think "unpresidential" is a classist or elitist thing, like "not our kind, dear."
Paging Shaver! Would you agree that some have the hippy Jesus notion that one should always be a delicate soft-spoken man of peace and ignore the fact that real Jesus chased people out of His temple with a whip in righteous anger?


----------



## Tiger

Dhaller said:


> Oh, I don't think so - visit any university History department, and the vast majority of PhDs in History are going to be left-leaning. Educated people lean left.
> 
> As for voters - when has there ever been a "high information" voting public? Democracy has always defaulted to charisma - always. How can it not?DH


The vast majority of people in academia tend to be liberal; that's not quite the same as "educated people lean left."

"Democracy"? If the United States remained a confederated republic consisting of a very limited general government with the vast residuary of governmental power residing in the States (and their people), there would be greater filtering of the public's urge to engage in charismatic popularity contests. We might have experienced an effective blending of the will of the (qualified) citizenry and the guidance, leadership, and expertise of politicians with a modicum of integrity, as opposed to what we have now.


----------



## SG_67

Perhaps it's safer to say that education level is a strong predictor of whether someone will lean left vs. right. 

I'm sure it boils down to good old fashioned elitism. 

In my own world, there's an interesting divide between those in academic medicine and those in private practice. The academics lean strongly left. Private practice are somewhat more split roughly equivalent to the general population. 

The academics strongly support the ACA and even skew toward single payer.


----------



## eagle2250

Tempest said:


> Any comments on her accusations about the press misleading, by omitting the other identical "impressions" of others in the same exact speech, the convenient press blackout on speaking video of the "mocked" reporter?
> 
> ........


Ms Coulter was absolutely spot-on with her criticisms of America's "lame-stream media!" They have taken the concept of 'literary license ' to such an extreme that we don't see news reports nay more, but rather, news based entertainment. Walter Cronkite must be "turning over in his grave?" 



Dmontez said:


> Eagle, I've followed this thread pretty closely, and from what I keep seeing is that you just don't feel that Trump is "presidential" enough, now for arguments sake lets say the last 3-4 presidents were "presidential" enough, look at where that has gotten us today. Maybe it is time for a president that doesn't have a diplomatic answer for every question, someone that tells us like it is, rather than trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
> 
> Bill Clinton is a rapist and adulterer, that's not very presidential.
> George W. was an alcoholic and used cocaine, that's not very presidential
> Obama counts terrorists as friends (Bill Ayers), that's not very presidential


I understand your point, my friend, but you are largely comparing the past behaviors of past candidates/Presidents with the present day behaviors of Donald Trump, the candidate. You also are overlooking the intellectual disparities between two of the past occupants of the Oval Office that you cite and of "The Donald." In actual fact, The Donald is not much brighter than we are and I will freely admit that while I may have been privileged to do/experience a lot of things in my life, I would be no intellectual match for the demands of the Oval Office! The rest of you will need to speak for yourselfs on that count! I am in no way a fan of Trump or Obama, but they enjoy intellectual gifts way beyond my own and those of oh-so-many others, including George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Sadly, we really were not all created equal! :teacha:


----------



## SG_67

I honestly don't get where the whole Obama being such an intellectual comes from. 

He appears quite myopic and not curious to consider a world beyond which he understands. A hallmark of a small mind. 

He talks pretty though. Perhaps some conflate that with intelligence.


----------



## Tempest

I think Trump is akin to Harvard-educated Bill O'Reilly in trying to present himself as an everyman despite a fairly privileged upbringing. Wharton is nothing to sneeze at, still Ivy League if one cares about such things.
Shall we mention that JFK had LBJ as VP? I also rather cringe at the notion that practically anyone fails to live up to the intellectual rigor of cokehead/drunk playboy cowboy Bush Jr. Shall we compare their business enterprises and respective successes? _*edit* The last sentence is based on a misreading of Eagle2250's post, but the sentiment remains_
Were Trump to use eloquent hifalutin speech, he'd be a modern Goldwater. The one apt comparison to Hitler is that both knew to appeal to the underclass and not pander to the elite.


----------



## zzdocxx




----------



## eagle2250

Tempest said:


> I think Trump is akin to Harvard-educated Bill O'Reilly in trying to present himself as an everyman despite a fairly privileged upbringing. Wharton is nothing to sneeze at, still Ivy League if one cares about such things.
> Shall we mention that JFK had LBJ as VP? I also rather cringe at the notion that practically anyone fails to live up to the intellectual rigor of cokehead/drunk playboy cowboy Bush Jr. Shall we compare their business enterprises and respective successes?
> Were Trump to use eloquent hifalutin speech, he'd be a modern Goldwater. The one apt comparison to Hitler is that both knew to appeal to the underclass and not pander to the elite.


No one has suggested that Trump, nor anyone else, is not the intellectual equal of Bush, but that he (Trump) clearly does not enjoy the IQ of Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. The fact is that he just does not! You seem to be reading words/claims that just are not there (in the earlier posts to which you refer). :icon_scratch:


----------



## Tempest

Rereading in the later morning, I see the phrases that did not register earlier. I am happy to count one less GWB apologist in my mind.

I'm not sure what that song was about. It seems that JJ Neville is a florist outside the US? Folk music obviously needs to be made great again. Anyway, let me know if anyone else notices what I did about the imagery when he sings "...the future of the country."

Also, here's a fine short video of Cinton sounding a lot like Trump on immigration up till very recently.


Spoiler


----------



## SG_67

^ Again, beyond talking pretty where does this notion that Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama are these intellectual heavy weights? 

Sure they have quite a way with words but beyond that their sole skill seems to have been the ability to get people to vote for them.


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> No one has suggested that Trump, nor anyone else, is not the intellectual equal of Bush, but that he (Trump) clearly does not enjoy the IQ of Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. The fact is that he just does not! You seem to be reading words/claims that just are not there (in the earlier posts to which you refer). :icon_scratch:


I sometimes think that the chattering classes have convinced Americans that verbal dexterity is the same as intelligence.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> I sometimes think that the chattering classes have convinced Americans that verbal dexterity is the same as intelligence.


<looks around shiftily and coughs with embarrasment>

Joking aside, I suspect that verbal dexterity is a signifier of intellectual capacity- one's ability to analyse (and influence) the external domain being acutely linked to the internal processing and manipulation of information and ideas- with words being the tangible symbols of imagination, the distillation of thought, the very essence of communication (both expression and comprehension) the greater the volume allowing for the sharper nuance. If I may say so, Mike, you are no slouch in this arena yourself.

However, what passes for verbal dexterity amongst politicians may be more properly considered as slyness- not the same thing at all.


----------



## SG_67

^ Which is all fine and dandy for the debate club. Savants, too, appear incredibly intelligent at least on the surface.


----------



## sbdivemaster

eagle2250 said:


> No one has suggested that Trump, nor anyone else, is not the intellectual equal of Bush, but that *he (Trump) clearly does not enjoy the IQ of Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. The fact is that he just does not!* You seem to be reading words/claims that just are not there (in the earlier posts to which you refer). :icon_scratch:


I have to chime in here. This is something that really bothered me in 2008.

You mention "fact"...

Tell us, what is Barack Obama's IQ? Not some wonk's estimate based on speeches or whatnot. The actual IQ score from a valid IQ exam.

Tell us, what is George W. Bush's IQ? Not some wonk's estimate based on speeches or whatnot. The actual IQ score from a valid IQ exam.

Tell us, what is Donald Trump's IQ? Not some wonk's estimate based on speeches or whatnot. The actual IQ score from a valid IQ exam.


----------



## SG_67

^ I recall getting out a chuckle during the 2004 campaign when it was shown that GW actually had a higher GPA at Yale than did John Kerry.


----------



## eagle2250

SG_67 said:


> ^ Again, beyond talking pretty where does this notion that Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama are these intellectual heavy weights?
> 
> Sure they have quite a way with words but beyond that their sole skill seems to have been the ability to get people to vote for them.





Mike Petrik said:


> I sometimes think that the chattering classes have convinced Americans that verbal dexterity is the same as intelligence.


A website, www.worklifestyle.com, several weeks back reported on the smartest and dumbest US Presidents and present day candidates for said office. The results relevant to this present conversation were as follows:

President Clinton, IQ 156
President Obama, IQ 145
Hillary Clinton, IQ 140
George W. Bush, IQ 124
Donald Trump, IQ 120 to 130, attributing the reflected numerical uncertainty to the fact the Donald has kept his educational transcripts tightly under wraps!

Say what you will, but the nunbers speak for themselves.


----------



## SG_67

^ and clearly with such a high IQ Bill Clinton couldn't figure out that sex with a White House intern was a bad idea. 

By the way, the link is corrupt.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
I've never argued that Bill Clinton is not an old hound dog, blessed with the moral fiber of the antichrist, but he and Obama are both intellectually more gifted than "The Donald!"

BTW, what do you mean corrupt...infected with a virus, or something else? If such be the case I will delete the link. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> ^ and clearly with such a high IQ Bill Clinton couldn't figure out that sex with a White House intern was a bad idea.
> 
> By the way, the link is corrupt.


Corrupted or not, I'll bet serious money that these figures are entirely fabricated -- i.e., manufactured by one or more self-styled soft science "experts" based on a their own admixture of highly questionable objective and subjective criteria (which no doubt coincidentally align nicely with their self-perception of their own skill sets).


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> <looks around shiftily and coughs with embarrasment>
> 
> Joking aside, I suspect that verbal dexterity is a signifier of intellectual capacity- one's ability to analyse (and influence) the external domain being acutely linked to the internal processing and manipulation of information and ideas- with words being the tangible symbols of imagination, the distillation of thought, the very essence of communication (both expression and comprehension) the greater the volume allowing for the sharper nuance. If I may say so, Mike, you are no slouch in this arena yourself.
> 
> However, what passes for verbal dexterity amongst politicians may be more properly considered as slyness- not the same thing at all.


Thank you Shaver, but just because a skill is somewhat correlative to intelligence, does not remotely render it highly predictive let alone synonymous. I personally know many verbally dexterous men and women who are simply glib, and several true geniuses who are routinely tongue-tied.


----------



## Dmontez

Everything on the Internet is true, right?



I'd say it's safe to say that the numbers a fabricated to get clicks and be referenced by specific groups of people. Left leaning sites say 43s IQ IS 91 and 44s IQ is 130, while a right leaning site would flip flop those numbers.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
But, my friend, what does your preferred website report Donald Trumps IQ to be? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

Did these people actually take an IQ test? I've never taken one nor have I been required to as a matter of academic requirement.

This is interesting from Stanford:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/wais/Politics/politics_bush062704.htm

These "IQ scores" are derived based on number crunching from multiple sources and wholly unscientific. Interesting how the top 3 are all Dems.

Assuming Wikipedia is somewhat accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax


----------



## Dmontez

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> But, my friend, what does your preferred website report Donald Trumps IQ to be? :icon_scratch:


Quite frankly I've never looked up anyone's actual IQ and I don't care to.

Unless a sitting president is a Mensa member I doubt we will ever have an accurate number.

I care much less about IQ scores than I do about the message behind a campaign.


----------



## Dhaller

SG_67 said:


> Did these people actually take an IQ test? I've never taken one nor have I been required to as a matter of academic requirement.
> 
> This is interesting from Stanford:
> https://web.stanford.edu/group/wais/Politics/politics_bush062704.htm
> 
> These "IQ scores" are derived based on number crunching from multiple sources and wholly unscientific. Interesting how the top 3 are all Dems.
> 
> Assuming Wikipedia is somewhat accurate:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax


Good Lord, what a meaningless project! I hope it didn't siphon any money off a grant somewhere (hah!)

"Intelligence" is a slippery enough thing in a perfectly controlled environment with willing subject sitting for actual testing, and even then "intelligence" is hotly contested as to what it actually is - but anecdotal guesses down to units digits? Silly.

(I mean, one can sweepingly say that Erasmus, Saint Augustine, Da Vinci, etc. were "intelligent", but only in handswept assertion.)

Clinton, 182. Huh.

DH


----------



## sbdivemaster

eagle2250 said:


> A website, www.worklifestyle.com, several weeks back reported on the smartest and dumbest US Presidents and present day candidates for said office. The results relevant to this present conversation were as follows:
> 
> President Clinton, IQ 156
> President Obama, IQ 145
> Hillary Clinton, IQ 140
> George W. Bush, IQ 124
> Donald Trump, IQ 120 to 130, attributing the reflected numerical uncertainty to the fact the Donald has kept his educational transcripts tightly under wraps!
> 
> Say what you will, but the nunbers speak for themselves.


Remember the part about "not some wonk's estimate"?

Without the three individuals taking the same IQ exam administered in the same manner to each individual, none of us have any idea what their relevant IQ scores are.

Those numbers are absolutely useless. Your argument regarding the relative IQ scores of the individuals mentioned remains completely unfounded.


----------



## jfo2010

SG_67 said:


> Did these people actually take an IQ test? I've never taken one nor have I been required to as a matter of academic requirement.
> 
> This is interesting from Stanford:
> https://web.stanford.edu/group/wais/Politics/politics_bush062704.htm
> 
> These "IQ scores" are derived based on number crunching from multiple sources and wholly unscientific. Interesting how the top 3 are all Dems.
> 
> Assuming Wikipedia is somewhat accurate:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax


Democratic science

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

sbdivemaster said:


> Remember the part about "not some wonk's estimate"?
> 
> Without the three individuals taking the same IQ exam administered in the same manner to each individual, none of us have any idea what their relevant IQ scores are.
> 
> Those numbers are absolutely useless. Your argument regarding the relative IQ scores of the individuals mentioned remains completely unfounded.


LOL. Well let's not kill the messenger! I'm simply repeating what has been pulled off the Yahoo news feed.Though I will concede there may be some legitimate criticisms of the process used to come up with the results.


----------



## Tempest

I prefer to think of the science world, where the best brains are the ones that are able to explain complex things in layman's terms. Quite frequently, reliance on buzzwords, jargon, and other circumlocution (ding!) are smokescreens meant to impress and cover other deficiencies.

I'm not so sure any executive needs excess intelligence to be honest, and it can be detrimental. Executives decide and delegate. I get the philosopher king thing, but think too deeply and nothing gets done. A simpler man can skip the fine points and make sound decisions quickly, if well advised.

That is the issue to watch. Does Trump choose smart people and heed their advice? The first part I'm not worried about. He is confident and does not worry about people smarter than him being a threat, as he does not think there is such a thing. How well he takes advisement is debatable. And honestly, a certain amount of resistance to suggestion is not all bad in my book. Hillary will certainly listen to (or serve) anyone who comes by with some cash, or some useful connections. Trump has a spine and is more incorruptible. 
The jury is still out on whether he can be counted on to heed good advice while standing his ground against ill advisement.


----------



## SG_67

^ We have a "philosopher king" thingy now. Look at what that has gotten us. 

I remember a few years ago stories about how Obama was consulting the writings of "Just War" theorists. 

BHO is a typical academic. As romantic as the philosopher king/academic POTUS sounds, it's an utterly useless quality to have in a leader as it leads to fecklessness and indecision. It also leads to miscalculation as the academic typically will assume that his/her opponents think like he does. They've never really had adversaries. 

So we get the Russia reset, the Iran deal as well as a bevy of other foreign policy disasters. Couple that with a failed domestic agenda, with the ACA leading the charge, and we see where this mythical high IQ gets us.


----------



## culverwood

SG_67 and Tempest. Do you think that Trump is the most suitable candidate in the Republican party to fill the Presidential role? I know he won the race but is he the best Republican for the job?


----------



## Tempest

Out of the actual primary candidates, Rand Paul and Trump were the only ones I'd even consider. Despite my party registration, I am of the alt-right opinion that Republicans are generally just slower-acting Democrats. Most utterly fail to strike me as conservative. To quote Gavin McInnes "Many conservatives see the Republicans as used car salesmen who will happily sell America out if it means more votes and power." I'd say "Most...have happily sold out... and still didn't get..."

I'm used to voting third party, usually Libertarian, in national elections because GOP candidates usually are not worth my vote. Now the Libertarian candidate is a PC idiot, so that's out.
Surely there exist a handful of eligible Republicans that would be better but did not run. Trump is the best to have stepped up this round.

I also have to point out that Hillary is obviously an extremely terrible candidate, but most are too timid to raise that point.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Thank you Shaver, but just because a skill is somewhat correlative to intelligence, does not remotely render it highly predictive let alone synonymous. I personally know many verbally dexterous men and women who are simply glib, and several true geniuses who are routinely tongue-tied.


I imagine that we may yet share a measure of agreement here if we are able to acknowledge that the mere semblance of verbal dexterity (as it may be perceived by those whose abilities are perhaps less adroit) such as slyness or indeed, as you have noted, glibness - are not necessarily indicative of intelligence.

A sociopath may exhibit a reasonably convincing (to some) range of authentic emotion but truly is capable of little more than desire and rage. The nature of things is in the habit of concealing itself (Heraclitus fragment 123).

You are quite correct, verbal dexterity need not exhibit itself as a spoken skill for it is equally valid as a solely written skill. One's verbal dexterity being an intrinsically internal talent for which the medium of externalisation is irrelevant, even unnecessary, but if necessary, it is less relevant than its ultimately successful communication.

All of this said, I remain convinced that genuine verbal dexterity is a sure and certain signifier of intellectual capacity. How could it ever be otherwise?


----------



## culverwood

I have known professors who are relatively tongue tied compared to some sharp witted city boy. Perhaps verbal dexterity is a signifier of intellectual capacity but it does not mean that those without verbal dexterity are necessarily less intelligent.


----------



## Shaver

^ As per paragraph 3 of my post # 1394, verbal must not be confused with vocal.


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> I think "unpresidential" is a classist or elitist thing, like "not our kind, dear."
> Paging Shaver! Would you agree that some have the hippy Jesus notion that one should always be a delicate soft-spoken man of peace and ignore the fact that real Jesus chased people out of His temple with a whip in righteous anger?


Aww Tempest, old boy, I am committed to exhibit my very best behaviour currently so am therefore obliged to decline your kind invite to participate in what could be a very satisfying topic for discussion.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> I imagine that we may yet share a measure of agreement here if we are able to acknowledge that the mere semblance of verbal dexterity (as it may be perceived by those whose abilities are perhaps less adroit) such as slyness or indeed, as you have noted, glibness - are not necessarily indicative of intelligence.
> 
> A sociopath may exhibit a reasonably convincing (to some) range of authentic emotion but truly is capable of little more than desire and rage. The nature of things is in the habit of concealing itself (Heraclitus fragment 123).
> 
> You are quite correct, verbal dexterity need not exhibit itself as a spoken skill for it is equally valid as a solely written skill. One's verbal dexterity being an intrinsically internal talent for which the medium of externalisation is irrelevant, even unnecessary, but if necessary, it is less relevant than its ultimately successful communication.
> 
> All of this said, I remain convinced that genuine verbal dexterity is a sure and certain signifier of intellectual capacity. How could it ever be otherwise?


I agree with this, especially the written versus oral distinction. I also note that the word "signifier" is well-chosen one insomuch as it allows for imperfect correlations.

The point of my initial post was that the widely held impression that our current President is an exceptionally intelligent man is grounded chiefly in his aptitude for glibness. He might well be very intelligent, but there is little in his record, when fairly and carefully examined, that is dispositive on that point.


----------



## sbdivemaster

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Well let's not kill the messenger! *I'm simply repeating what has been pulled off the Yahoo news feed*.Though I will concede there may be some legitimate criticisms of the process used to come up with the results.


No, you said it was "fact".



eagle2250 said:


> he (Trump) clearly does not enjoy the IQ of Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. The *fact* is that he just does not!


None of us knows the IQ score of any those individuals.

The only fact in this situation is that we have no idea of any of their IQ scores. So, there is zero basis for your saying that it is a fact.


----------



## SG_67

culverwood said:


> SG_67 and Tempest. Do you think that Trump is the most suitable candidate in the Republican party to fill the Presidential role? I know he won the race but is he the best Republican for the job?


Did you ask the same thing of John McCain or Mitt Romney? They lost. Why is it that with Trump this has to be a question.

This goes to the heart of the problem with the anti-Trump crowd; they somehow deny that he's legitimate. Questions as to his suitability for the job and his temperament seem to be _de rigueur _when commenting on Trump.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Did you ask the same thing of John McCain or Mitt Romney? They lost. Why is it that with Trump this has to be a question.
> 
> This goes to the heart of the problem with the anti-Trump crowd; they somehow deny that he's legitimate. Questions as to his suitability for the job and his temperament seem to be _de rigueur _when commenting on Trump.


Just because they are de rigeuer does not mean they are not warranted. The man behaves like a toddler. The fact that a reasonable case can be made that he nonetheless represents a better option than his Democratic opponent speaks volumes about his opponent as well as the state of our nation.


----------



## Tempest

Bah, I prefer to view him as a more vocal John Wayne. He's an old school man's man in an effeminate decadent world. Admittedly he's tainted by internet culture, but otherwise I think his temperament has more in common with the people whose faces grace our currency than most wish to acknowledge.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> Just because they are de rigeuer does not mean they are not warranted. The man behaves like a toddler. The fact that a reasonable case can be made that he nonetheless represents a better option than his Democratic opponent speaks volumes about his opponent as well as the state of our nation.


Like an infant? hardly. He may not conform to what some consider proper behavior but there does seem to be quite a bit of pearl clutching going on, particularly on the part of the media.

I'd rather have a guy who drops the f-bomb now and then than someone who has absolutely no core or center.

Can anyone even summarize in one or two sentences HRC's rationale for wanting to be POTUS?


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> Can anyone even summarize in one or two sentences HRC's rationale for wanting to be POTUS?


I'm a woman, I put up with my husband, and I deserved it eight years ago. Gimme gimme gimme gimme, I want to be President now while I can still sort of walk and talk!

Otherwise, ask the people funding her campaign.


----------



## 16412

Tempest said:


> I'm a woman, I put up with my husband, and I deserved it eight years ago. Gimme gimme gimme gimme, I want to be President now while I can still sort of walk and talk!
> 
> Otherwise, ask the people funding her campaign.


Do you even thinks she cares if Bill is having sex with other women? I don't think she has ever cared. No doubt she has know about his doings long before he was president.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> Aww Tempest, old boy, I am committed to exhibit my very best behaviour currently so am therefore obliged to decline your kind invite to participate in what could be a very satisfying topic for discussion.


Haha, funny, you run. You ask me to start a thread on the subject. But, you are already defeated. Christianity is a huge subject. And people see different things about it. For example, some say love love love, but what about the lake of fire hell is that he will be sending disbelievers to?

On another subject about communication. It is said that some of the best artist are geniuses and yet they would fail miserably on iq test. Perhaps they think and communicate with Art. If a picture is worth a thousand words, and the picture can be adapted numerous times, instantly, and other pictures flashed through the mind, how many words are we talking about in just one minute? Can you think that fast with words alone?


----------



## Tempest

WA said:


> Do you even thinks she cares if Bill is having sex with other women? I don't think she has ever cared. No doubt she has know about his doings long before he was president.


Since you ask, I'd bet that she knew what was up and accepted it as a tradeoff, but she can't be happy about it becoming a public humiliation. Thus, she feels she deserves more.


----------



## 16412

Just exactly how dumb is Trump from turning a measly million into how many billions, whatever it is, that he has? How many have started out with more and done less. And, what is the best way to go into a meeting to make a deal? Already determined when you really don't know what's going to be on the table? Or, with an opened mind? I think Obama is locked in his little box, and look how his deals are going with Putin. Obama is losing. How can he be losing if Obama was dealt a far better hand? Obama's iq is not very high.


----------



## 16412

Tempest said:


> Since you ask, I'd bet that she knew what was up and accepted it as a tradeoff, but she can't be happy about it becoming a public humiliation. Thus, she feels she deserves more.


She probably knew about it before he was governor. Public humiliation can be a tool.


----------



## SG_67

^ The deal, whether explicit or implied, was always that he could do as he pleased as long as he didn't humiliate her. Obviously he didn't hold up his end of the agreement.


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> Haha, funny, you run. You ask me to start a thread on the subject. But, you are already defeated. Christianity is a huge subject. And people see different things about it. For example, some say love love love, but what about the lake of fire hell is that he will be sending disbelievers to?
> 
> On another subject about communication. It is said that some of the best artist are geniuses and yet they would fail miserably on iq test. Perhaps they think and communicate with Art. If a picture is worth a thousand words, and the picture can be adapted numerous times, instantly, and other pictures flashed through the mind, how many words are we talking about in just one minute? Can you think that fast with words alone?


An incident occurred between the one event and the other, the nature of which is best left undisclosed. However, please do not delude yourself that I am not game for the discussion. Perhaps at a later date?


----------



## 16412

I was joking Shaver. Your not that easy to quit. Perhaps another time. More curious about your views, anyway. That is the religious views.


----------



## FLMike

WA said:


> I was joking Shaver. Your not that easy to quit. Perhaps another time. More curious about your views, anyway. That is the religious views.


I saw it asked before, but don't recall having seen it answered......is English your first language? I am honestly curious.


----------



## 16412

The only language.
Grammar and spelling never stays in my mind long when writing. Speaking, people say the grammar is fine. But when I have to think of punctuation, word placement and spelling as is needed for writing.... Since writing is slower than speaking, that adds problems, like keeping up with the thoughts is one. I guess I should be writing summarlies of the visual calculations. If anyone ask for details, there are more details than I can usually write about. There are so many reasons for everything in the visual world. Clothes are the visual world. In school my writing was much better. After school I never pursued jobs that needed writing. Not a person who like to sit and look at four walls.


----------



## zzdocxx

Tempest said:


> Rereading in the later morning, I see the phrases that did not register earlier. I am happy to count one less GWB apologist in my mind.
> 
> I'm not sure what that song was about. It seems that JJ Neville is a florist outside the US? Folk music obviously needs to be made great again. Anyway, let me know if anyone else notices what I did about the imagery when he sings "...the future of the country."


Thanks for listening and commenting. I just gave the video guy some ideas and they ran with it, I don't totally get some of the images and timing either.

No, not a Canadian florist, they just happen to have the same name.

:chinese:

irate:


----------



## Tempest

Am I the only one to think that HRC's "basket of deplorables" comment, like almost all attacks on Trump, will end up being an inadvertent and successful recruiting tool for him? I see it as a wonderful polarization that should push some of those hating both candidates over to be against her. Most that can stand Hilliary ar already fully on board with her, but the wafflers can be picked up if she repels them hard enough. I know I'm gleeful that she finds me deplorable. Judge a man by the quality of his enemies.


----------



## eagle2250

Polarizing the electoral base sadly hateful rhetoric can be a horrendously destructive and decidedly unpleasant way to win an election and it is certainly no way to successfully run a "great nation!"


----------



## SG_67

Interesting how it's usually the Dems who, while railing against racism and homophobia, are always the ones who continue to bring it up in campaigns. 

I think we could easily find multiple public statements made by Dems that show just what they think of Americans who don't agree with them. HRC's comments are just the latest. 

2008 - Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment
2016 - Pelosi and the "3 G's" comment 

This really is a party that is disconnected from regular people.


----------



## Tempest

eagle2250 said:


> Polarizing the electoral base sadly hateful rhetoric can be a horrendously destructive and decidedly unpleasant way to win an election and it is certainly no way to successfully run a "great nation!"


I disagree. Had we tepid parties with little difference, this would be a commendable notion. If, as I do, you feel that at least one party is extremist and dangerous, the only recourse is to counter equally hard or harder. To do otherwise is to go into negotiations soft, with a weak starting position that will be compromised. We don't currently have the luxury of moderation; it is time to be Machiavellian. Democrats have had great successes largely because they were brazen enough to make outrageous demands until they won, and then parlay ad infinitum.
The DR3 (Dems R Real Racists) theme is certainly true, and made by Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. Unfortunately, it is a terrible attack strategy because it is trying to beat Democrats at their own game.


----------



## FLMike

WA said:


> The only language.
> Grammar and spelling never stays in my mind long when writing. Speaking, people say the grammar is fine. But when I have to think of punctuation, word placement and spelling as is needed for writing.... Since writing is slower than speaking, that adds problems, like keeping up with the thoughts is one. I guess I should be writing summarlies of the visual calculations. If anyone ask for details, there are more details than I can usually write about. There are so many reasons for everything in the visual world. Clothes are the visual world. In school my writing was much better. After school I never pursued jobs that needed writing. Not a person who like to sit and look at four walls.


Thank you for that explanation.


----------



## eagle2250

Tempest said:


> I disagree. Had we tepid parties with little difference, this would be a commendable notion. If, as I do, you feel that at least one party is extremist and dangerous, the only recourse is to counter equally hard or harder. To do otherwise is to go into negotiations soft, with a weak starting position that will be compromised. We don't currently have the luxury of moderation; it is time to be Machiavellian. Democrats have had great successes largely because they were brazen enough to make outrageous demands until they won, and then parlay ad infinitum.
> The DR3 (Dems R Real Racists) theme is certainly true, and made by Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. Unfortunately, it is a terrible attack strategy because it is trying to beat Democrats at their own game.


I sincerely hope you are not saying one cannot embrace political, or other differences, without abandoning our individual sense of humanity. Is it not possible to disagree with another and still respect and be friends with them. Granted our present day party candidates are each insufficiently mature to do so, but I do hope and pray most of the rest of us are more mature than that! Frankly I am embarrassed by both of those fools. My best hope for this Country that I love so much, is that we will be able to survive the presumed idiot or the unindicted criminal/liar, whichever might prevail is this, apparently, Godforsaken political disaster of a Presidential election, just as we have survived others like them in the past!


----------



## Dmontez

Anyone see this video of HRC dragged back into her motorcade after "overheating" at 9/11 memorial.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775003281462394880


----------



## Tempest

eagle2250 said:


> Is it not possible to disagree with another and still respect and be friends with them.


To a point. There is certainly a level of profound disagreement on vital matters where enmity is warranted and even demanded. Many on both sides feel we are very much at that point and I can't say they are wrong.


Dmontez said:


> Anyone see this video of HRC dragged back into her motorcade after "overheating" at 9/11 memorial.


Shockingly, I saw it on a teaser for the local news. Those claiming that her failing health could not remain hidden for long may be proven right. Unless several other people also "overheated" that explanation will be a tough sell.
Oh boy, this is Weekend at Bernies bad. She lost her shoe!


Spoiler







The spin is that she "slipped" but she was leaning and being supported and stumbling beforehand. She's toast.


----------



## Chouan

She has pneumonia, yet another fault. How much lower can she stoop?


----------



## Tempest

Oh please. Have you read this Dr. Lisa Bardack statement?


Spoiler



"Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies," Dr. Lisa R. Bardack said in the statement. "On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia. She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule. While at this morning's event, she became overheated and dehydrated. I have just examined her and she is now re-hydrated and recovering nicely."


1. She's hacking up lungs because of "allergies."
2. Diagnosed on Friday, told to resume her normal one day on, three days bedrest schedule.
3. HRC ignores this, goes out in her diseased state for a public appearance, a fine sign of good judgment.
4. Despite it being a breezy day that topped out at 85 degrees, she "overheats" but stays in her suit jacket.
5. She also is too stupid too remember to drink water. Animals are smarter than this. She has a staff that can pour water in her within seconds.
6. She bails early, real early - 9:45am - and leans on anything and everyone, overheating in her suit jacket, dehydrated but not drinking water until she stumbles into a van dropping a shoe behind.

This is fishy as can be even if anybody found Clinton credible in the first place. _At best_, HRC is a nitwit that makes bad decisions and imperils her own health (and that of others). Credit to Trump for being slick and disciplined enough to be silent on this issue and let everyone figure it out on their own first. As seen above, it will take longer for some, but the public sees through this.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> She has pneumonia, yet another fault. How much lower can she stoop?


I would be inclined to accept that at face value were it not for her being incredibly secretive, paranoid and not to mention a pathological liar.

Yes, the first place I'd want to go to if I had pneumonia and was collapsing into someone else's arms because I could not stand on my own is Chelsea's apartment as well. God forbid a hospital as that might invite some well needed media scrutiny.

Of course, knowing how Chelsea likely profits just as much from "The Foundation" as her parents, the apartment is probably decked out with some pretty fancy medical equipment. Including one of those machines that go "ping"!


----------



## Tempest

Haha, we've all had those bugs that make it so we can't even lift our feet and then later that day prance around yelling about how we feel great!
It happens!


Spoiler



<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fVC9qWeMW8" target="_blank">






How dare anyone think that a woman is prone to spells or worse.
_O.K.
Just a little pin prickk
There'll be no more aaaaaaaah!
But you may feel a little sick

Can you stand up?
I do believe it's working, good
That'll keep you going through the show
Come on, it's time to go._


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> She has pneumonia, yet another fault. How much lower can she stoop?


ah yes, mother Hillary has spoken how dare we question her, or her doctors.


----------



## SG_67

Dmontez said:


> ah yes, mother Hillary has spoken how dare we question her, or her doctors.


Trump's MD was labeled as out of touch because he still had Windows XP on his computer. His assessment of Trump was mocked.

Yet, HRC's physician is beyond reproach?

By the way, pneumonia is not something to be taken lightly. People die from it.


----------



## Dmontez

SG_67 said:


> Trump's MD was labeled as out of touch because he still had Windows XP on his computer. His assessment of Trump was mocked.
> 
> Yet, HRC's physician is beyond reproach?
> 
> By the way, pneumonia is not something to be taken lightly. People die from it.


I completely agree.

Its my belief that the pneumonia diagnosis is a complete crock, in a week or two they are going to come out and say HRC is 70 years old and beat pneumonia this is a fatal disease for people of this age, and she beat it. She is in outstanding health.

I want to know what drugs were given to her to make her go from cant move, cant stand up, to prancing around all by herself.

now we have a mysterious piece of metal that has fallen out of her trousers.


----------



## 16412

Here is an interesting YouTube of Hillary.
Don't know how true it is.
At the end they say Obama could have a third term, which I don't think is possible.


----------



## Tempest

At the end of this article about the incredibly awesome Martin Shkreli showing up to heckle Clinton (and echo SG's belief that "...That apartment is an advanced medical facility") we learn that he has endorsed Trump.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...llary-clinton-daughter-home-article-1.2787500

I do like the theory that she is wearing these odd blue sunglasses for their presumed effect on Parkinsonian Dyskinesia.


----------



## Shaver

Dmontez said:


> ah yes, mother Hillary has spoken how dare we question her, or her doctors.


Hilary puts me in mind of a less classy version of the fictional totalitarian eternal matriarch Nicole Thibodeaux.

Ubik help us all.


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> Haha, we've all had those bugs that make it so we can't even lift our feet and then later that day prance around yelling about how we feel great!
> It happens!
> How dare anyone think that a woman is prone to spells or worse.
> _O.K.
> Just a little pin prickk
> There'll be no more aaaaaaaah!
> But you may feel a little sick
> 
> Can you stand up?
> I do believe it's working, good
> That'll keep you going through the show
> Come on, it's time to go._


Oddly enough - this was my very first thought also.



Spoiler


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> She has pneumonia, yet another fault. How much lower can she stoop?


It would be easier to sympathise with her if she could refrain from characterising those who would consider voting against her as deplorable racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and islamophobic morons. All of which is made even more piquant when contrasted with her adulation of the odious Bob Byrd.

.
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67

Everything is fine! Nothing to see here.

https://www.businessinsider.com/r-f...heese-makers-in-rare-public-appearance-2015-7


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> It would be easier to sympathise with her if she could refrain from characterising those who would consider voting against her as deplorable racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and islamophobic morons. All of which is made even more piquant when contrasted with her adulation of the odious Bob Byrd.


Even if they are! Please don't mistake my expressed views of Trump as support for Clinton..... Our American colleagues have a depressing choice to make.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Even if they are! Please don't mistake my expressed views of Trump as support for Clinton..... Our American colleagues have a depressing choice to make.


Then as I've said before, thank goodness you don't number amongst our citizenry.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> *Even if they are!* Please don't mistake my expressed views of Trump as support for Clinton..... Our American colleagues have a depressing choice to make.


If Hillary is so utterly disgusted with her countrymen then why run for the highest office?

"Fate chose me to govern swine, in my old age, I have become a swineherd" - Tiberius


----------



## eagle2250

Absolute Truth's, given what has passed during this disaster of a Presidential election campaign:

1. I will vote in November, as I have yet to miss such an opportunity since becoming of age.

2. I do not see myself voting for Hillary under any foreseeable circumstance(s).

3. Should I find myself being forced by circumstance to vote for Trump, I shall reluctantly do so with a very heavy and troubled heart!

4. If the Democrats were to get smart and dump Hillary, replacing her with Joe Biden, I would vote for Joe...and frankly, I could never have imagined that happening before this travesty of an electoral process!

5. Back in the 1960's, when some were running off to Canada to avoid the draft, I voluntarily signed on the dotted line and first donned my uniform. Considering the possibility of either Hillary or 'the Donald' sitting in the Oval office, I find myself wondering if it is too late to run off to Canada?

Jeez Louise, in some ill defined, bizarre context, this has got to be the "beginning of the end times!" :crazy:


----------



## Dmontez

eagle2250 said:


> . If the Democrats were to get smart and dump Hillary, replacing her with Joe Biden, I would vote for Joe...and frankly, I could never have imagined that happening before this travesty of an electoral process!


Joe has come out and said that he is not fit to be president. start watching at about 3:20 https://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-...49/vice-president-joe-biden-interview-part-2/


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Then as I've said before, thank goodness you don't number amongst our citizenry.


My feelings exactly!


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> 1. I will vote in November, as I have yet to miss such an opportunity since becoming of age.
> 
> 2. I do not see myself voting for Hillary under any foreseeable circumstance(s).
> 
> 3. Should I find myself being forced by circumstance to vote for Trump, I shall reluctantly do so with a very heavy and troubled heart!


Exactly, though I have not dismissed the options of voting down ticket only or for a more qualified alternative candidate such as a random neighbor. 
And thank you for your service, Eagle.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> Back in the 1960's, when some were running off to Canada to avoid the draft, I voluntarily signed on the dotted line and first donned my uniform. Considering the possibility of either Hillary or 'the Donald' sitting in the Oval office, I find myself wondering if it is too late to run off to Canada?
> 
> Jeez Louise, in some ill defined, bizarre context, this has got to be the "beginning of the end times!" :crazy:


I do wonder sometimes, given the ages of so many US politicians, that so many of them chose to avoid their supposedly compulsory "patriotic chore", yet seem to have avoided the opprobrium that avoiding conscription, when so many others didn't, should have brought. 
That Trump avoided conscription, despite being able to play sports, seems to be regarded as nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I do wonder sometimes, given the ages of so many US politicians, that so many of them chose to avoid their supposedly compulsory "patriotic chore", yet seem to have avoided the opprobrium that avoiding conscription, when so many others didn't, should have brought.
> That Trump avoided conscription, despite being able to play sports, seems to be regarded as nothing to be concerned about.


Among young men of that age, particularly young men of privilege, this was not uncommon. Trump, Bill Clinton, GWB as well as others. They all avoided serving directly either by entering into the National Guard or getting a college deferment.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Among young men of that age, particularly young men of privilege, this was not uncommon. Trump, Bill Clinton, GWB as well as others. They all avoided serving directly either by entering into the National Guard or getting a college deferment.


Yet avoiding the responsibilities that less well-off people could not avoid doesn't seem to have done them any harm, politically, or indeed, socially.


----------



## SG_67

^ I'm not arguing its merits, simply stating a fact. 

People have short memories and Vietnam was 40-50 years ago now. 

It's a new generation and that generation is in its winter. 

The same holds true with smoking pot. It's not that big a deal anymore. 

All the more reason why I was immediately distrustful of Bill Clinton when he said he never inhaled.


----------



## Dhaller

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm not arguing its merits, simply stating a fact.
> 
> People have short memories and Vietnam was 40-50 years ago now.
> 
> It's a new generation and that generation is in its winter.


Exactly.

Can you imagine trying to institute conscription NOW, if the USA were in a serious conflict? Not even outrage, or stunned disbelief; people would just toss the summons without looking at them, like so much junk mail.

"Dude, whatever." or possibly "Wait, what?" would be the likely reactions. Folks wouldn't even dodge the draft per se, because there would be so much noncompliance that it would be unprosecutable.

Or going back another generation, imagine trying to impose rationing? People would just blink once or twice, and then go back to their usual foil and plastic usage. Of course, this was hardly a problem in the last conflict, in which folks were urged to shop; that's some patriotism the modern American can get behind.

As for Trump and company dodging the draft, I'd bet at least 80% of the under-50 public actually sympathize with and approve of it. It has no downside at this point.

DH


----------



## Mike Petrik

Dhaller said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Can you imagine trying to institute conscription NOW, if the USA were in a serious conflict? Not even outrage, or stunned disbelief; people would just toss the summons without looking at them, like so much junk mail.
> 
> "Dude, whatever." or possibly "Wait, what?" would be the likely reactions. Folks wouldn't even dodge the draft per se, because there would be so much noncompliance that it would be unprosecutable.
> 
> Or going back another generation, imagine trying to impose rationing? People would just blink once or twice, and then go back to their usual foil and plastic usage. Of course, this was hardly a problem in the last conflict, in which folks were urged to shop; that's some patriotism the modern American can get behind.
> 
> As for Trump and company dodging the draft, I'd bet at least 80% of the under-50 public actually sympathize with and approve of it. It has no downside at this point.
> 
> DH


Sigh. When I read things like this, however exaggerated, I feel estranged from my country.


----------



## SG_67

^ Why? People of all stripes and colors are joining the military both enlisted and commissioned officers. 

America constantly reinvents itself and I'm not worried Americans now see the world and their country differently from the way they did 50 years ago.


----------



## Chouan

Dhaller said:


> As for Trump and company dodging the draft, I'd bet at least 80% of the under-50 public actually sympathize with and approve of it. It has no downside at this point.
> 
> DH


Indeed? That the children of wealthy should seek to avoid the compulsory military service, by whatever pretext, whilst the children of the poor, who are not in a position to seek to avoid service, serve their country, is a situation that the people of the US approve of? Really?


----------



## SG_67

^ what are you talking about?


----------



## eagle2250

^^



Chouan said:


> Indeed? That the children of wealthy should seek to avoid the compulsory military service, by whatever pretext, whilst the children of the poor, who are not in a position to seek to avoid service, serve their country, is a situation that the people of the US approve of? Really?


Chouan actually makes a very good and proper point. What a sad state of affairs we are facing if the privileged in the US population are content to avoid personal responsibility to do the heavy lifting, stepping aside and allowing the less fortunate step in and get the dirty work done. Sadly, that seems to be where we are at. Indeed, that seems to be why we are facing the national dilemmas with which we are confronted these days. Frankly the privileged do not know what they are missing!

Personally, I am honored to have been able to serve in our military. It is a privilege that far too many do not appreciate and do not take advantage of. It has in many ways quite literally defined my life, but I would be less than honest not to admit that it also provided me with a leg up to climb a bit higher on the socioeconomic ladder. The USAF paid for my undergraduate and graduate degrees, promoting and awarding me for any expertise I showed in the mastery of various weapon systems and management capabilities and enabling me to be recognized for my talents, rather than being looked down upon and tormented because we didn't have a lot of money and I might be wearing hand me down clothes attending my school classes as a youngster. Would I have walked this path in life, if I had come from a background of privilege. How does one answer such a question looking back? I think I would have...I really do hope I would have, as it says a lot about my core character, if I had chosen not to do so! :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

If I recall, during the civil war one could pay for someone else to take his place in a call up of troops, at least on the Union side. 

This is nothing new. We now have an all volunteer military and people from all walks of life join. This notion that only the disenfranchised and those members of the underclass joining the military and those of privilege enjoying the fat of the land is BS that's been perpetrated in the movies and a left wing meme.

That's how liberal would like to see the military. That's not how the military really is.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> Chouan actually makes a very good and proper point. What a sad state of affairs we are facing if the privileged in the US population are content to avoid personal responsibility to do the heavy lifting, stepping aside and allowing the less fortunate step in and get the dirty work done. Sadly, that seems to be where we are at. Indeed, that seems to be why we are facing the national dilemmas with which we are confronted these days. Frankly the privileged do not know what they are missing!
> 
> Personally, I am honored to have been able to serve in our military. It is a privilege that far too many do not appreciate and do not take advantage of. It has in many ways quite literally defined my life, but I would be less than honest not to admit that it also provided me with a leg up to climb a bit higher on the socioeconomic ladder. The USAF paid for my undergraduate and graduate degrees, promoting and awarding me for any expertise I showed in the mastery of various weapon systems and management capabilities and enabling me to be recognized for my talents, rather than being looked down upon and tormented because we didn't have a lot of money and I might be wearing hand me down clothes attending my school classes as a youngster. Would I have walked this path in life, if I had come from a background of privilege. How does one answer such a question looking back? I think I would have...I really do hope I would have, as it says a lot about my core character, if I had chosen not to do so! :icon_scratch:


Thank you for saying so. It just struck me as a sad state of affairs where politicians can have successful political careers despite having avoided the responsibility of serving their country when other, less privileged, people were obliged to serve. Approving the avoidance of national service, through their wealth and connections, by such people, seems to me to be somewhat perverse. That such people then sneer at those who have served, and are still approved makes it worse!

I'm unsure of the reasons why I chose to spend some time in the service of the Queen; it is hard to remember what drove me to apply. It wasn't the uniform, smart as it was, as I was already in a uniform that was very similar, differing only in the pattern of the gold braid. Was it the status? Was it tradition? Was it to make myself feel better about myself? I really don't know. 
I'm not suggesting that anybody should serve voluntarily, or that those who have served voluntarily are better people in any sense (I met plenty who weren't), or that they would make a better leader. However, I do think that a person who deliberately shirked compulsory service by using their family's influence and wealth, or by getting a complaisant doctor to certify their medical unfitness, is morally unfit to govern.


----------



## SG_67

Many people of privilege past and present have served. 

Again, this is a leftist myth and unfounded. Did some people get around having to serve via deferment? Yes. Were they all children of privilege? No.


----------



## Dhaller

I'm no expert on military history, but I suspect if you look into it, you'll find that the switch from bought commissions to meritocratic promotion likely corresponds to the end of military life as a rich man's (temporary) pursuit.

The big exception, of course, being the presence (geographically) of "military culture", like you have here in the Southeastern USA. Not that the rich are enlisting, but it's still a viable early career for middle class folks; I think I read that 80% of US flag rank officers hail from the Southeast - hardly surprising.

I don't think I've met too many Marines who didn't have at least a trace of Southern drawl!

I actually flirted with military service, in spite of having solidly what we in the USA call "upper middle class" origins (that's where physicians and attorneys live). I was seriously Annapolis-bound, having secured the Congressional recommendations and the like, intent on a Naval career; fortunately, I reflected on a military life, and realized it wasn't well suited to my character (too resistant to chains of command), and just went on to civilian life.

(Of course, the military Academies are a bit of exception, as it takes family wealth and influence to get into them, rather than dodging them!)

I'd like to think, though, that if I'd been called upon as a young man to serve, I would have done so.

DH


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> ^ Why? People of all stripes and colors are joining the military both enlisted and commissioned officers.
> 
> America constantly reinvents itself and I'm not worried Americans now see the world and their country differently from the way they did 50 years ago.


The fact that so many terrific young men and women volunteer to serve our country is reassuring, of course, but the notion that able-bodied young American men would typically respond to a "serious conflict" by ignoring conscription notices suggests a decline of love of country that does not bode well for its sustenance. The idea that "freedom is not free" is not just a cliche, even if the chattering classes and "brights" might think so.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> If I recall, during the civil war one could pay for someone else to take his place in a call up of troops, at least on the Union side.
> 
> This is nothing new. We now have an all volunteer military and people from all walks of life join. This notion that only the disenfranchised and those members of the underclass joining the military and those of privilege enjoying the fat of the land is BS that's been perpetrated in the movies and a left wing meme.
> 
> That's how liberal would like to see the military. That's not how the military really is.


I've seen the data, and this is true. I think the myth's currency today is related to the fact that people recall the college deferments of the Vietnam era, during which college was still an option chiefly enjoyed by the upper and upper-middle classes.


----------



## SG_67

Well we don't know that as no one has received a conscription notice. 

I have more faith in this generation than I do of the self absorbed, narcissistic baby boom generation.


----------



## Tempest

While I support the forgotten notion of the elite sharing wartime sacrifice and would love to have our plutocratic scions and entertainers in uniform, shouldn't we be talking about how Trump will be on Dr. Oz to discuss his amazing health?

Hillary, presumably, is still technically alive.


----------



## Dhaller

Mike Petrik said:


> The fact that so many terrific young men and women volunteer to serve our country is reassuring, of course, but the notion that able-bodied young American men would typically respond to a "serious conflict" by ignoring conscription notices suggests a decline of love of country that does not bode well for its sustenance. The idea that "freedom is not free" is not just a cliche, even if the chattering classes and "brights" might think so.


Well, I'm not sure this is all about leftist intellectual chatter - in general, there has been a sharp alignment of American character and ethics away from collectives and towards individuality. You see it in religion ("my personal relationship with Jesus"), in the social justice movement ("hey, I'm a disabled polyamorous trans-person, what about ME?"), and even in the "gimme" culture of public assistance. Of course, American culture has always positioned the individual/collective slider to the individual side, but these days it's all the way to 11, so to speak.

Patriotism is a mode of collective thought, so it's going to fall by the wayside.

I think, too, that Americans have become satisfied enough with simulated freedom that they have so special drive for liberty (with the risks that entails), whether than be fending for oneself after retirement or defending the nation. And, frankly, the United States as a geographical entity is the one place on Earth which is, for all practical purposes, 100% secure and immune to "boots on the ground" invasion, and terrorism and cyberwarfare and the like present themselves as in need of specialized warfare, not heroic citizenry.

A different world!

DH


----------



## Mike Petrik

Dhaller said:


> Well, I'm not sure this is all about leftist intellectual chatter - in general, there has been a sharp alignment of American character and ethics away from collectives and towards individuality. You see it in religion ("my personal relationship with Jesus"), in the social justice movement ("hey, I'm a disabled polyamorous trans-person, what about ME?"), and even in the "gimme" culture of public assistance. Of course, American culture has always positioned the individual/collective slider to the individual side, but these days it's all the way to 11, so to speak.
> 
> Patriotism is a mode of collective thought, so it's going to fall by the wayside.
> 
> I think, too, that Americans have become satisfied enough with simulated freedom that they have so special drive for liberty (with the risks that entails), whether than be fending for oneself after retirement or defending the nation. And, frankly, the United States as a geographical entity is the one place on Earth which is, for all practical purposes, 100% secure and immune to "boots on the ground" invasion, and terrorism and cyberwarfare and the like present themselves as in need of specialized warfare, not heroic citizenry.
> 
> A different world!
> 
> DH


Agreed on most counts, which is why I said I feel estranged from my country. America has always had both a communitarian and a libertarian impulse, and it is fairly obvious that the latter holds sway today, but only so long as somebody else pays for its various social costs.

But this is starting to drift away from the thread's topic. Happy to discuss over a drink, DH. The Internet makes me very easy to find in Atlanta. Just don't confuse me with a young guy -- that would be my son.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> Hillary, presumably, is still technically alive.


I think so, at least frequently. No, that's not accurate; rarely but on more than one occasion she has shown to be so. But it depends on what the meaning of the term "to be" is meant to be.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> I think so, at least frequently. No, that's not accurate; rarely but on more than one occasion she has shown to be so. But it depends on what the meaning of the term "to be" is meant to be.


Aside from the unseemliness of Trump supporters' enthusiasm for HRC's challenged health, I honestly don't understand the politics. She is a weak and unlikable candidate, unlike the gentleman nominated to be her constitutional successor.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> Aside from the unseemliness of Trump supporters' enthusiasm for HRC's challenged health, I honestly don't understand the politics. She is a weak and unlikable candidate, unlike the gentleman nominated to be her constitutional successor.


Unseemliness? Sorry, she chose to run for office and her health is an issue. We're not a banana republic where the generalissimo gets sick and disappears leaving the government to be run by someone else.

It's not her health. It's her habitual and pathological need for secrecy be it health, emails or whatever other relevant matter.

This is an unusual and disturbing trend for someone asking for my vote for public office.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Unseemliness? Sorry, she chose to run for office and her health is an issue. We're not a banana republic where the generalissimo gets sick and disappears leaving the government to be run by someone else.
> 
> It's not her health. It's her habitual and pathological need for secrecy be it health, emails or whatever other relevant matter.
> 
> This is an unusual and disturbing trend for someone asking for my vote for public office.


I agree that it seems to a Clinton family habit to lie when the truth would suffice.


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> Unseemliness? Sorry, she chose to run for office and her health is an issue. We're not a banana republic where the generalissimo gets sick and disappears leaving the government to be run by someone else.
> 
> It's not her health. It's her habitual and pathological need for secrecy be it health, emails or whatever other relevant matter.
> 
> This is an unusual and disturbing trend for someone asking for my vote for public office.


But I think the comment was appropriate. Trump himself did an okay job of wishing her well. Trump supporters have come off as happy that her health is failing because it's an opportunity to win swing votes. I find the attitude among Trump's ardent supporters to be troubling to say the least.

That said, her "habitual and pathological need for secrecy" should be a campaign issue. She is not required by law to disclose private health information, but I think the electorate will get angrier than they are if she misleads with regard to her health.


----------



## jpgr

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that it seems to a Clinton family habit to lie when the truth would suffice.


Such is the life of a celebrity politician. Every single public statement is made with a purpose, likely reviewed by teams of lawyers, and carefully crafted so that somehow in some way, it can be construed as a non-lie. Then the politician herself just needs to read the cue cards word for word. She is obviously well-protected from anything she says that the rest of us find to be untrue.


----------



## Tempest

Her health issues are not that new. It is only her inability to hide them from the public that is new. The extent of media complicity with this is debatable. So I'm tickled pink that people who were called crazy conspiracy theorists for questioning her health have been proven to be in the right. The truth being revealed to all is a joyous occasion.

I maintain that this "dehydration" thing is utterly hilarious. She has aides and staff at beck and call for every whim. Not a one, including herself, notices that the desiccated old lady hasn't had a drop to drink all day? Or do they hate her and not care? A woman that can't remember to have a few glasses of water a day, even with paid minders, is a woman that thinks she can run a nation?


----------



## SG_67

^ Dehydration and exhaustion, interestingly, are typical excuses given that the publicists of celebrities who have either OD'd or otherwise driven themselves into such a chemical induced stupor that they have to be hospitalized.


----------



## Tempest

Indeed, the illegitimate claims of certain conditions seem to exceed the actual cases. Not that the official medical letter's claim of HRC's "non-contagious bacterial pneumonia" is any better, as real medical personnel keep pointing out that this is not a real thing. It is not listed in medical texts, it does not yield non-HRC internet hits. Supposedly even the tests they claim to have conducted make absolutely no sense. 
Their Tommy Flanagan pathological lying has turned this all into a total farce.


----------



## Joseph Peter

Chouan's point works both ways. The last president who actually served was Bush 41, I cant count, with all respect to fellas like Eage, Bush 43 being in the Texas National Guard preventing the Cong from invading the Lone Star State. The tiresomeness of the Bush Clinton monarchy probably is a factor in Jeb's defeat in the primary and the inability of a professional politician to put away a reality tv star so far in the general.

The US' friends and allies need to step up their games; Uncle Sam is not going to be as available as readily as he was previously. Trump is banking on the America First slogan and HRC says she's going to undo or otherwise modify the trade deals she previously supported. Where things go is anyone's guess.


----------



## SG_67

^ the one thing we know about HRC is that she will do or so anything to get elected. 

Whether anything will happen with any trade deal under a potential HRC administration is highly unlikely.


----------



## jpgr

Tempest said:


> Indeed, the illegitimate claims of certain conditions seem to exceed the actual cases. Not that the official medical letter's claim of HRC's "non-contagious bacterial pneumonia" is any better, as real medical personnel keep pointing out that this is not a real thing. It is not listed in medical texts, it does not yield non-HRC internet hits. Supposedly even the tests they claim to have conducted make absolutely no sense.
> Their Tommy Flanagan pathological lying has turned this all into a total farce.


I think she's taken a dangerous political step by yesterday saying that she's fortunate that she can take a few days off when she's sick while too many Americans can't. If she's going to leverage her recovery for political gain, that opens the door to her opponents leveraging her need for recovery in the first place.

On the other hand, I've thought plenty of times that the Clintons had made political mistakes, but I'm prepared to accept the fact that they are better at politics than I am.


----------



## jpgr

Joseph Peter said:


> Chouan's point works both ways. The last president who actually served was Bush 41, I cant count, with all respect to fellas like Eage, Bush 43 being in the Texas National Guard preventing the Cong from invading the Lone Star State. The tiresomeness of the Bush Clinton monarchy probably is a factor in Jeb's defeat in the primary and the inability of a professional politician to put away a reality tv star so far in the general.


To be fair, Jeb Bush was a weak candidate. That Clinton actually held on to win the primary shows that it can be done even with a politically famous last name. Jeb was extremely well-funded at the start of the campaign but simply didn't show any strength or conviction on his positions. That he finished behind poorly-funded John Kasich speaks more about the candidate himself than about fatigue with his name. I like John Kasich, but no serious candidate should have finished behind him.


----------



## SG_67

^^Bill Clinton is a good politician. HRC is not. Sharing the same last name doesn't mean that she shares in the ability to thrust, parry and dodge with the same aplomb as her husband. At least when he was in his prime. 

They both look tired, weak and unfocused. HRC can't even define why she wants to be president. They're both washed up and remnants of a by gone generation. 

Honestly the whole thing reminds me of Jack Nicholson's character in "Carnal Knowledge" who is impotent and reliving the past in a slideshow as he knows he has no future.


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> ^^Bill Clinton is a good politician. HRC is not. Sharing the same last name doesn't mean that she shares in the ability to thrust, parry and dodge with the same aplomb as her husband. At least when he was in his prime.
> 
> They both look tired, weak and unfocused. HRC can't even define why she wants to be president. They're both washed up and remnants of a by gone generation.


I agree. Bill has a reason to be washed up, but there is the sense that Hillary is running because she's next. She thought she was next in 2008. This is sort of like Mitt Romney who ran for president largely because it was his turn.

HRC is not nearly as skilled at Bill of weaseling out of seemingly impossible situations.


----------



## 16412

Oh YouTube calls again.
This is only one that he put out.





Don't know what is wrong with her, but on medical reasons alone I don't think she is even close to being qualified for President of the United States. She really should hand over 'running for President' to Bernie. I think she is over powered by greed.


----------



## SG_67

^ Personally I feel it borders on malpractice and unethical behavior for a physician to go on YouTube and render an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, about someone whom he has not had a chance to examine. A medical opinion is one subject to an actual physical examination and without that, his statements are no more valid than some guy sitting at the end of the bar at 1:30 am. 

Hillary's health is a secondary issue. What is at issue is that she and her husband are incapable of telling the truth. Their instinct is to lie and cover up. 

Be it being fellated in the Oval Office, to a secret server installed in their home through which classified information flowed, to an illness, they are incapable of being honest. 

In many ways, they remind me of the Snopes in the Faulkner stories.


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> Hillary's health is a secondary issue. What is at issue is that she and her husband are incapable of telling the truth. Their instinct is to lie and cover up.


Well on that I disagree. I think her health is a primary issue. That she says things that aren't true or will say anything to get elected doesn't make her any different than any other politician. Her health could be a major difference.


----------



## 16412

"Personally I feel it borders on malpractice and unethical behavior for a physician to go on YouTube and render an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, about someone whom he has not had a chance to examine."

It's good reasoning, but in the wrong place. We're not talking about some small town garden club of who is going to be the next president of it. We are talking about who is going to be the most powerful person on earth for the next four years. The stakes are far far higher and it is dangerous. It's not about what people are guessing her medical problems are. It is about showing the voters she has real medical problems that put her out of control. There is footage there of her that speaks for itself. These people guessing and showing are preventing her medical problems from being sweaped under the carpet. It doesn't matter if their guesses are wrong. The first video wasn't even honest about a number of things, but showed her having physical problems that are far from normal. The head shaking shows she is not coherent, at the time, for thinking. The time the security guard says something and she repeats it where she is not really in control of her mind repeating it. This last one I saw on the news before I saw it on the videos had me concerned, then. She is not medically fit to be President of the US. We're not playing a game here. Her problems could be what they say, at least in part, or, a number of other problems that affect thinking. A functioning mind is important for the president.


----------



## Tempest

I forget how he worded things but obviously it is almost criminal to state that a person has a specific ailment based on video, but it is a light gray area to recognize symptoms and speculate on the possibilities. I am overjoyed that we now have a good supply of credible medical experts confirming the suspicions of what the Clinton campaign claimed were merely internet trolls and conspiracy theorists. But discretion in wording and detachment is needed.

Liberal NPR, to their credit, discussed this matter and actually demonstrated fairness by bringing up the fact that so many people like to publicly attribute psychiatric conditions to Trump. For one thing, there is the obvious fact that a person's public behavior is not necessarily indicative of the private workings of their mind. But they also made the rather valid point that claiming that manifestations were visible from afar discredited the valid need for people with mental disorders to seek individualized treatment.

The theme that I've heard this week is that Trump's children have become more public in the campaign, and as they are people that actually know Donald behind close doors they can present the realer image of him as a true person to complement the public persona that he chooses to display. The side theme is that his family has turned out to be a delightfully healthy and wholesome brood, devoid of any spoiled immoral rottenness that can be endemic to children of extravagant wealth, which speaks rather well of him.


----------



## eagle2250

^^(Posted in response to post # 1482.)Agreed.
...and why shouldn't our candidates for the Presidency be subjected to the same medical screening and performance standards as are so many of our country's military and civilian employees. Over the years I have been subjected to repeated medical and psychological examinations/reviews to insure that I and others like me were capable of performing our anticipated and/or duties. Throughout many of our careers, we were subjected to providing periodic blood and/or urine samples and follow-up interviews with medical and mental health professionals, etc., to insure we could still adequately perform our duties. Why shouldn't candidates competing for election to the Presidency be subjected to those same or similar standards? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

WA said:


> "Personally I feel it borders on malpractice and unethical behavior for a physician to go on YouTube and render an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, about someone whom he has not had a chance to examine."
> 
> It's good reasoning, but in the wrong place. We're not talking about some small town garden club of who is going to be the next president of it. We are talking about who is going to be the most powerful person on earth for the next four years. The stakes are far far higher and it is dangerous. It's not about what people are guessing her medical problems are. It is about showing the voters she has real medical problems that put her out of control. There is footage there of her that speaks for itself. These people guessing and showing are preventing her medical problems from being sweaped under the carpet. It doesn't matter if their guesses are wrong. The first video wasn't even honest about a number of things, but showed her having physical problems that are far from normal. The head shaking shows she is not coherent, at the time, for thinking. The time the security guard says something and she repeats it where she is not really in control of her mind repeating it. This last one I saw on the news before I saw it on the videos had me concerned, then. She is not medically fit to be President of the US. We're not playing a game here. Her problems could be what they say, at least in part, or, a number of other problems that affect thinking. A functioning mind is important for the president.


That's all fine and dandy but YouTube is not where one should discuss diagnosing someone.


----------



## Chouan

Tempest said:


> The theme that I've heard this week is that Trump's children have become more public in the campaign, and as they are people that actually know Donald behind close doors they can present the realer image of him as a true person to complement the public persona that he chooses to display. The side theme is that his family has turned out to be a delightfully healthy and wholesome brood, devoid of any spoiled immoral rottenness that can be endemic to children of extravagant wealth, which speaks rather well of him.


How refreshing that the children of a politician seeking the highest office have told the electorate that he's a good person, and that they are seen in the media to be good people themselves......


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> That's all fine and dandy but YouTube is not where one should discuss diagnosing someone.


Yeah -- I understand exploiting health concerns for political gain, but a medical doctor should not be offering diagnoses based on video footage of someone he's never medically examined. Of course maybe he's just an actor and not an actual physician.


----------



## jpgr

Chouan said:


> How refreshing that the children of a politician seeking the highest office have told the electorate that he's a good person, and that they are seen in the media to be good people themselves......


Not a surprise though is it? One year, Al Gore kissed his wife as part of stunt to make people like him better. And it worked even among those who were aware it was a stunt to make people like him better.


----------



## SG_67

jpgr said:


> Well on that I disagree. I think her health is a primary issue. That she says things that aren't true or will say anything to get elected doesn't make her any different than any other politician. Her health could be a major difference.


Her health is an issue, not THE issue. The foundational problem, again, is her complete and utter inability to be honest and tell the truth.


----------



## 16412

SG_67 said:


> That's all fine and dandy but YouTube is not where one should discuss diagnosing someone.


Some people are such a cheat in life that it needs to be played back onto them. You know, put the shoe on the other foot. There is a time to stop bending over backwards and force them to be responsible, or, they leave. She really should step down and let Sanders step up. Don't care for Sanders....

Trump is changing the Republican party. Some good, some not.


----------



## Chouan

jpgr said:


> Not a surprise though is it? One year, Al Gore kissed his wife as part of stunt to make people like him better. And it worked even among those who were aware it was a stunt to make people like him better.


Of course it isn't. As you suggest, even though everybody knows that politicians use their families to further their careers, people still want to imagine that when a son or daughter says that their father is a great man, that it is meant sincerely, or that they aren't biased in some way, or that it is an objective truth.


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> Her health is an issue, not THE issue. The foundational problem, again, is her complete and utter inability to be honest and tell the truth.


 Does anyone think differently of Donald Trump now that he reads from a teleprompter? Does anyone even remember how he used to make fun of other people who did that? Does no one even set of suspect that he hasn't moved an inch on policy but only in how he presents himself? His entire demeanor in recent weeks has been to mislead people about how he really is. Likewise, HRC's carefully designed words are misleading (and obviously so), but I don't really think that makes her any different than any other nationally significant politician. She is scrutinized because she's a candidate for President, and her husband was simply the best we've ever seen at this particular game of intentionally misleading statements.

But the key is that HRC's supporters don't care whether or not she's a liar. They will vote for her anyway all the while casting doubt on Trump's integrity. Trump's supporters likewise don't care about integrity claims against their candidate either. It's just not a difference-maker in the election.

But a health concern? Real concern about whether an individual is healthy enough to complete a term as US President? I think that's the type of thing that can really change, swing, or determine votes. And it's new. I don't recall a general election ever being about health concerns this late in the process. Mondale tried it with Reagan, but that was grasping at straws.


----------



## SG_67

^. Please tell us, what is Donald Trump really like? 

You see to have detected the public veneer as just that; surely you the the real man. Please share with us.


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> ^. Please tell us, what is Donald Trump really like? You see to have detected the public veneer as just that; surely you the the real man. Please share with us.


The "public veneer" is that of a politician who will totally change his public persona, modify previous statements, or essentially do or say whatever is needed to garner votes. It doesn't matter if I know what he's "really like" -- apparently we're supposed to take his kids' word on that one. What I do know is that he's presented himself (as many politicians have done throughout history) differently at different times with different goals in this cycle. The brash arrogant primary candidate has been replaced by the more reserved and calmer general candidate. So it was either the primaries or the general where the goal has been to deceive and mislead voters.And I only make the point that I honestly don't think HRC's problem with saying true things is much of an issue in the general campaign BECAUSE many many people see any and all politicians as nothing but liars. Trump has now announced that Obama is a natural born citizen, and he proceeded to imply that HRC started the whole birther movement (which is false). I don't dispute that HRC is a liar. In the same context though, I DO dispute anyone who thinks Trump isn't. That's why I think health can be a more significant issue than integrity. BOTH candidates fail the integrity test.


----------



## Tempest

jpgr said:


> The brash arrogant primary candidate has been replaced by the more reserved and calmer general candidate.


I note this as a refutation of those claiming he is some egomaniac that can't control himself. He adjusts to suit the intended audience, and as President his audience will be congressman and world leaders. Note that nobody that has met with him privately has much bad to say of him.


> ...he proceeded to imply that HRC started the whole birther movement (which is false)


Okay, HRC '08 supporters started it, not her personally. We'll keep in mind that supporters are not the candidate, as people have problems remembering this with Trump.


----------



## jpgr

> Okay, HRC '08 supporters started it, not her personally. We'll keep in mind that supporters are not the candidate, as people have problems remembering this with Trump.


So we agree that this statements: "Hillary Clinton's campaign first raised this issue to smear then-candidate Barack Obama . . ." is not true. It was a statement made by Trump, and it's not true. This is my point. HRC says things that aren't true. She just does -- not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Donald Trump also says things that are not true. You are missing the point if you think this is an indictment of Donald Trump. I simply don't think anyone should determine their vote in an election because one candidate said things that aren't true. They both do that, and they will both do it again and again and again.


----------



## 16412

This came up a few days ago. Obama....
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...hip-guccifer-20-leaks-dnc-pay-play-donor-list


----------



## Dmontez

jpgr said:


> So we agree that this statements: "Hillary Clinton's campaign first raised this issue to smear then-candidate Barack Obama . . ." is not true. It was a statement made by Trump, and it's not true. This is my point. HRC says things that aren't true. She just does -- not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Donald Trump also says things that are not true. You are missing the point if you think this is an indictment of Donald Trump. I simply don't think anyone should determine their vote in an election because one candidate said things that aren't true. They both do that, and they will both do it again and again and again.


it was actually HRCs confidant Sidney Blumenthal, you know the one that would advise her on on state department issues, and HRC would forward his emails to her staff and ask them to look into things for him. He spread it, but he is basing it off of two different stories from around 2004 and 2006.

Snopes claims that HRC campaign starting the birther movement is false due to the 2004 and 2006 stories, but they acknowledge that they campaign did spread the rumor.

in conclusion HRC and her campaign did not technically start the rumors, but they sure as hell used them.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journ...r-sid-blumenthal-spread-birther-story-editor/

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/


----------



## 16412

jpgr said:


> So we agree that this statements: "Hillary Clinton's campaign first raised this issue to smear then-candidate Barack Obama . . ." is not true. It was a statement made by Trump, and it's not true. This is my point. HRC says things that aren't true. She just does -- not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Donald Trump also says things that are not true. You are missing the point if you think this is an indictment of Donald Trump. I simply don't think anyone should determine their vote in an election because one candidate said things that aren't true. They both do that, and they will both do it again and again and again.


Don't think you really understand the strategy that Trump is using. He mangled the media that so easily took out Sarah Palin. The media was extremely dishonest with her, but Trump is smarter than the media. There are some smart people in the media, but Trump defeated them. Look at South of the border people. Trump went after the illegal ones. Not the legal ones. He has spoken to the Blacks. The Democrats have not been good enough to you. Give the Republicans another chance. The Democrats are starting to loose on every ground. Trump says he will be President for everyone. Not just those who vote for him. Hillary slandered so many people who are not going to vote for her. The man running for her vice president is no better. I think Trump cares that America becomes a better place than what it has become. Not all of America's past has been good. But why loose that which we had that is good?


----------



## jpgr

Dmontez said:


> in conclusion HRC and her campaign did not technically start the rumors, but they sure as hell used them.


 So, we agree that Trump's statement was FALSE.

Look, I get it. There are plenty of Trump supporters here -- given the title of the thread, that's not a surprise. And supporters of any candidate don't like any statement that doesn't paint their candidate as wildly and unquestionably superior to the other one. I could take this same discussion to a thread of HRC supporters, and all I'd hear about it how truthful and nuanced she is and that her carefully chosen statements are part of some strategy that I've failed to understand.

But I go back to what started this particular conversation. Is HRC's health a bigger problem than the fact that she's a liar? SG_67 thinks integrity is a bigger deal which, of course, is fine. Personally, I think we're already set on electing someone who has made false statements, so . . . that being the case, I think health is a major difference between these two. That's all.


----------



## 16412

Trump has made some statements that he has changed his opinion on several times, which is different than lying. Is he always honest? I don't think so.

How many times has Hillary changed her mind?

I'd rather have someone, with further thought, change their mind, if their thoughts come across something better. It seems like Democrats are set in a trance they can't step away from.


----------



## Tempest

Bah, we've had borderline invalid Presidents in the past. The system maintains a facade and hopes the plaster doesn't crack. Heck, that's what her campaign was doing before this month, and actually still are as they think we're dumb enough to buy their spin.
Her pathological lying is a problem both on principle, on her utter ineffectiveness because of it, and for the election because it compounds her already unlikable personality. But I do agree that many undecided voters are of a nihilistic bend that distrusts all politicians already.
One week till the first debate!


----------



## Dhaller

Tempest said:


> Bah, we've had borderline invalid Presidents in the past. The system maintains a facade and hopes the plaster doesn't crack. Heck, that's what her campaign was doing before this month, and actually still are as they think we're dumb enough to buy their spin.
> Her pathological lying is a problem both on principle, on her utter ineffectiveness because of it, and for the election because it compounds her already unlikable personality. But I do agree that many undecided voters are of a nihilistic bend that distrusts all politicians already.
> One week till the first debate!


There's no way to be fully qualified to be President of the United States - there's just no way one human brain can look at the whole, executive style, and make fully accurate decisions.

That's why the most important competency for a President to master is the ability to surround himself with good people; he has to be able to judge character and ability, assemble it, and manage it. This is hardly easy.

If you look at most weak or ineffectual presidents, you will discover them to be surrounded by a not particularly exceptional group of folks (the Cabinet, the House office, etc); Jimmy Carter comes to mind as an excellent example. "Great" Presidents - while it's arguable what this means; let's call it "got things done" - had dependable, honest, brilliant men: Marshall, Ickes, Wallace, Morganthau, Kennedy, Reich, etc.

One of my principal worries about Trump is that he's a lousy judge of people - there's a reason he's famous for "You're Fired!": he hires crap people.

Clinton? Hard to say. Bill could not only pick good people, but he could position them for excellence; HRC lacks that skill (to say the least). I think she can probably forge a loyal (to her) staff, but I'm not sure they're great people. I don't think they're the knuckle-draggers who Trump seems to hire, but an HRC presidency doesn't seem like it's going to be particularly shiny.

I hate it when I go to Baskin Robbins and all they have left are Bubblegum and Cookie Dough; what am I, 12? Anyway, them's the choices!

DH


----------



## jpgr

Tempest said:


> Bah, we've had borderline invalid Presidents in the past.


Agreed. Sort of what I was getting at it is not against the law to lie in order to get votes to become President. Now, it IS against the law improperly handle classified information, and it is further against the law to lie during the resulting investigation. That HRC has violated Federal Law is more concerning to me than her lack of honesty.



> One week till the first debate!


:thumbs-up:


----------



## Mike Petrik

jpgr said:


> So, we agree that Trump's statement was FALSE.
> 
> Look, I get it. There are plenty of Trump supporters here -- given the title of the thread, that's not a surprise. And supporters of any candidate don't like any statement that doesn't paint their candidate as wildly and unquestionably superior to the other one. I could take this same discussion to a thread of HRC supporters, and all I'd hear about it how truthful and nuanced she is and that her carefully chosen statements are part of some strategy that I've failed to understand.
> 
> But I go back to what started this particular conversation. Is HRC's health a bigger problem than the fact that she's a liar? SG_67 thinks integrity is a bigger deal which, of course, is fine. Personally, I think we're already set on electing someone who has made false statements, so . . . that being the case, I think health is a major difference between these two. That's all.


I'm not quite sure that the candidates' uneasy relationship with the truth can really be equated. Trump's claims are all too often made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Clinton intends to mislead and is so used to it that she will do so even when a simple truth would be both benign and sufficient. Each voter will have to decide which is worse.


----------



## Dhaller

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm not quite sure that the candidates' uneasy relationship with the truth can really be equated. Trump's claims are all too often made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Clinton intends to mislead and is so used to it that she will do so even when a simple truth would be both benign and sufficient. Each voter will have to decide which is worse.


Putting it simply, I'd say Trump distorts the truth to produce an effect, while HRC distorts the truth to prevent an effect.

Which of those is the more "Presidential" is subject to debate.

DH


----------



## 16412

Dhaller said:


> Putting it simply, I'd say Trump distorts the truth to produce an effect, while HRC distorts the truth to prevent an effect.
> 
> Which of those is the more "Presidential" is subject to debate.
> 
> DH


When in school there were a few boys who did some of the stuff Trump does. For me it is fun watching. Haven't seen this for years. So far Trumps results are Very Good. The results of Hillary? Terrible. Therefore, Trump is more Presidential.


----------



## Tempest

Dhaller said:


> Putting it simply, I'd say Trump distorts the truth to produce an effect, while HRC distorts the truth to prevent an effect.


I'd say that Trump embodies Colbert's truthiness, where he can be technically off in some details but speaks a greater truth. Small minded pedants can't see this while those capable of seeing things holistically grasp the bigger picture. 
If by "distorts the truth" you are including deliberate omissions, distractions, and misrepresentations then I totally agree. Of course she blatantly lies as well and is not limited to flubs and misspeaking.


----------



## SG_67

^ this is the trap that the MSM always falls into when discussing republicans, though they seem to absolutely relish in doing it with Trump. Perhaps it's because they see no redeeming qualities in him so any personal attack is fair game. 

The other day I turned to MSNBC for my morning chuckle and they were spending about 20 minutes talking about the whole Birther thing. 

Setting aside the fact that the Clintons themselves floated those ideas in the 2008 campagin, I wondered how many people even cared about that anymore. 

At this point the MSM and the Clintons are out of ideas, assuming they ever had any to begin with. She's tired and haggard. Anyone watching that pathetic response to the NYC/NJ bombings that she gave on board her plane must have wondered if she's in quailudes as she had trouble even keeping her eyes open. 

Trump on the other hand was able to deliver a full throated response that at least delivered some passion and energy. Trump is of the moment and able to capitalize on the zeitgeist where as HRC, in her typical cautious and calculating way, seems to always miss the boat and is a day late on everything. For the past few weeks it's as though she's been responding rather than initiating. 

She does have one ace up her sleeve though, she can resort to crying like she did in 2008.


----------



## Tempest

This is actually a distinct possibility for next Monday's debate. She will remain sedated and listless and hope for some "insult/attack," which will automatically be deemed sexist because of her chromosomes, so that she can play the victim. The key, of course, is for her to maintain composure and be unassailing and neutral up to that point, which I think is a stretch.
My other bet is that she tries to label the bombings, er explosions, as domestic terror (possibly right wing lol) and ignore that it was done by a foreign born man with a Muslim name. I can't imagine how this won't make her a further laughing stock to all but the most dedicated apologists.
Or she'll say that bombings are a legit reaction to "racism" and that the cure is more diversity and tolerance aka immigration.


----------



## SG_67

Listen for the terms "lone wolf" and "self radicalized" to be aired almost 24/7 by her and the media.


----------



## jpgr

Tempest said:


> This is actually a distinct possibility for next Monday's debate. She will remain sedated and listless and hope for some "insult/attack," which will automatically be deemed sexist because of her chromosomes, so that she can play the victim. The key, of course, is for her to maintain composure and be unassailing and neutral up to that point, which I think is a stretch.


This is what she did in her New York senate race, and she did it brilliantly. I don't think it will work this time. Donald Trump is no Rick Lazio.


----------



## SG_67

^ There was also a bloom on the rose at the time. In 2000, the only baggage she really had was Bill. She still has him and plenty of her own problems that she's created in the intervening 16 years.


----------



## 16412

Talking to an older man who says it is over. She lost. The race is finished. 

Is there anything she can do for a come back? Even I don't think so.


----------



## eagle2250

^^Not an advocate for the lady, but reading through this mornings headlines on the Yahoo news feed, it appears "The Donald" has poked another stick into the hornets nest by paying off some of the plaintiffs in the Trump University brouhaha with monies from Trump Foundation funds. All either one of these bozos has to do is stand back and allow the other to win it for them. This present day race down the rat hole is far from over!


----------



## jpgr

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Not an advocate for the lady, but reading through this mornings headlines on the Yahoo news feed, it appears "The Donald" has poked another stick into the hornets nest by paying off some of the plaintiffs in the Trump University brouhaha with monies from Trump Foundation funds. All either one of these bozos has to do is stand back and allow the other to win it for them. This present day race down the rat hole is far from over!


Indeed this will ebb and flow thought the debates. One of the candidates will disappoint next Monday and likely come back with an inspired performance in debate #2. HRC is floundering right now which is the opposite of what happened in August. I've little doubt that the timing of this latest story about Trump diverting charity money (whether true or not) is not an accident.


----------



## Tempest

Trump has invited Gennifer Flowers to be his guest at the debates, which is both hilarious and brilliant. She has accepted the invitation. If this recent "post-pneumonia" clip is indicative of her debate performance, she should just stay home.




In fairness, she did maintain composure while getting a good bashing here.


----------



## SG_67

^ When I watched that performance on the news the other day I automatically had an ad pop into my head which lists all of her lies, coverups and corruption, ending with her asking why she's not 51 points ahead.


----------



## SG_67

Update: it seems as though Gennifer Flowers will not be there. 

Perhaps an empty chair with nothing but a blue dress and a cigar should be used.


----------



## eagle2250

SG_67 said:


> ^ When I watched that performance on the news the other day I automatically had an ad pop into my head which lists all of her lies, coverups and corruption, ending with her asking why she's not 51 points ahead.


She does indeed seem to be spooked by the enduring presence of "The Donald." But alas, "The Donald" is not the primary threat here, but rather Her very own lack of credibility! It's Karma, Hillary...just karma.


----------



## rtd1

Am I to understand that the official position of the Republican Party is now in opposition to free trade and free markets?

https://www.breitbart.com/2016-pres...24/politico-gop-senators-succumb-trump-trade/

It certainly seems so. What an interesting turn of events.


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> Am I to understand that the official position of the Republican Party is now in opposition to free trade and free markets?
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/2016-pres...24/politico-gop-senators-succumb-trump-trade/
> 
> It certainly seems so. What an interesting turn of events.


I'm not sure it's anti trade. I think what Donald Trump is saying is that trade agreements first and foremost are going to benefit us and not end up with the U.S. prostrate.


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> I'm not sure it's anti trade. I think what Donald Trump is saying is that trade agreements first and foremost are going to benefit us and not end up with the U.S. prostrate.


What does that even mean? Better agreements? The whole purpose of trade agreements is to knock down trade barriers and get more trade. Trump wants to increase trade barriers, and has proposed absolutely ludicrous tariffs on China and Mexico.

Now, there are certainly arguments against trade, or at least the rosy Econ 101 picture of it. One being that our trading partners may have lax worker safety and environmental protections and that trade is being conducted to arbitrage regulatory regimes rather than based on comparative advantage. Another being that there are winners and losers, even when trade is beneficial overall, and that the losers from trade ought to be compensated (e.g., worker retraining and such).

However, Trump isn't making any of these arguments. The only argument he seems to be making is that we need more exports and fewer imports. And that displays a complete misunderstanding of trade and its purpose.


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> What does that even mean? Better agreements? The whole purpose of trade agreements is to knock down trade barriers and get more trade. Trump wants to increase trade barriers, and has proposed absolutely ludicrous tariffs on China and Mexico.
> 
> Now, there are certainly arguments against trade, or at least the rosy Econ 101 picture of it. One being that our trading partners may have lax worker safety and environmental protections and that trade is being conducted to arbitrage regulatory regimes rather than based on comparative advantage. Another being that there are winners and losers, even when trade is beneficial overall, and that the losers from trade ought to be compensated (e.g., worker retraining and such).
> 
> However, Trump isn't making any of these arguments. The only argument he seems to be making is that we need more exports and fewer imports. And that displays a complete misunderstanding of trade and its purpose.


Ask anyone who has ever tried to do business in China.

Furthermore, ask any industrial or tech company doing business in China, off the record of course, about the blatant theft of IP and how companies just see this as the cost of doing business.

How about Chinese manufacturing which constantly cuts corners and uses toxic chemicals and materials in the products that are shipped here.


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> Ask anyone who has ever tried to do business in China.
> 
> Furthermore, ask any industrial or tech company doing business in China, off the record of course, about the blatant theft of IP and how companies just see this as the cost of doing business.
> 
> How about Chinese manufacturing which constantly cuts corners and uses toxic chemicals and materials in the products that are shipped here.


Ironic that you mention China. One of the main intentions behind the TPP was to counter China's influence in the region (though apparently Trump was unaware that China was not a party to the TPP, as we saw during the primaries). Also, strengthening and normalization of IP law is one of the key elements of the TPP. As for unsafe and contaminated products, I agree that this is something that needs to be dealt with harshly, unfortunately Trump recently came out in favor of rolling back consumer safety regulations and defunding the agencies that enforce them.


----------



## SG_67

China will gain influence by building islands and then placing military assets to threaten critical waterways. 

As for TPP, I will readily admit I don't know all of the nuances, but what's the hurry? Obama has a few months left in office. Given his administrations history for lousy international agreements, the Iran deal being the most recent and the Russia reset being the earliest, I don't put a lot of confidence in his wisdom. 

Why not leave it to the next POTUS to look at it, make changes and move forward with it from there.


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> As for TPP, I will readily admit I don't know all of the nuances, but what's the hurry? Obama has a few months left in office. Given his administrations history for lousy international agreements, the Iran deal being the most recent and the Russia reset being the earliest, I don't put a lot of confidence in his wisdom.


I think TPP is a key piece of campaign strategy this fall. Trump gets good press with Republicans when he talks tough on China, but his business experience doesn't necessarily prepare him to deal with the Chinese government. And, as pointed out above, companies in China don't interpret "obey the law" in the same way that US companies do. I'm not sure any US President is really capable of doing much of anything to change the culture of big business in China.


----------



## Tempest

I'm an old Buchananite protectionist, and I loved how Ron Paul would remind people that tariffs paid for government before the income tax.

The layman's view, echoed all over, is that the big cheap Chinese television from Walmart is great up till the point where you don't have a job. My own opinion is that open (because it is never fair or free) trade is a great wage leveler, and thus no good for American workers. It's fantastic it you own an outsourced company or live off dividends and investments, but the American worker has realized it is at their expense. 
Good old Clinton era NAFTA seems to be rewarding us with losing more Ford plants to Mexico. Perot was right about the giant sucking sound.


----------



## rtd1

Tempest said:


> I'm an old Buchananite protectionist, and I loved how Ron Paul would remind people that tariffs paid for government before the income tax.
> 
> The layman's view, echoed all over, is that the big cheap Chinese television from Walmart is great up till the point where you don't have a job. My own opinion is that open (because it is never fair or free) trade is a great wage leveler, and thus no good for American workers. It's fantastic it you own an outsourced company or live off dividends and investments, but the American worker has realized it is at their expense.
> Good old Clinton era NAFTA seems to be rewarding us with losing more Ford plants to Mexico. Perot was right about the giant sucking sound.


Yes, there's always been an isolationist strain within the GOP, but it's always been a relatively small minority. If that's your stated philosophy, that's fine. My remarks were more focused on people who a year ago were wearing Tricorner hats and waving Gadsen flags at Tea Party rallies and today are in favor of tariffs and other trade protectionism, ethanol subsidies, and apparently even expansion of stop and frisk in the domestic policy arena.


----------



## SG_67

^ and hence why fortune 100 CEOs are lining up for Clinton.


----------



## Tempest

rtd1 said:


> My remarks were more focused on people who a year ago were wearing Tricorner hats and waving Gadsen flags at Tea Party rallies and today are in favor of tariffs and other trade protectionism, ethanol subsidies, and apparently even expansion of stop and frisk in the domestic policy arena.


I think a lot of people wised up to the ideological inconsistencies of the corporatist influence on the Tea Party. I'm unaware of any regular voters that thinks ethanol is a wise idea, but they may exist. I can say that I'm an anti-authoritarian civil rights person that has become so infuriated by BLM lies and terror that I now almost welcome draconian law enforcement.


----------



## jpgr

rtd1 said:


> Yes, there's always been an isolationist strain within the GOP,


While true, it is not an isolationist policy for companies and workers to want to level playing fields. Intellectual property is not well-protected in China. Talking tough about China doesn't fix that, and in fact, it won't be effective even if someone is successful in getting the Chinese Government to agree to tougher standards. Companies in China (from personal experience) know how their laws get enforced, and they know how to manufacture anything they want.

So our government can weaken IP law here which I don't think will drive innovation. Or our government can try to toughen IP standards elsewhere, and import tariffs are one way to pursue that. TPP is supposed to have this effect on China, but I don't think it will work. Countries in the Pacific rim rely heavily on China, and China's military power, while not an active threat, is omnipresent.


----------



## drlivingston

SG_67 said:


> ^ and hence why fortune 100 CEOs are lining up for Clinton.


^^This! :teacha:


----------



## 16412

The pendulum swings back and forth because there is good on both sides. When its been to long on one side, well, it time to swing to the other side. International trade is one of those cases. Besides, not all trade deals are good. 

Here is what somebody wrote about Obama recently in The Bellingham Herald

I don't care for the tone of Mr. Trump and yet Mr. Obama, as an orator, has 'tickled' our ears for the last seven years and.... Recently, it was said by both Obama and Clinton the Trans Pacific Pact is wonderful; until you dig into another 2,000 page document. In the TPP, all disputes are to be settled by a 3-person panel, appointed, no redress, no appeal, totally final and way likely to find a decision that violates our laws. In addition, there wiil no longer be an Origin of Manufacture labeling and its likely to cause a tax increase to America.... No more 'ear tickling'.

Carl


----------



## eagle2250

Egad, last night's debate was no more or no less than just a continuation of the national embarrassment this Presidential election debacle has become. If the fact checkers are to be believed, an astounding number of untruths or partial truths came out of the respective 'pie holes" of both candidates! It's a good thing personal integrity is not a qualification for the job we look for in our candidates!


----------



## Tempest

There was a profound lack of substance and focus on irrelevant gossip. Hillbot actually won on style as she is a slick talking empty suit. I doubt she could pick up more than a handful of additional votes no matter what but she probably lost almost nobody either. Trump's failure to utterly dominate is presumably appeasing the wishy washy voters that fear his testosterone by playing nice. 
Moderator Lester Holt was atrocious in his ineptness and bias.


----------



## culverwood

> Egad, last night's debate was no more or no less than just a continuation of the national embarrassment this Presidential election debacle has become. If the fact checkers are to be believed, an astounding number of untruths or partial truths came out of the respective 'pie holes" of both candidates! It's a good thing personal integrity is not a qualification for the job we look for in our candidates!


I expect the reply here will be that one candidates fibs were good fibs and the other candidates ones were bad ones.


----------



## SG_67

He held back on her. Of course, he really doesn't have a choice; she's a woman. Go after her and he'll be accused of being a misogynist. 

He could easily have brought up her record of trying to go after and personally attack the women who dared sleep with Bill. Gennifer Flowers being among them. Wasn't it James Carville who said of Paula Jones if you drag a $20 bill through a trailer park something is bound to come of it? 

He could have rained down a firestorm on her and in all fairness she could have done the same with some of the things he's said in the past. Though on balance she would have gotten it worse.

He could also have asked her to name one piece of legislation that she authored in her 8 years or one policy decision as SOS that actually furthered all of those things that she claims to care so deeply about.


----------



## jpgr

Tempest said:


> There was a profound lack of substance and focus on irrelevant gossip. Hillbot actually won on style as she is a slick talking empty suit. I doubt she could pick up more than a handful of additional votes no matter what but she probably lost almost nobody either. Trump's failure to utterly dominate is presumably appeasing the wishy washy voters that fear his testosterone by playing nice. [/QUOTE}
> 
> I think any time you mention Rosie O'Donnell in a presidential debate, you're probably not doing it right. I thought it was an awful display by Trump. Hillary was essentially able to stay on script, and she did best when Trump was talking because he seemed totally unprepared and had nothing interesting or conclusive to offer. He didn't dwell enough on her emails OR as pointed out above ask about what legislation she's authored. His entire interlude on "stamina" should have been prepared, written, and practiced in advance. Hillary was clearly ready for it and had a rehearsed comeback.
> 
> Moderator Lester Holt was atrocious in his ineptness and bias.


Yes. Even the design of the debate was poor. They had six generic poorly defined topics to debate. How could anyone think they could cover 6 topics knowing that candidates never stay in their time slots.


----------



## Dhaller

jpgr said:


> Yes. Even the design of the debate was poor. They had six generic poorly defined topics to debate. How could anyone think they could cover 6 topics knowing that candidates never stay in their time slots.


Yes; considering the likely size of the audience, it was a remarkable waste of valuable airtime.

But not a complete waste! While watching the debate, I:

Folded a load of whites (aren't towels a pleasure to fold and stack?)
Polished my bit loafers.
Played a bit of some city-building game I sometimes kill time with.
Checked to make sure I don't have any overdue library books.
Finished some leftover pizza from Atlanta's fine Varuni Napoli (very authentic!)

Actually a pretty good evening.

DH


----------



## jpgr

Dhaller said:


> Yes; considering the likely size of the audience, it was a remarkable waste of valuable airtime.
> 
> But not a complete waste! While watching the debate, I:
> 
> Folded a load of whites (aren't towels a pleasure to fold and stack?)
> Polished my bit loafers.
> Played a bit of some city-building game I sometimes kill time with.
> Checked to make sure I don't have any overdue library books.
> Finished some leftover pizza from Atlanta's fine Varuni Napoli (very authentic!)
> 
> Actually a pretty good evening.
> 
> DH


The only trouble I have with that is that if it's really authentic Italian pizza, there shouldn't have been any leftovers . . .


----------



## drlivingston

It was 90 wasted minutes of my life that I will never be able to recover.


----------



## eagle2250

culverwood said:


> I expect the reply here will be that one candidates fibs were good fibs and the other candidates ones were bad ones.


LOL. Perhaps so, but 'I will tell you,'(pun intended) I am consistently reminded of the character Col Nathan Jessup's "you want me on that wall; you need me on that wall! Rather than criticize my methods, I would rather you just say thank-you" tirade in the movie A Few good Men, every time Trump goes on a rant about his business expertise/successes!


----------



## jpgr

culverwood said:


> I expect the reply here will be that one candidates fibs were good fibs and the other candidates ones were bad ones.


I said it somewhere, and maybe it was here. But I'm pretty sure most people decided who won the debate before it even started. That would have been better than what I did which was to actually watch it.


----------



## Tempest

Since Hillrod and Lester seemed to think that having said something bad about a woman makes you unfit for living, I decided to look into this 1996 Miss Universe, Alicia Marchado, whom Trump allegedly referred to as Miss Piggy. It looks like she did get pretty big.


----------



## drlivingston

While I am no big fan of either candidate, something struck me as odd while watching the debate. Did you notice that when people applauded for Trump, Lester admonished the crowd? However, when Hillary received applause, Lester must have deemed that acceptable.


----------



## Tempest

I missed anyone applauding Hillary, but stranger things have happened. I heard total liberals on the radio suspecting that NBC, after openly condemning Lauer for not treating Hilliary with kid gloves, had sent a strong message that the moderation should favor her. I've heard he "fact checked" (and not entirely correctly) Trump six times while letting Hilliary whoppers fly by without comment.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed, Hillary received applause on two occasions that I recall and, as drlivingston points out in post #1546, Lester sat mute, but on the occasion they applauded Trump (early on) he reminded the audience of the "no applause" condition on their attendance.


----------



## SG_67

It's worth noting that such quaint notions as impartiality and fairness not to mention lack of bias, are hardly realistic. 

So called moderators are also career broadcasters and journalists. Moderating a presidential debate is the big leagues and a chance to advance their careers. As such, they have their own motivations beyond the task at hand. If the term "implicit bias" can apply to law enforcement it most certainly can apply to journalists.


----------



## jpgr

Evidenced, I think, by the fact that people find debate moderators to be either "fair and balanced" or "favoring the other candidate". People (myself included) seldom recognize bias when it is in their own favor.


----------



## SG_67

jpgr said:


> Evidenced, I think, by the fact that people find debate moderators to be either "fair and balanced" or "favoring the other candidate". People (myself included) seldom recognize bias when it is in their own favor.


I'm certainly aware of it when it favors one or the other candidate. The problem is that most of the time, given the preponderance of liberal thought within the media elite, the bias is against the GOP candidate or rather in favor of the Democratic candidate.


----------



## jpgr

SG_67 said:


> I'm certainly aware of it when it favors one or the other candidate. The problem is that most of the time, given the preponderance of liberal thought within the media elite, the bias is against the GOP candidate or rather in favor of the Democratic candidate.


Understood. I wonder if I would recognize bias against a Democratic candidate. Of course I can tell when Ann Coulter or Rush are slamming Dems for being Dems, but I don't know if I'd notice in the context of a debate. Do sports fans notice when the refs are biased in their team's favor?


----------



## Dhaller

SG_67 said:


> It's worth noting that such quaint notions as impartiality and fairness not to mention lack of bias, are hardly realistic.


Indeed. Sit a human being in the moderator chair, and you have bias.

In experimental design, interviewer bias is mitigated with double blind methodology, but that would make for a weird debate!

DH


----------



## Tempest

I recognized the bias against Bernie, and every non-Hillary Democrat.

Hilarious, but not entirely unexpected, news that Hillary's proud new citizen, 1996's Miss Universe, is a porn actress that drove a getaway car from a murder and threatened the judge. Naturally, she'll be voting against Trump.


----------



## SG_67

jpgr said:


> Understood. I wonder if I would recognize bias against a Democratic candidate. Of course I can tell when Ann Coulter or Rush are slamming Dems for being Dems, but I don't know if I'd notice in the context of a debate. Do sports fans notice when the refs are biased in their team's favor?


Ann Coulter and Rush as opinion journalists. They don't claim to be fair or unbiased. As such, they would both be poor moderators for a presidential debate.


----------



## irish95

Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary after having not endorsed a Democrat in over 75 years.

Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Hillary after having endorsed the Republican candidate for almost a century.

Arizona Republic endorsed Hillary after having endorsed a Republican for 126 years.

These are traditional Republican editorial boards. I can probably guess they have never been characterized as the "liberal media". A reading of their collective opinions says more about the negatives of Trump leading the nation than how great Hillary would be as President, but never the less, it is stunning that these papers would endorse a Democrat.

In all candor, I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but the alternative is repugnant. I frankly believe all the Trump supporters here know that, but they can't fathom how Trump is their candidate. 

Now you guys can have back at it.


----------



## SG_67

^ No one really cares what newspaper endorses which candidate. The whole concept is an anachronism. 

Just out of curiosity, what is so repugnant about Trump? He's brash and candid but what makes him repugnant?


----------



## Tempest

I get all the political hacks and opportunists that are bitter about their staked bets in a candidate failing, and how they want to hope for a redo for their guy in four years. However, these fools actually going for Hillary risks her actually winning. Then the people will remember their support when we've endured a few years of her (or Timmy Kaine) making us wish Obama was still in office. Nobody, I mean nobody, will be remembering how oogah-bogah "racist" and mean Trump was by then. Hopefully they'll be tarred and feathered. 
Luckily, Trump is on course to handily take this thing.


----------



## SG_67

^ The CW is that Hillary is a "known quantity" so people know what to expect. This puzzles me as it implies a certain apathy in the minds of some and a resolve that the same crap for another 4-8 years is preferred to something different.


----------



## KateSmall

irish95 said:


> Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary after having not endorsed a Democrat in over 75 years.
> 
> Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Hillary after having endorsed the Republican candidate for almost a century.
> 
> Arizona Republic endorsed Hillary after having endorsed a Republican for 126 years.


Something interesting about endorsing and supporting. Has anybody seen the map of Campaign donation according to the zip codes? It's here: Are your neighbors giving money to Clinton or Trump? That's a curious thing if someone wants to search for Campaign in some region, here is the list of the zip codes: https://worldpostalcode.com/united-states/


----------



## Dhaller

SG_67 said:


> ^ The CW is that Hillary is a "known quantity" so people know what to expect. This puzzles me as it implies a certain apathy in the minds of some and a resolve that the same crap for another 4-8 years is preferred to something different.


That's because things are actually very good.

So, I've lived a few places other than the USA, including two developing nations. Here are some things which are just plain freaking awesome about the USA:

When I turn on a light switch anywhere, lights come on EVERY time; literally amazing. Yes, a storm can change it for a couple of hours, but the power grid JUST WORKS. Pretty incredible.

I can drink water from my tap. Un-freaking-believable.

When I get in my car to drive somewhere? I get there. Like, the road isn't washed out or ANYTHING. Sweet.

Anyway, you get the idea. The fact is, the USA isn't "crap", it hums along like an incredibly powerful, well-oiled machine, a Porsche 911 Turbo of nations. Mostly, one realizes this by living abroad, even in "developed" nations... like, try renting an apartment in Japan (part of the reason I bought a house in Japan is to avoid the Ninth Hell of renting), or getting phone service in Italy, two things which take all of one day in the USA but can drag on over months elsewhere.

Or, consider the magic of doing business in the USA. I recently started two companies, one in the USA, and the other a Japanese subsidiary of a holding company I have in the USA. The USA company, in terms of LLC filings, business license, insurance, bank account, all the "stuff", consumed maybe a week. Japan? the regulatory environment for handling information alone required breathtaking complexity, agreeing to tons of documented requirements, setting up secure server, encryption, etc, not to mention that banking in Japan is done IN PERSON. It can take months, and cost a LOT. I can set up a company in the USA for under $10,000, maybe a little more if I need contracts for executive compensation.

The USA is probably not the most business-friendly in every dimension - it's a lot easier to set up a pharma plant in Ghana, for example - but taken as a whole basket of opportunities, security, regulatory environment, etc, well... USA, USA.

So, actually, the status quo is pretty good.

DH


----------



## drlivingston

What is a newspaper?


----------



## RogerP

irish95 said:


> Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary after having not endorsed a Democrat in over 75 years.
> 
> Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Hillary after having endorsed the Republican candidate for almost a century.
> 
> Arizona Republic endorsed Hillary after having endorsed a Republican for 126 years.
> 
> These are traditional Republican editorial boards. I can probably guess they have never been characterized as the "liberal media". A reading of their collective opinions says more about the negatives of Trump leading the nation than how great Hillary would be as President, but never the less, it is stunning that these papers would endorse a Democrat.
> 
> In all candor, I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but the alternative is repugnant. I frankly believe all the Trump supporters here know that, but they can't fathom how Trump is their candidate.
> 
> Now you guys can have back at it.


I applaud the Republicans who have the courage to break away from the blind, mindless "my party no matter what!" mentality and take a stand against the odious elements of racism, misogyny and xenophobia that are the bedrock foundation of the Trump candidacy.


----------



## Tempest

^conversely, I applaud the America-firsters that shook the neoconservative free-trade and open borders candidates which they had previously regretfully tolerated as a lesser evil.

I think SG_67 and drlivingston are onto something in that the newspaper subscribing demographic is elderly and not revolutionary.

The low turnout of American voting, ~30%, is sometimes attributed to a faith in the system that one does not feel their involvement is necessary. Conversely, I suspect there is a large group that are nihilists and think "all politicians are crooks." They have opted out as a vote of no confidence. My suspicion is that these are the people that came out for Sanders and Trump. 

The reality is that most elections are not so much about converting unaffiliated voters, but about getting them (as well as the undedicated party voters) to actually show up to cast their vote. Or better yet, signing up new voters. Democrats have traditionally had a phenomenal block machine, especially for urban centers. We'll see if an enthusiasm gap between the candidates is enough to overpower that.


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> Just out of curiosity, what is so repugnant about Trump? He's brash and candid but what makes him repugnant?


Trump has built his entire campaign around the idea that middle class Americans, workers and small businesses alike, are getting screwed. Screwed by illegal immigrants taking their jobs, foreign companies selling their goods here, large corporations taking advantage of them, and corrupt politicians who have been bought off by special interests.

Yet Trump himself has hired illegal immigrant construction workers (and brought in legal immigrants on visas to work his resorts), his entire clothing line was made in China and Mexico, there are literally hundreds of stories at this point of him refusing to pay employees, contractors, suppliers for services and goods rendered and using his lawyers to crush them, and he has openly bragged about buying off politicians.

He is a phoney and a fraud and a hypocrite on a scale this country has never seen before. I can already hear the defense from his sycophants - "it takes someone who knows how to play the system to fix it, only he can save us." Spare me. Would you let a convicted rapist give your daughter one-on-one rape prevention lessons? I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## SG_67

Dhaller said:


> That's because things are actually very good.
> 
> So, I've lived a few places other than the USA, including two developing nations. Here are some things which are just plain freaking awesome about the USA:
> 
> When I turn on a light switch anywhere, lights come on EVERY time; literally amazing. Yes, a storm can change it for a couple of hours, but the power grid JUST WORKS. Pretty incredible.
> 
> I can drink water from my tap. Un-freaking-believable.
> 
> When I get in my car to drive somewhere? I get there. Like, the road isn't washed out or ANYTHING. Sweet.
> 
> Anyway, you get the idea. The fact is, the USA isn't "crap", it hums along like an incredibly powerful, well-oiled machine, a Porsche 911 Turbo of nations. Mostly, one realizes this by living abroad, even in "developed" nations... like, try renting an apartment in Japan (part of the reason I bought a house in Japan is to avoid the Ninth Hell of renting), or getting phone service in Italy, two things which take all of one day in the USA but can drag on over months elsewhere.
> 
> Or, consider the magic of doing business in the USA. I recently started two companies, one in the USA, and the other a Japanese subsidiary of a holding company I have in the USA. The USA company, in terms of LLC filings, business license, insurance, bank account, all the "stuff", consumed maybe a week. Japan? the regulatory environment for handling information alone required breathtaking complexity, agreeing to tons of documented requirements, setting up secure server, encryption, etc, not to mention that banking in Japan is done IN PERSON. It can take months, and cost a LOT. I can set up a company in the USA for under $10,000, maybe a little more if I need contracts for executive compensation.
> 
> The USA is probably not the most business-friendly in every dimension - it's a lot easier to set up a pharma plant in Ghana, for example - but taken as a whole basket of opportunities, security, regulatory environment, etc, well... USA, USA.
> 
> So, actually, the status quo is pretty good.
> 
> DH


I'm not going to compare this country to a 3rd world country and in that context state that things are just fine. Things can be better and as an American there's no reason to settle.

Wages have been stagnant and for the past 8 years we've done quite well considering we've had an infant running the country. Of course during that time if you've had the government interfere with your ability to purchase health insurance or access medical services you might feel differently.

Also, unless one is happy about a president that has created a climate wherein the mob feels entitled to riot and burn down a city because they don't like police officers defending themselves I think you may have an issue there as well.


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> Trump has built his entire campaign around the idea that middle class Americans, workers and small businesses alike, are getting screwed. Screwed by illegal immigrants taking their jobs, foreign companies selling their goods here, large corporations taking advantage of them, and corrupt politicians who have been bought off by special interests.
> 
> Yet Trump himself has hired illegal immigrant construction workers (and brought in legal immigrants on visas to work his resorts), his entire clothing line was made in China and Mexico, there are literally hundreds of stories at this point of him refusing to pay employees, contractors, suppliers for services and goods rendered and using his lawyers to crush them, and he has openly bragged about buying off politicians.
> 
> He is a phoney and a fraud and a hypocrite on a scale this country has never seen before. I can already hear the defense from his sycophants - "it takes someone who knows how to play the system to fix it, only he can save us." Spare me. Would you let a convicted rapist give your daughter one-on-one rape prevention lessons? I certainly wouldn't.


So Donald Trump is a rapist? Businesses get sued all the time. That's why large corporations have insurance and in-house attorneys.

Please point to the "hundreds of stories". A simple link will suffice. He's bought off politicians because politicians are or sale. You would too if it advantaged you.

Do you deny the things that he is saying though?


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> So Donald Trump is a rapist? Businesses get sued all the time. That's why large corporations have insurance and in-house attorneys.


What? It was an analogy. I wouldn't hire a convicted burglar to provide home security or a convicted arsonist to help fireproof my house. Trump is guilty of doing every single thing he claims to oppose.



> Please point to the "hundreds of stories". A simple link will suffice. He's bought off politicians because politicians are or sale. You would too if it advantaged you.


Here you go:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...0709313&PID=3646650&SID=itoa2q0nto0004kj00dth

These are ordinary workers, contractors, small business people, etc. who performed services and then were not paid by Trump. He has been screwing over the little guy his entire life. And now for his final act, he's convincing those same useful idiots to vote for him.



> Do you deny the things that he is saying though?


I deny that he has any actual solutions for any of the issues being discussed or that he even understands the majority of them.


----------



## SG_67

^ Trump has not been convicted of anything. Your "convicted" burglar and rapist analogy don't hold water. 

"Hundreds allege". Contractors sue all the time. They will bid on job and then claim there were unforeseen aspects of the job that required additional work and then pad the bill. Or, they don't deliver as promised. Or, they don't perform the job to spec. 

I'll give you an example; about 6 years ago we hired a contractor for a remodeling project for our home. After the bid, and starting demo, he tried to pad the bill by telling us that they ran into this and that. We negotiated with him and paid extra but the kicker was when we had specified the paint we wanted use, was charged for it and found him using a sub par line (it was still Benjamin Moore but an inferior line). We confronted him and he admitted that he made "a mistake" and corrected it. 

We were just a helpless couple and after the work was done, we ended up having to pay an additional $1500 over the bid. The truth is contractors look at developers as having deep pockets and will often sue or try to cut corners hoping to get away with it.

Of course if you're predisposed to believing that Trump is crooked and a liar, then such stories are tailor made for you. I really admire USA Today's objective and unbiased reporting. I'll assume, therefore, that the newspaper has never been sued by anyone thinking they could turn a quick buck with a settlement


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> They will bid on job and then claim there were unforeseen aspects of the job that required additional work and then pad the bill. Or, they don't deliver as promised. Or, they don't perform the job to spec.


Exactly. This is Trump upholding contracts, not negating them. The story that I've heard was that Trump pulled this shrewd trick akin to the celebrity contract riders of having a bowl of green M&Ms in the dressing room. If you walk in and don't see it there, you know they didn't read the contract and things will not be up to snuff. Specifically, he supposedly would specify drywall to be within a certain distance of the floor, closer than standard. He would then show up _personally_ with a tape measure and do the inspection _himsel_f. When found noncompliant, renegotiation would begin. 
That sounds _exactly_ like the kind of President that I want dealing with Congress and a budget. He's not one to get screwed over or be careless with a few billion tax dollars here and there. He's a stickler and he gets things done, well.


----------



## SG_67

^ And hence the difference between the private vs. public sector. No one cares in the public sector as they are not spending their own money.


----------



## drlivingston

rtd1 said:


> I wouldn't hire a convicted burglar to provide home security or a convicted arsonist to help fireproof my house.


This comment shows a lack of understanding in the business world. Those are exactly the people that you want to hire for those jobs. Macys was wanting to make things more difficult for shoplifters. So, do you think they hired some college tech guy to figure it out? No, they hired a convicted serial shoplifter to travel to their stores to train managers. They paid him WELL for his knowledge. And who could forget Frank Abagnale? Did the feds lock him away for life after being one of the most successful (and elusive) counterfeiters in history? No, they employed him and paid him generously for his knowledge. Banks have employed bank robbers. Fire departments have employed arsonists. The federal government uses private mercenaries in overseas operations that never get reported. Never underestimate the value of experience... both legal and not so legal.


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> ^ Trump has not been convicted of anything. Your "convicted" burglar and rapist analogy don't hold water.


Nor has Hillary. I take that to mean we'll not hear another peep about Benghazi, emails, or mysterious deaths?



> Of course if you're predisposed to believing that Trump is crooked and a liar, then such stories are tailor made for you. I really admire USA Today's objective and unbiased reporting. I'll assume, therefore, that the newspaper has never been sued by anyone thinking they could turn a quick buck with a settlement


Of course, if you're predisposed to believing that Trump is the saviour about to bring about utopia on earth, you'll eat up every excuse he offers.


----------



## rtd1

drlivingston said:


> This comment shows a lack of understanding in the business world. Those are exactly the people that you want to hire for those jobs. Macys was wanting to make things more difficult for shoplifters. So, do you think they hired some college tech guy to figure it out? No, they hired a convicted serial shoplifter to travel to their stores to train managers. They paid him WELL for his knowledge. And who could forget Frank Abagnale? Did the feds lock him away for life after being one of the most successful (and elusive) counterfeiters in history? No, they employed him and paid him generously for his knowledge. Banks have employed bank robbers. Fire departments have employed arsonists. The federal government uses private mercenaries in overseas operations that never get reported. Never underestimate the value of experience... both legal and not so legal.


This comment shows a lack of understanding in the business world. You hire these people as subject matter experts. You do not hand them the keys to the kingdom and put them in charge.


----------



## Tempest

drlivingston said:


> Those are exactly the people that you want to hire for those jobs


Chris Tucker was onto this in January, commenting on Trump saying that the Clintons were at his wedding because he paid them to attend.


> Trump is the ideal candidate to fight Washington corruption not simply because he opposes it, but because he has personally participated in it. He's not just a reformer; like most effective populists, he's a whistleblower, a traitor to his class. Before he became the most ferocious enemy American business had ever known, Teddy Roosevelt was a rich guy. His privilege wasn't incidental; it was key to his appeal. Anyone can peer through the window in envy. It takes a real man to throw furniture through it from the inside.


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> Nor has Hillary. I take that to mean we'll not hear another peep about Benghazi, emails, or mysterious deaths?


Benghazi was a dereliction of duty and about political cover up. And though the Obama Justice Dept. opted not to indict HRC, the presumed successor of Obama, does not absolve her of poor judgment and the reckless handling of classified and top secret information.

As for mysterious deaths, you're the only one mentioning that but please, do go on.



> Of course, if you're predisposed to believing that Trump is the saviour about to bring about utopia on earth, you'll eat up every excuse he offers.


Straw man arguments aside, no one is proposing that. We're simply saying that if we are to see some sort of change from the path we are currently on, Trump is the better option.


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> Benghazi was a dereliction of duty and about political cover up. And though the Obama Justice Dept. opted not to indict HRC, the presumed successor of Obama, does not absolve her of poor judgment and the reckless handling of classified and top secret information.


I see. So in Trump's case, no conviction means it's not a valid issue to be discussed whereas in Hillary's case, no conviction means that it's an even better issue because clearly there was corruption involved in preventing a conviction. Makes sense.



> Straw man arguments aside, no one is proposing that. We're simply saying that if we are to see some sort of change from the path we are currently on, Trump is the better option.


And I'm simply saying that regardless of the choice before us, a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> I see. So in Trump's case, no conviction means it's not a valid issue to be discussed whereas in Hillary's case, no conviction means that it's an even better issue because clearly there was corruption involved in preventing a conviction. Makes sense.


Go ahead and discuss it. There's nothing there. They are completely different animals. The matter of his business dealings is a matter of a tough, savvy business man who knows how to get things done. That he's been sued is part of doing business. Everyone gets sued, it's nothing new.



> And I'm simply saying that regardless of the choice before us, a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.


In what way? A chance at better trade deals, lowered regulations and taxes? Or would reducing illegal immigration be an unmitigated disaster?


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> In what way?


The popular refrain is that the peaceful Trump is somehow going to blow up the world, with the wordplay of his television reality show catch phrase used to mean missile launches. Never mind that Hillary is aching for war with Iran, Russia, a good portion of American voters, and anyone that might be fighting ISIS. Trump is simultaneously both a shallow selfish whore and a crazed suicidal ideologue, it seems.

There is also this notion that some slip of the tongue might get some other world leader in such a tizzy that they start a war. Because that's all it takes, with these delicate emotional heads of state! But we can't have Trump, because he might be like that...


----------



## 16412

Repugnant, Donald? If you think so. 

Hillary is more repugnant. She hides it very well for those who can't see through it.

Donald sure isn't hiding it. Therefore, he is more honest.

Besides, she is more repugnant. Abortion is extremely repugnant. The Bible talks about two brothers who fought in the womb, and yet Hillary is willing to murder them, all the while claiming to be a Christian. How can she be a Christian while pushing for things the Christian God seriously is against? That He says is of the anti-christ. Anti-christ is the opposite of Christian.

She claims to have experience. Indeed she has. She proves she lacks wisdom by endless terrible decisions. So, her experience means nothing.

Donald was brought up in a time when males were not to be pansies, starting at an early age. How many males 40 years and under are not pansies? American males are becoming an embarrassment. So many schools have been drugging boys and ramming political correctness, so they have not developed into the men of strength they need to be. And they are proving it. All most everything Trump has said should not bother them. But Hillariers lack of wisdom should should bother everyone.

Is Trump perfect? Of course not. Far from it.
Hillary perfect? Even further from perfect. Wisdom says, pay attention to whitewash (she's very busy with that brush).


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> Go ahead and discuss it. There's nothing there. They are completely different animals. The matter of his business dealings is a matter of a tough, savvy business man who knows how to get things done. That he's been sued is part of doing business. Everyone gets sued, it's nothing new.


We're not just talking generic lawsuits and disputes.

We're talking about events like the one discussed here:

Donald Trump orders $100k worth of pianos from a small business, receives them, tells the owner I'm only paying you $70k feel free to try and sue me for the rest.

That is theft. It is immoral. It is an example of everything that is wrong with this country.



> In what way? A chance at better trade deals, lowered regulations and taxes? Or would reducing illegal immigration be an unmitigated disaster?


Better trade deals? During one of the primary debates, Trump thought that China was party to the TPP. They are not, in fact, the TPP is designed to counterbalance China's power in the region. Foreign policy? He literally did not know what the nuclear triad was. The man is not only ignorant of policy issues, but wilfully so.


----------



## Tempest

I read this piano one. That's hardball between someone good at business and someone naive. The fact is that this business owner decided to front his own money and found himself in a bind when payment was delayed so he agreed to take less. Insurance companies routinely deny valid claims just to see if the pursuer is soft or foolish enough to accept it. It's called lowballing. It is a bluff to see if they get called on it.

It seems that the common trope in these "stiffed" people is "oh Trump has gobs of money!" Yes, and he wants to keep it. He's not a charity and you didn't win the lottery. If you overextending yourself, the person to blame is in the mirror. Partial payment could come from anyone, but they had stars in their eyes and failed to account for the risk.


----------



## drlivingston

rtd1 said:


> You do not hand them the keys to the kingdom and put them in charge.


Let me get this straight. You type this AND are voting for Hillary? Doesn't that seem to go against your own advice?


----------



## Tempest

rtd1 said:


> Donald Trump orders $100k worth of pianos from a small business, receives them, tells the owner I'm only paying you $70k feel free to try and sue me for the rest.


fwiw, this guy seems to not be entirely consistent with his story.
https://www.courierpostonline.com/s...back-millstone-man-shady-piano-deal/87322496/


> Eventually the Taj Mahal offered him three options for payment: take 70 cents on the dollar, wait until the casino was profitable or force it into bankruptcy and get pennies on the dollar.


So full, delayed payment was an option, and he did not take it.


----------



## rtd1

Tempest said:


> I read this piano one. That's hardball between someone good at business and someone naive. The fact is that this business owner decided to front his own money and found himself in a bind when payment was delayed so he agreed to take less. Insurance companies routinely deny valid claims just to see if the pursuer is soft or foolish enough to accept it. It's called lowballing. It is a bluff to see if they get called on it.
> 
> It seems that the common trope in these "stiffed" people is "oh Trump has gobs of money!" Yes, and he wants to keep it. He's not a charity and you didn't win the lottery. If you overextending yourself, the person to blame is in the mirror. Partial payment could come from anyone, but they had stars in their eyes and failed to account for the risk.


So let me get this straight, paying your bills is now considered soft and foolish?

Are you ok with people running up their credit cards buying TVs and vacations and such and then absconding without paying? Is that just being good at business and sticking it to those soft credit card companies? How about shoplifters? If those store owners had any sense, they'd tie everything down, why pay for an item when you can just stuff it in your jacket and walk out the door?


----------



## rtd1

Tempest said:


> fwiw, this guy seems to not be entirely consistent with his story.
> https://www.courierpostonline.com/s...back-millstone-man-shady-piano-deal/87322496/
> 
> So full, delayed payment was an option, and he did not take it.


What were the terms when the sale was made? I doubt payment was contingent on the casino becoming profitable. I also doubt that the $30k reduction was going to make the difference between the casino going bankrupt or not.

This story absolutely has legs. Since the end of the primaries, it's literally the only thing that I'm hearing any of the Trump supporters I know in real life say is causing them to reconsider their vote.


----------



## Tempest

rtd1 said:


> So let me get this straight, paying your bills is now considered soft and foolish?


No, settling for the first offer is. 


> Are you ok with people running up their credit cards buying TVs and vacations and such and then absconding without paying?


The credit card companies are in business for that. They charge interest. I would hope that any contract would have interest or other feed built in on late payments. BTW, guess what the credit card company does when they can't collect? They sell of the debt at a reduction to a collection agency.


rtd1 said:


> I doubt payment was contingent on the casino becoming profitable.


From where do you think the money for payment would come? Mr. Trump's wallet? This was an unforeseen circumstance. It should have been anticipated, but at least one party failed to do that. 
The charge is that Trump is somehow dishonest, but this case shows no malice. The casino lacked funds through no fault of their own. They paid what they could and offered more at a possible later date. The assumption that class-envy kooks seem to be making is that business enterprises muddle books and just shuffle personal funds into failing ventures. That is unreasonable, and likely prohibited. It's not like he could just withdraw funds were the profits high!


----------



## 16412

Corporation laws seem to be very different from business laws. Either one has need for lawyers. But, wouldn't the piano sells man be able to go pick up the pianos that Trumps corporation couldn't pay for?


----------



## culverwood

For someone to loose an presedential election for $30,000 would be a great example of the old "ha'porth of tar" proverb or perhaps I have my analogy slightly wrong.


----------



## SG_67

I wonder had the Clintons instead of politics gone into business, and given their loose and facile association with truth and honesty, what their business dealings and record would look like. 

Of course in all fairness, perhaps there is just something about politics and it's culture which welcomes and embraces dishonesty.


----------



## drlivingston

SG_67 said:


> Of course in all fairness, perhaps there is just something about politics and it's culture which welcomes and embraces dishonesty.


I would add the word "condones" to your statement.


----------



## Tempest

WA said:


> But, wouldn't the piano sells man be able to go pick up the pianos that Trumps corporation couldn't pay for?


I thought the same thing. I presume that the discount payment was ultimately less costly and that is why he chose it. My analogy is a mortgaged house. The bank doesn't siphon junior's college fund if the mortgage is not coming, and they are not eager to repossess the house if they can get cash in any way.


SG_67 said:


> Of course in all fairness, perhaps there is just something about politics and it's culture which welcomes and embraces dishonesty.


The anarcho-capitalism tome, Hans Hermann-Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" rather agrees. The system is one of temporary stewardship where immediate personal enrichment is more advantageous for the officeholder than long-term sustainable policymaking that would benefit an actual stakeholder.

The antiTrumpers are ramping up the October surprises, all being decades old fogginess so far. Still waiting on Assange, who assured us that DJT was clean but there was plenty of HRC.


----------



## rtd1

WA said:


> Corporation laws seem to be very different from business laws. Either one has need for lawyers. But, wouldn't the piano sells man be able to go pick up the pianos that Trumps corporation couldn't pay for?


In general, no. You can only repossess something that was collateral for a loan, like a house or a car. Or in the case of a lease or rental, if there is a security agreement. For the sale of ordinary goods, once they are in the possession of the other party, your only recourse in the event of non-payment in most cases is a lawsuit.


----------



## rtd1

Apparently Trump violated the embargo on Cuba as well.

https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html

Between this and his constant praise of Putin, I'm sure The Gipper is rolling in his grave.


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> Apparently Trump violated the embargo on Cuba as well.
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html
> 
> Between this and his constant praise of Putin, I'm sure The Gipper is rolling in his grave.


If that was the case then he'd be in jail. He's not in jail though, is he?


----------



## Tempest

rtd1 said:


> Apparently Trump violated the embargo on Cuba as well.
> Between this and his constant praise of Putin, I'm sure The Gipper is rolling in his grave.


Oh, nice try at getting the Cubano Republicans in Florida, HRC '16!
Am I thinking of a different President that did the glastnost with Gorby thing?


----------



## SG_67

I think the current POTUS single handedly violated the embargo by doing the wave with the current dictator. 

And didn't our current president deliver some $400 million in Swiss Francs to Iran in violation of existing laws?


----------



## culverwood

SG_67 said:


> If that was the case then he'd be in jail. He's not in jail though, is he?


Do you apply the same logic to HRC?


----------



## SG_67

culverwood said:


> Do you apply the same logic to HRC?


Prosecutors always have discretion and perhaps they opted not to charge as they didn't believe there was sufficient evidence or perhaps the evidence does not suggest criminal activity.

HRC was let off the hook by the DOJ. The circumstances notwithstanding, interesting how Newsweek is digging up ancient stories with Trump at the periphery and nary a mention of the Clintons and whitewater.

It's a sure sign of desparation on the part of the media when this is the best the can scrape up. Journalists who engage in this would do well to remember Dan Rather.


----------



## Tempest

I heard that USA Today, the short attention span newspaper that hotels give away, has broken tradition and given a negative endorsement against Trump. If all past events are any indication, this should give him a boost in the polls. The one group that Americans trust less than politicians (of which Trump is not one) is the media.


----------



## drlivingston

Orsini said:


> The Donald can kiss my Germanic ass.
> 
> How about that?


As long as you save one Germanic cheek for Hillary. Outside of the presidential race, they are two peas in a pod.


----------



## rtd1

drlivingston said:


> As long as you save one Germanic cheek for Hillary. Outside of the presidential race, they are two peas in a pod.


Yes, the sheer number of pictures of Trump hanging out with both Clintons that have recently surfaced should dissuade all of these ridiculous notions of him being an outsider for sure.


----------



## SG_67

It depends on the term insider vs. outsider. Trump is a NYC developer. Having a relationship with key politicians is important. He'd be derelict if he didn't. It's different from being an insider. 

Being an insider is best represented by the revolving door between firms like Goldman-Sachs, the Fed and the treasury department.


----------



## eagle2250

Someone on "The Donald's" campaign staff should take his personal electronic devices from the candidate. He keeps shooting himself in the foot with his blasted tweets! He does more damage to himself that Hillary is able to inflict upon him. :crazy:


----------



## SG_67

HRC forsakes the Barista vote; "they're losers."

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-audio-leak-228997


----------



## Orsini

drlivingston said:


> As long as you save one Germanic cheek for Hillary. Outside of the presidential race, they are two peas in a pod.


Actually, what I meant to say that he is too far to the right for a moderate like me.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Orsini said:


> Actually, what I meant to say that he is too far to the right for a moderate like me.


By any traditional measure, Trump is neither right, left nor moderate. He is a type of populist.


----------



## Tempest

Mike Petrik said:


> By any traditional measure, Trump is neither right, left nor moderate. He is a type of populist.


There is a column somewhere entitled something like "We're All Fascists Now" that points out that there are no purely ideological parties in mainstream America, and there hasn't been for some time. All are basically Machiavellian parties advancing their own party strength and, to a lesser extent, national interests. The closing point was that we might as well choose the fascist that supports goals that we agree with.
Trump certainly has some stances that are not conservative or libertarian at all, but seeing how I can't find anything at all that I like about Hillary, he's already gotten my vote. Literally, I already cast my absentee, now "mail-in", ballot.


----------



## Chouan

As the originator of this thread, I have found the various, and changing, views of Trump that some of the members have expressed most interesting. If one goes back and reads the first page or two of posts, then looks again at recent pages, one would find the increasingly entrenched positive views of Trump especially interesting.


----------



## jpgr

Tempest said:


> There is a column somewhere entitled something like "We're All Fascists Now" that points out that there are no purely ideological parties in mainstream America, and there hasn't been for some time. All are basically Machiavellian parties advancing their own party strength and, to a lesser extent, national interests. The closing point was that we might as well choose the fascist that supports goals that we agree with.
> Trump certainly has some stances that are not conservative or libertarian at all, but seeing how I can't find anything at all that I like about Hillary, he's already gotten my vote. Literally, I already cast my absentee, now "mail-in", ballot.


Is it this? https://takimag.com/article/were_all_fascists_now_james_miller/print#axzz4M1y2hxBS

It was written at the dawn of the primary season, but it's potentially more relevant in the general cycle where it's more like "Us vs Them".


----------



## Tempest

jpgr said:


> Is it this? https://takimag.com/article/were_all_fascists_now_james_miller/print#axzz4M1y2hxBS


Yup, despite my memory clearly being a little indistinct. The state is power hungry and even the official Libertarian candidate (whom nobody here is fool enough to support) endorses the government enforcing things well beyond their constitutional authority.


----------



## Dhaller

SG_67 said:


> HRC forsakes the Barista vote; "they're losers."
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-audio-leak-228997


She's pretty on-target, though.

"Hi, I'd like to find out what I'm qualified for?"

"Great! Okay, did you attend college?"

"Yes. I have a B.A and a Master's."

"Cool... what major?"

"Well, my B.A. is in African Folklore, and my Master's is in Transgressive Feminist Theater, with a specialty in African non-verbal storytelling."

"Ah. Hmmm. Well, they grow coffee in Africa, right?"

"Yes?"

"Great! Here's your apron. I'll have a decaf cortado? double shot?"

DH


----------



## SG_67

^ and the sad thing is that much of that was taxpayer subsidized.


----------



## immanuelrx




----------



## Tempest

That reminds me, the debate commission has admitted that Trump's microphone was indeed adjusted incorrectly. How could that have happened? 
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/30/4961...as-something-up-with-donald-trumps-debate-mic


----------



## immanuelrx

"You whipped out that Mexican thing again."

Priceless. Another win for the trump campaign.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
If the election results were driven solely by the result(s) of the Vice Presidential debate, the Republicans would, after last nights debate, have walked well along the path leading to the Oval office. However, "The Donald" continues to play with and do damage with his electronic toys and that sewer of a mouth of his. He continued with his juvenile tweets, even during the debate...just unbelievable. :crazy: My grand kids show greater emotional maturity that that fool!


----------



## Tempest

So besides endless recycling of the fact that DJT called Rosie O'Donnell names (with which just about everybody agrees) and stated that many people coming through (not necessarily from) Mexico are violent criminals, they added that the man declined to donate extra cash to the Treasury by using the same legal tax maneuver that HRC used much more recently. They also floated some rcalumny that Trump was becoming President because he had business dealings, of some mysterious nature, with Russia. Not a shred of evidence or credibility to this, but it sounds like a movie villain thing, so they threw it out there. 
Eric Trump fantastically asks how Hillary racked up a quarter billion dollars since her husband left office.


----------



## SG_67

^ It really shouldn't be any surprise that this is what the media goes after. It's easy and they don't have to actually do any work. For those who still harbor some prepubescent notion that newsrooms are filled with the likes of Woodward and Bernstein, last nights debate should put that to rest, as should most of the coverage over the past few weeks. 

Meanwhile, we learn that the DOJ, as part of it's HRC "investigation", it gave immunity deals out like Halloween candy and allowed key witnesses to destroy evidence. Perhaps this is what was discussed on the tarmac between Bill and Loretta. Tucked in between discussions about golf and the grand kids of course.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> ^ It really shouldn't be any surprise that this is what the media goes after. It's easy and they don't have to actually do any work. For those who still harbor some prepubescent notion that newsrooms are filled with the likes of Woodward and Bernstein, last nights debate should put that to rest, as should most of the coverage over the past few weeks.
> 
> Meanwhile, we learn that the DOJ, as part of it's HRC "investigation", it gave immunity deals out like Halloween candy and allowed key witnesses to destroy evidence. Perhaps this is what was discussed on the tarmac between Bill and Loretta. Tucked in between discussions about golf and the grand kids of course.


I don't like Trump and will not vote for him, but the media's pejorative portrayal of net operating loss carry-forward deductions as a legal "maneuver" is ridiculously absurd. This really is an artificial issue.


----------



## SG_67

^ Not when news rooms are filled with people who have no clue as to what they are talking about. 

The irony is that most of these newspapers have faced a financial crisis at some point and whose management and ownership has had to use such "maneuvers" to stay solvent.


----------



## Flanderian

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't like Trump and will not vote for him, but the media's pejorative portrayal of net operating loss carry-forward deductions as a legal "maneuver" is ridiculously absurd. This really is an artificial issue.





SG_67 said:


> ^ Not when news rooms are filled with people who have no clue as to what they are talking about.
> 
> The irony is that most of these newspapers have faced a financial crisis at some point and whose management and ownership has had to use such "maneuvers" to stay solvent.


Listening to many so-called "news" programs will often make me literally sick to my stomach. Journalism has been replaced by the The Jerry Springer Show.

I know a few sources that actually provide meaningful information with appropriate context, but very few.

Yellow Journalism and biased, factional reporting are hardly new to America, but the degree to which journalism has regressed seriously concerns me. When most sources of information to which our countrymen are exposed are either propaganda or sensationalism, or both, what hope democracy?

I have assiduously avoided any detail concerning this specific issue as I find most of this entire political cycle abhorrent. But as a former owner of a small corporation, I have a general understanding of carrying forward loses. My only concern would rather be how these losses were generated, and at what expense to other stake-holders? I would consider those legitimate issues.


----------



## SG_67

The other investors are banks, large private investors and/or institutional investors. 

Trump is not Bernie Maddoff and he wasn't selling time shares to gullible couples.


----------



## rtd1

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> If the election results were driven solely by the result(s) of the Vice Presidential debate, the Republicans would, after last nights debate, have walked well along the path leading to the Oval office. However, "The Donald" continues to play with and do damage with his electronic toys and that sewer of a mouth of his. He continued with his juvenile tweets, even during the debate...just unbelievable. :crazy: My grand kids show greater emotional maturity that that fool!


And you want to take that short finger of his off Twitter and put it on the nuclear button?


----------



## SG_67

^ You really have no idea how it works, do you?


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> ^ You really have no idea how it works, do you?


No, but he knows his TV. 
Yet, Trump is still a horrible candidate.


----------



## SG_67

^ I agree. If by horrible candidate you mean he's not a sycophant who changes his speech pattern and dialect or pretends to be a fan of whatever sport team the locals follow. 

Or perhaps someone who just has contempt for the voters and sees them as nothing more than a nuisance to be managed so that she can fulfill her ambition. 

Yes, against such metrics, he's a lousy candidate.


----------



## immanuelrx

He is the absolute worst presidential candidate I can ever recall that has had a chance of winning the presidency. Usually, by this time, people like him say enough dumb comments to lose popularity and support. Somehow, Trump is immune to this trend. I don't understand why. I get he is not a career politician and that is somewhat refreshing, but do people ever even listen to him speak? It takes me no more than 5 minutes for me to change the channel. The GOP is in a rough state right now. Hillary is quite a despicable person, but she would do far less damage than trump in four years.


----------



## SG_67

^ Really? Hillary comes armed with all sorts of 5 point plans. We see how these things usually end. The ACA and other federal government foibles should give us an indication.


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> ^ You really have no idea how it works, do you?


It was a metaphor for someone who has no impulse control, who has to respond to every perceived slight, who cannot grasp consequences while in the heat of the moment. Not someone I want representing the nation in foreign affairs or serving as commander in chief.


----------



## immanuelrx

Yes really. There is not one person that I can think of that would force me to vote Hillary other than Trump. I have voted republican since I started voting. Yes, Hillary comes armed with 5 point plans and all sorts of crap I don't care for. She is going to be a crappy president and the state of the United States will be in in worse condition after her first and only term. Trump and his childish attitude is going to leave the United States close to ruins with all sorts of bridges burned and a huge mess to clean up for the next president.


----------



## Shaver

Flanderian said:


> Listening to many so-called "news" programs will often make me literally sick to my stomach. Journalism has been replaced by the The Jerry Springer Show.
> 
> I know a few sources that actually provide meaningful information with appropriate context, but very few.
> 
> Yellow Journalism and biased, factional reporting are hardly new to America, but the degree to which journalism has regressed seriously concerns me. When most sources of information to which our countrymen are exposed are either propaganda or sensationalism, or both, what hope democracy?
> 
> I have assiduously avoided any detail concerning this specific issue as I find most of this entire political cycle abhorrent. But as a former owner of a small corporation, I have a general understanding of carrying forward loses. My only concern would rather be how these losses were generated, and at what expense to other stake-holders? I would consider those legitimate issues.


Might I recommend this low budget documentary to you, Flanders? It is an accurate, ghastly, portrayal of how and why the news media (and investigative journalism) have effectively ceased to exist.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510934/reviews?ref_=tt_urv


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> It was a metaphor for someone who has no impulse control, who has to respond to every perceived slight, who cannot grasp consequences while in the heat of the moment. Not someone I want representing the nation in foreign affairs or serving as commander in chief.


In contrast to the cool and steady leadership offered by HRC? Someone whose first instinct and default position is to lie and obfuscate?

Was Trump to blame for the administration's knee jerk response to Benghazi to blame it on a video?

Or what are we to think of HRC's brilliant Libya plan?

These are real failures as opposed to misplaced concerns about Trump.


----------



## culverwood

Very few people think concerns about Trump are misplaced. You really mean you do not have any?


----------



## Mike Petrik

I agree completely with immanuelrx's criticisms of Trump.

I agree completely with SG_67's criticisms of Clinton.

Frankly, I appreciate immanuelrx's position more than SG_67's, since he has no enthusiasm for Clinton but simply sees her as less terrible. I find SG_67's rather newly enthusiastic support for Trump quite unfathomable.

Perhaps by November I will be able to discern which of these to candidates is less awful, but more likely I will vote only down ticket for the first time in my life.


----------



## vpkozel

I am voting third party again because both of the main party candidates have reached equally low thresholds for idiocy and despicableness.

I do think that it is quite amusing that it is now verboten to have anything to do with Russian leaders. Putin is probably the LEAST offensive and brutal head of that state since its inception and yet we are expecting the next president to just pretend he doesn't exist? Really?


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> I am voting third party again because both of the main party candidates have reached equally low thresholds for idiocy and despicableness.
> 
> I do think that it is quite amusing that it is now verboten to have anything to do with Russian leaders. Putin is probably the LEAST offensive and brutal head of that state since its inception and yet we are expecting the next president to just pretend he doesn't exist? Really?


Putin is the second head of state of the Russian Federation, and a brutal murderer -- and more ruthless than Yeltsin. One of his victims was a tax lawyer friend of my law firm. If one is counting heads of state of the former Soviet Union, Putin is more brutal and ruthless than Gorbachev.

Of course, this means Putin must be soberly dealt with, not ignored.


----------



## Acct2000

immanuelrx said:


> He is the absolute worst presidential candidate I can ever recall that has had a chance of winning the presidency. Usually, by this time, people like him say enough dumb comments to lose popularity and support. Somehow, Trump is immune to this trend. I don't understand why. I get he is not a career politician and that is somewhat refreshing, but do people ever even listen to him speak? It takes me no more than 5 minutes for me to change the channel. The GOP is in a rough state right now. Hillary is quite a despicable person, but she would do far less damage than trump in four years.


The reason he has his traction is because Hillary is a ruthless, dishonest and in your own words, "quite despicable" has a track record of incompetence as Secretary of State - - especially in regard to Libya and Syria (are those places really better since she and the president decided to meddle?) and because she is no more honest or honorable than Trump no matter how the sycophants in the liberal media try to portray her.

For what it's worth, I consider both Trump and Hillary to be absolutely dreadful people.

Since our politics have devolved into nothing more than the left and right hating each other and sinking to ever decreasing lows in their ruthless, dishonest war with each other, this is what we get, I suppose.

I wish both the leftists and the rightists would get on a helicopter and move to Antarctica and leave the rest of us alone. The country would be a much better place.


----------



## rtd1

SG_67 said:


> In contrast to the cool and steady leadership offered by HRC? Someone whose first instinct and default position is to lie and obfuscate?
> 
> Was Trump to blame for the administration's knee jerk response to Benghazi to blame it on a video?
> 
> Or what are we to think of HRC's brilliant Libya plan?
> 
> These are real failures as opposed to misplaced concerns about Trump.


https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/majority-of-gop-insiders-wont-commit-to-trump-222866

I have to agree with that New Hampshire Republican:



> "While I cannot stand Hillary Clinton, I am confident that she wouldn't start a nuclear war over a perceived slight from a foreign leader. I cannot say the same for President Trump."


----------



## vpkozel

Sorry - I was meaning USSR and Russia. Yeltsin had Chechinya. I will give you Gorby though. 

And of course he is brutal and a murderer. That doesn't change that he is among the least brutal of his predecessors of the current Russia and the former USSR.


----------



## eagle2250

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The reason he has his traction is because Hillary is a ruthless, dishonest and in your own words, "quite despicable" has a track record of incompetence as Secretary of State - - especially in regard to Libya and Syria (are those places really better since she and the president decided to meddle?) and because she is no more honest or honorable than Trump no matter how the sycophants in the liberal media try to portray her.
> 
> For what it's worth, I consider both Trump and Hillary to be absolutely dreadful people.
> 
> Since our politics have devolved into nothing more than the left and right hating each other and sinking to ever decreasing lows in their ruthless, dishonest war with each other, this is what we get, I suppose.
> 
> I wish both the leftists and the rightists would get on a helicopter and move to Antarctica and leave the rest of us alone. The country would be a much better place.


Well said, my friend. I am in absolute agreement with your assessment!


----------



## SG_67

rtd1 said:


> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/majority-of-gop-insiders-wont-commit-to-trump-222866
> 
> I have to agree with that New Hampshire Republican:


Again, neither you or the NH Republican in question really seem to understand how this sort of thing works. Citing someone ignorant of facts to support your own conclusions is hardly conclusive.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree completely with immanuelrx's criticisms of Trump.
> 
> I agree completely with SG_67's criticisms of Clinton.
> 
> Frankly, I appreciate immanuelrx's position more than SG_67's, since he has no enthusiasm for Clinton but simply sees her as less terrible.* I find SG_67's rather newly enthusiastic support for Trump quite unfathomable.*
> 
> Perhaps by November I will be able to discern which of these to candidates is less awful, but more likely I will vote only down ticket for the first time in my life.


I was never "never Trump". There were other candidates that I favored above him. But he's our guy and I'm going to support him.


----------



## 16412

When in school some of the boys were kinda like Trump. Did they do the disasterous stuff people thought they were going to do? When people say stuff what crazy things do other people's imagination come up with? Trump isn't the crazy imaginations that people come up with. It is kinda bizarre what the ignorantly say. Whereas, Hillary, we know what a disaster she will be. Trump has already cased people to think different, away from the drunken stupor that Americans, and the whole world has fallen in to. We need a break from what has been going on. Not a fan of Trump, but the world needs a new course.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> I was never "never Trump". There were other candidates that I favored above him. But he's our guy and I'm going to support him.


I understand, and can fully appreciate why one could favor him over Hillary. It is the enthusiasm that is puzzling to me.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> I understand, and can fully appreciate why one could favor him over Hillary. It is the enthusiasm that is puzzling to me.


He does grow on me. Honestly, it's more a desire to deprive her and her degenerate husband of another 4 years at the helm.

Trump, like every other candidate, will run into a buzz saw if and when elected. Therefore, I have never believed nor do I expect a wall.

I do expect, however, better negotiations regarding treaties and dealing with our adversaries.


----------



## RogerP

I have a daughter. This man literally makes me sick.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/donald-trump-women-vulgar/index.html

Not that I wasn't already there with is overt racism.


----------



## 16412

Looks like we have another "Bill Clinton" in the White House no matter who wins. America is in the dumps.


----------



## immanuelrx

RogerP said:


> I have a daughter. This man literally makes me sick.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/donald-trump-women-vulgar/index.html
> 
> Not that I wasn't already there with is overt racism.


If it makes you feel better Roger, he is sorry if he offended you. Not sorry for his comments and actions, but if he offended you. Besides, Bill said worse stuff to him on the golf course anyways. That makes everything all better. The liberal media has probably been on autopilot since Trump has come around since he makes it so easy for them.

For Clinton, its Benghazi, Emails, wash, rinse, and repeat. With Trump, we get something new every week.


----------



## RogerP

WA said:


> Looks like we have another "Bill Clinton" in the White House no matter who wins. America is in the dumps.


Trump was boasting about committing sexual assault. Whatever Bill's infidelities may have embraced, there's never been even a remote suggestion of that.

And I have to wonder at Trump's gall in seeking to diminish the significance of this reprehensible behavior by saying it happened 'over a decade ago' - and in the same breath insist that what we really should all be mad about NOW are Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs.

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?

Trump famously boasted that he could shoot someone in the street and not lose votes. Which, though he doesn't realize it, was an accurate condemnation of his base. I suppose he can now boast about committing sexual assault and they will still cheer him until they are hoarse.


----------



## SG_67

Has anyone considered that perhaps he was just "talkin' s**t"?


----------



## eagle2250

^^"Talking S**t!"

You may be on to something. I suspect we've all talked our fair share of "s**t" in our day(s)...relatively harmless, if it doesn't progress beyond talk, but it is unarguably juvenile behavior. However, most of us grew beyond such juvenile behavior as we grew-up and became adults. Trump made the comments showcased in the video in question when he was closing in on turning 60 years old. That reality alone convinces me that "the Donald" has little hope of ever growing-up. Do we really want to elect the emotional equivalent of a teenaged jerk to the Oval Office? Must we do so? :crazy:


----------



## Howard




----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> ^^"Talking S**t!"
> 
> You may be on to something. I suspect we've all talked our fair share of "s**t" in our day(s)...relatively harmless, if it doesn't progress beyond talk, but it is unarguably juvenile behavior. However, most of us grew beyond such juvenile behavior as we grew-up and became adults. Trump made the comments showcased in the video in question when he was closing in on turning 60 years old. That reality alone convinces me that "the Donald" has little hope of ever growing-up. Do we really want to elect the emotional equivalent of a teenaged jerk to the Oval Office? Must we do so? :crazy:


I'm not pretending as though what he said wasn't offensive and frankly I wish he had never said it.

But he is who he is. He said what he said and he'll have to make an apology and try to move beyond it.

If there are people out there who vote on an emotional basis, and there are many who do, then I suppose he won't get there vote.

There are real issues facing this country. Healthcare costs continue to rise in no small part thanks to the ACA. Our reputation around the world as a global power is being diminished by a diminutive troll named Vladmir Putin and our ability to exert force and project power is not viewed as it was.

Even countries like the Philippines feel emboldened to talk trash about us. HRC represents a continuation of these policies. Perhaps around the edges she may be different but at the core she and BHO really are not that far apart.

I'm sure Hillary in private moments has said things that were vulgar. I for sure know Bill has, not to mention has actually done. Donald Trump only became a politician over the past 2 years. He's not polished and 10-20 years ago the things he said didn't warrant the raising of an eyebrow let alone what's going on now. Of course he deserves the scrutiny but for me I'm not electing a Pope or Saint. I want a chief executive that can govern and steer government to be more efficient and to restore our global preeminence.

The question I have to ask is who is better suited at this for the next 4-8 years, HRC or Trump.


----------



## Mike Petrik

RogerP said:


> Trump was boasting about committing sexual assault. Whatever Bill's infidelities may have embraced, there's never been even a remote suggestion of that.


Seriously?
A worthy nominee for most ill-informed comment of the year.


----------



## Dmontez

I'm sorry, but if Trumps "locker room talk" offended you or "literally made you sick" then you have some seriously thin skin. 

It was dumb and made it hard to watch one of those things where you are embarrassed for him. 

But HRC enables her husbands sexual assaults and if you think bill has never been accused of sexual assault or straight up rape before, that makes you willfully ignorant. 

In this day and age we are supposed to believe a woman when she says she has been raped, it is not PC to try and make excuses for the accused, and HRC has done exactly that.


----------



## Dmontez

Mike Petrik said:


> Seriously?
> A worthy nominee for most ill-informed comment of the year.


Agreed.


----------



## Chouan

RogerP said:


> Trump was boasting about committing sexual assault. Whatever Bill's infidelities may have embraced, there's never been even a remote suggestion of that.
> 
> And I have to wonder at Trump's gall in seeking to diminish the significance of this reprehensible behavior by saying it happened 'over a decade ago' - and in the same breath insist that what we really should all be mad about NOW are Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs.
> 
> Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?
> 
> Trump famously boasted that he could shoot someone in the street and not lose votes. Which, though he doesn't realize it, was an accurate condemnation of his base. I suppose he can now boast about committing sexual assault and they will still cheer him until they are hoarse.


Indeed they will, and the evidence is here in this thread.


----------



## SG_67

once again, I am forever amazed as to the interest that foreigners take in our electoral politics.


----------



## Dmontez

bill Clinton groping a flight attendant.


----------



## LordSmoke

SG_67 said:


> once again, I am forever amazed as to the interest that foreigners take in our electoral politics.


I met a young lady from/in Eastern Europe, an avid Bernie supporter, who was brought in to campaign for Bill's wife during the primary. I supposed she must have been part of some sort of global initiative or something. I was rather shocked. When in other countries, I always try to just express mild approval of whomever I am talking to supports.


----------



## Bjorn

The US presidential persona tends to spill over into world politics fairly swiftly after being elected. His statements on NATO alone have kept the Russians in hopeful celebration for some time now.

Also, to even consider Trump... its like watching a train accident in slow motion. 

In combination with Brexit it's the Anglo Saxon world pawning its good name for more beer bong coupons. It's making the French and even the Italians look positively angelically statesmanlike in comparison. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> once again, I am forever amazed as to the interest that foreigners take in our electoral politics.


Why? 
Apart from the obvious explanation that I wrote when I started the thread.....


----------



## 16412

There were/are women afraid of Bill Clinton because of what he has done to them. I think if Trump had done scarey things to women they would have said so a long time ago. No doubt he is juvenile in so many ways, but Hillaries stance on abortion is far more serious than Trumps juvenile behavior. Bill Clinton will be defileing the White House for the next four years if they win. Juvenile is sad, but the other behaviors of the other two are far worse. Trump is far from being an angel. In my opinion Hillary is far from human nature.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Why?
> Apart from the obvious explanation that I wrote when I started the thread.....


I realize what you wrote. My question still stands; what possible interest do those not citizens of this country have in who we govern ourselves and the people we elect to our government.

I have no opinion on the electoral politics of Canada. If Canadians want to elect Justin Trudeau, be my guest. It's there country and if there are consequences to that, then that is for them to deal with.

If Britain wants to exit the EU, be my guest. It's your country and you are sovereign. You get to choose for yourselves how you interact with the rest of the world.

Your obvious explanation may be obvious to you, but I'm sorry, it's not that obvious to me.

By the way, this disinterest in how others govern themselves extends not only to democracies but to other forms of government as well.

If Venezuelans elect communists then it's for them to deal with the fall out of that. If the Chinese enjoy or are tolerant of political and religious repression and public corruption, then so be it. If Arab nations are content with being force fed a litany of hate speech about Jews and the West while they suffer under the yoke of a backward looking religion, that's their business. As long as they don't export those views to the west, they may live as they wish.


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> Indeed they will, and the evidence is here in this thread.


Unsurprising.

Now of course, if this had been a tape of Obama saying the very same words, you can bet they'd be singing a different tune. There would be howling cries for a police investigation / congressional hearings / impeachment / lynching.

For sure you wouldn't be hearing the "boys will be boys" and "it's just locker room talk" excuses. Which by the way, are basically Misogynist 101 for normalizing sexually assaultive behavior. Keep in mind that Trump wasn't discussing concepts - he was discussing conduct. His conduct. And the free reign to 'whatever he wants' because his is "a star".

As Eagle pointed out - locker room talk might be an excuse for high schoolers and maybe frat boys - but if that's the way you speak - and that's the way you THINK at 60, then that's just who yo are.


----------



## RogerP

Bjorn said:


> The US presidential persona tends to spill over into world politics fairly swiftly after being elected. His statements on NATO alone have kept the Russians in hopeful celebration for some time now.
> 
> Also, to even consider Trump... its like watching a train accident in slow motion.
> 
> In combination with Brexit it's the Anglo Saxon world pawning its good name for more beer bong coupons. It's making the French and even the Italians look positively angelically statesmanlike in comparison.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Saw a great skit by a Brit begging America to elect Trump so that the UK could lose the title of biggest electoral idiots.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> Unsurprising.
> 
> Now of course, if this had been a tape of Obama saying the very same words, you can bet they'd be singing a different tune. There would be howling cries for a police investigation / congressional hearings / impeachment / *lynching*.


Roger, 
I like you. I really do. Therefore I hope the comment highlighted above was either inserted in the heat of the moment and not suggestive that Americans want to lynch the POTUS because of his skin color.


----------



## RogerP

Questions for the town hall debate:

1) What does 'Moved on her very heavily' mean?
2) What does 'Moved on her like a b!itch' mean?
3) How many women have you 'Grabbed by the p***y?


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> Roger,
> I like you. I really do. Therefore I hope the comment highlighted above was either inserted in the heat of the moment and not suggestive that Americans want to lynch the POTUS because of his skin color.


You need to listen to a few more comments from Trump supporters at his rallies.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I realize what you wrote. My question still stands; what possible interest do those not citizens of this country have in who we govern ourselves and the people we elect to our government.
> 
> I have no opinion on the electoral politics of Canada. If Canadians want to elect Justin Trudeau, be my guest. It's there country and if there are consequences to that, then that is for them to deal with.
> 
> If Britain wants to exit the EU, be my guest. It's your country and you are sovereign. You get to choose for yourselves how you interact with the rest of the world.
> 
> Your obvious explanation may be obvious to you, but I'm sorry, it's not that obvious to me.
> 
> By the way, this disinterest in how others govern themselves extends not only to democracies but to other forms of government as well.
> 
> If Venezuelans elect communists then it's for them to deal with the fall out of that. If the Chinese enjoy or are tolerant of political and religious repression and public corruption, then so be it. If Arab nations are content with being force fed a litany of hate speech about Jews and the West while they suffer under the yoke of a backward looking religion, that's their business. As long as they don't export those views to the west, they may live as they wish.


SG's account seems to have been hacked. At least I hope so. :surprised:

Any rational man should be concerned about the current American electoral process and, further, be permitted to involve themselves in debate of this subject.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> You need to listen to a few more comments from Trump supporters at his rallies.


I'm sure if we were to put a mic up to people from any country we would hear some vile things. I don't blame Trump for hate mongers who project their vision of the country on his candidacy no more than do I blame HRC for this idiot:






Or this:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ad-trump-forgets-mention-took-20000-kkk-year/


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> I'm sure if we were to put a mic up to people from any country we would hear some vile things. I don't blame Trump for hate mongers who project their vision of the country on his candidacy....[/video]


I do blame him, because he is openly racist and his proposed policies are openly racist.

But I'm not really interested in a discussion about whether Trump is racist any more than I am interested in a discussion about whether the Pope is Catholic. Those who believe it to be an open question are beyond sway by rational discourse.

The issue here isn't whether stating that Trump supporters would call for the Lynching of Obama is a fair comment. Mostly because, y'know, they have.

The question is the significance to be attached to his comments about women - both his recently-revealed comments and the many others, pasty and present, that paint a very clear picture of a deplorable misogynist.


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> I do blame him, because he is openly racist and his proposed policies are openly racist.
> 
> But I'm not really interested in a discussion about whether Trump is racist any more than I am interested in a discussion about whether the Pope is Catholic. Those who believe it to be an open question are beyond sway by rational discourse.
> 
> The issue here isn't whether stating that Trump supporters would call for the Lynching of Obama is a fair comment. Mostly because, y'know, they have.
> 
> The question is the significance to be attached to his comments about women - both his recently-revealed comments and the many others, pasty and present, that paint a very clear picture of a deplorable misogynist.


Roger you are not interested in having a discussion about trump being a racist because you cannot support your posistion. You just wish to call him a racist have no one call you on that an it just be accepted.

I cannot do that. If you want to call someone a racist you must be able to support and show proof.


----------



## SG_67

Rude and vulgar? Yes. 

Misogynist? He said something in private to someone that he didn't think would become public. He did this long before, I assume, he ever thought about running for office. Lord knows I've perhaps said something to friends in private that I would never want made public. 

He's also appointed women to executive positions in his company so I'm not buying the whole misogyny thing. 

It's interesting that so far into the race, Gloria Allred hasn't found a single woman to trot out saying that she was harassed, groped or otherwise made to suffer unwelcome advances by him.


----------



## Shaver

Dmontez said:


> Roger you are not interested in having a discussion about trump being a racist because you cannot support your posistion. You just wish to call him a racist have no one call you on that an it just be accepted.
> 
> I cannot do that. If you want to call someone a racist you must be able to support and show proof.


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html


----------



## SG_67

People are complicated. There's also this:


----------



## Shaver

I am uncertain as to the point, if any, that article proves. Is it that a wily lawyer played a variation of the race card to facilitate Trump getting his own way?


----------



## Tiger

In a contest between two skunks, nothing is easier than for one skunk to point out the stench of the other.

What's remarkable to me is that this was finally the year that a quality third party candidate (or one having no party affiliation at all) could have sought and at least theoretically, won the presidency - or capture enough of the electoral vote to force a showdown in the House of Representatives. Instead, barely a whisper is heard. Is this emblematic of the stranglehold that the two major parties have on the process? Isn't it interesting that the two so-called "outsiders" - Trump and Sanders - both chose to run as a member of one of those major parties? Makes me wonder what would have happened if Sanders ran as a socialist and Trump as a populist or some other sobriquet.

In any event, while our bread and circuses media and populace continue to get so riled up over the idiocies spewing out of Trump and Clinton, they pay scant attention to the absurd and unconstitutional proposals emanating from these two odious characters. Neither one has addressed the crushing twenty trillion dollar debt (that's $20,000,000,000,000 for our Keynesian friends who believe debt does not matter), the endless annual deficits (that are scheduled to rise over the succeeding years), a foreign policy that is remarkably interventionist (with Clinton at the forefront...yet those peace-loving Democrats see nary a problem), and the fact that both parties adhere to policies that eviscerate the Constitution, despite their disingenuous claims (Republican hypocrisy dominates here).

Time for me to lament what might have been, drink a little wine, and realize that the inevitable collapse will be coming soon. At least we'll all be well-dressed...


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> I am uncertain as to the point, if any, that article proves. Is it that a wily lawyer played a variation of the race card to facilitate Trump getting his own way?


I offer an example of Trump dragging the Palm Beach establishment kicking and screaming into modernity and desegregating the country club culture. That he needed to employ attorneys to help do this is no surprise.

Yet you simply see this as Trump "getting his way".


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I offer an example of Trump dragging the Palm Beach establishment kicking and screaming into modernity and desegregating the country club culture. That he needed to employ attorneys to help do this is no surprise.
> 
> Yet you simply see this as Trump "getting his way".


Perhaps this then - if one is sufficiently rich Trump may overlook your ethnicity?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Perhaps this then - if one is sufficiently rich Trump may overlook your ethnicity?


Your point would be valid were the cost of membership on a sliding scale with race being a determining factor.


----------



## Tempest

RogerP said:


> Trump famously boasted that he could shoot someone in the street and not lose votes.


Whoa, He boasted about attempted murder in the first degree! :laughing:
Pro-tip: the Trump gunshot victim may be as imaginary as his "sexual assault victims."
I am a bit disappointed by DJT lamely hitting on a married woman. This is a violation of the bro code. But he's paid his dues by having to go furniture shopping with a woman, right?


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html


Indeed. Donald Trump is clearly not a racist, if one overlooks all the examples of his racism.


----------



## LordSmoke

Tempest said:


> Whoa, He boasted about attempted murder in the first degree! :laughing:
> Pro-tip: the Trump gunshot victim may be as imaginary as his "sexual assault victims."
> I am a bit disappointed by DJT lamely hitting on a married woman. This is a violation of the bro code. But he's paid his dues by having to go furniture shopping with a woman, right?


:laughing: Too funny.


----------



## RogerP

I am encouraged to see so many top Republicans withdraw support for Trump over this latest testament to the abject deficiency of his character. It is regrettable that it took them so long to realize the obvious, but better late than never. Of course his base will have a good dismissive chuckle at his comments and his conduct - but that is not surprising given that they celebrate his vices as virtues.


----------



## Shaver

Let us not neglect Hillary's idolisation of her friend and mentor, senior KKK member, Robert Byrd, a man who stated "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a ***** by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Not to mention his still unbeaten 14 hour record filibuster of the civil rights act.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Your point would be valid were the cost of membership on a sliding scale with race being a determining factor.


How so? Could there not simply be a threshold, once breached, which forgave ethnic distinctions?


----------



## Mike Petrik

RogerP said:


> Of course his base will have a good dismissive chuckle at his comments and his conduct - but that is not surprising given that they celebrate his vices as virtues.


And I suppose Hillary's base remains as curiously innocent as do you of her contemptible enablement of her husband's predatory behavior.


----------



## Dmontez

Well this destroys that misogynistic racist narrative so many people are trying to make Trump out to be.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> How so? Could there not simply be a threshold, once breached, which forgave ethnic distinctions?


Again, if that threshold were one of a predetermined fee that was held constant.

If a Caucasian were turned away because he couldn't pay, then why can't someone of a minority group?


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> And I suppose Hillary's base remains as curiously innocent as do you of her contemptible enablement of her husband's predatory behavior.





Dmontez said:


> Well this destroys that misogynistic racist narrative so many people are trying to make Trump out to be.


Most of the negative comments are from people who didn't care for Trump in the first place.

Trump could save a child from drowning and for those the story would be "Trump ignores no swimming after 6pm sign".


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> Trump could save a child from drowning and for those the story would be "Trump ignores no swimming after 6pm sign".


The idea that Trump would undertake personal risk to engage in a selfless act of help for another human being is utterly laughable. Unless, of course, she was really hot. :rolleyes2:


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> The idea that Trump would undertake personal risk to engage in a selfless act of help for another human being is utterly laughable. Unless, of course, she was really hot. :rolleyes2:


Hot chicks need saving too.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Given the average man's penchant for thinking with their penis when women are involved, rather than with their brain(s), perhaps 90+ percent of the men observing said drowning "Hot" woman would foolishly face the throes of a riptide's murderous nature, in spite of their own weak swimming skills, and die thinking they were going to get lucky. I know this to be true because the Donald told me so! LOL.


----------



## 16412

RogerP said:


> I am encouraged to see so many top Republicans withdraw support for Trump over this latest testament to the abject deficiency of his character. It is regrettable that it took them so long to realize the obvious, but better late than never. Of course his base will have a good dismissive chuckle at his comments and his conduct - but that is not surprising given that they celebrate his vices as virtues.


So! Why are democrats voting for Hillary when Bill will be having lots of sex in the White House that isn't with his wife? Neither Hillary nor Trump should be able to run for the presidency. There needs to be a law preventing this behavior in the White House.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Well if the First Family were subjected to the same code of justice as the soldiers, sailors and airmen comprising the military structure over which the President serves as Commander in Chief, there would be laws against such conduct...indeed several of them incorporated in the UCMJ! Jeez-Louise, it must be good to be king(!)?


----------



## Pentheos

No matter who wins, we all lose.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I realize what you wrote. My question still stands; what possible interest do those not citizens of this country have in who we govern ourselves and the people we elect to our government.
> 
> I have no opinion on the electoral politics of Canada. If Canadians want to elect Justin Trudeau, be my guest. It's there country and if there are consequences to that, then that is for them to deal with.
> 
> If Britain wants to exit the EU, be my guest. It's your country and you are sovereign. You get to choose for yourselves how you interact with the rest of the world.
> 
> Your obvious explanation may be obvious to you, but I'm sorry, it's not that obvious to me.
> 
> By the way, this disinterest in how others govern themselves extends not only to democracies but to other forms of government as well.
> 
> If Venezuelans elect communists then it's for them to deal with the fall out of that. If the Chinese enjoy or are tolerant of political and religious repression and public corruption, then so be it. If Arab nations are content with being force fed a litany of hate speech about Jews and the West while they suffer under the yoke of a backward looking religion, that's their business. As long as they don't export those views to the west, they may live as they wish.


Perhaps you should reread my response from the first time that you asked this identical question. The answer is still the same.


----------



## Howard

RogerP said:


> Questions for the town hall debate:
> 
> 1) What does 'Moved on her very heavily' mean?
> 2) What does 'Moved on her like a b!itch' mean?
> 3) How many women have you 'Grabbed by the p***y?


He'd be embarrassed to answer the 3rd question.


----------



## Gurdon

SG_67 said:


> Your point would be valid were the cost of membership on a sliding scale with race being a determining factor.


Surely you are not suggesting that no members of a racial minority could afford the fee.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67

Gurdon said:


> Surely you are not suggesting that no members of a racial minority could afford the fee.
> 
> Gurdon


??? What are you talking about?


----------



## Tempest

While disappointed by the pusillanimous fair weather turncoats that finally have their excuse to back Hillary (and these non-conservative Republicans deserve to be scorned for eternity), I am heartened by the fact that real women don't seem to care much, or are actually now more drawn to the virile and aggressive alpha Trump. That is what women like. Needless to say, most whining about this, from people apparently never exposed to the old FHRITP gag, is from low testosterone males as well as women envious that nobody has ever moved heavily on them.
The way the press has been misrepresenting some cracks about the allure of celebrity as though he were actually plotting to brutalize a woman is shameless. These are the scoundrels that sold war against Iraq and I like to think that enough voters see through this sham.


----------



## SG_67

He's white, he's rich and he's running for president as a Republican. That's all the excuse the press needs.


----------



## immanuelrx

Trump is an idiot. Who is advising him to pull these stunts?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/us/politics/presidential-debate.html


----------



## 16412

You believe the NYTs?


----------



## Tempest

It was great to see someone finally unleash on that lying harlot and murderess for a small part of the travesties that she has brazenly committed. Like a true sociopath, she *sat* there smugly grinning when confronted with her crimes. 
I regret having but one vote to give to Trump. He totally knocked it out of the park and even took control of the moderators, forcing them not to walk over him. Hillary lied with practically every breath she took, but that should be news to nobody.


----------



## Chouan

This is quite an interesting post. It deserves to be looked at in more detail.



Tempest said:


> I am heartened by the fact that real women don't seem to care much, or are actually now more drawn to the virile and aggressive alpha Trump.


Indeed?



Tempest said:


> That is what women like.


Really?



Tempest said:


> Needless to say, most whining about this, from people apparently never exposed to the old FHRITP gag, is from low testosterone males as well as women envious that nobody has ever moved heavily on them.


Indeed?



Tempest said:


> The way the press has been misrepresenting some cracks about the allure of celebrity as though he were actually plotting to brutalize a woman is shameless.


In what way misrepresenting? Please enlighten us.



Tempest said:


> These are the scoundrels that sold war against Iraq and I like to think that enough voters see through this sham.


Which scoundrels are these? Bush and his associates?


----------



## culverwood

Tempest said:


> While disappointed by the pusillanimous fair weather turncoats that finally have their excuse to back Hillary (and these non-conservative Republicans deserve to be scorned for eternity), I am heartened by the fact that real women don't seem to care much, or are actually now more drawn to the virile and aggressive alpha Trump. That is what women like. Needless to say, most whining about this, from people apparently never exposed to the old FHRITP gag, is from low testosterone males as well as women envious that nobody has ever moved heavily on them.
> The way the press has been misrepresenting some cracks about the allure of celebrity as though he were actually plotting to brutalize a woman is shameless.


Fonzie for President. He even has the same hair style. Pretty good for a 70 year old.


----------



## RogerP

Tempest's definition of "real women" made me throw up in mouth a little bit. Not that I'm shocked, or anything.


----------



## immanuelrx

WA said:


> You believe the NYTs?


First things first, at the time of my post, the NYT article was before the debate and it only talked about Trumps dumb pre-debate press conference. HRC has enough dirty laundry to not have to attack Bill as well. It is a desperate move on Trumps part.

With that though, are you so one sided on the political spectrum that you believe everything the NYTs publishes is false? Regardless of what side you lean towards, if you are only listening to your party's political viewpoint, your just drinking the kool-aid. As horribly one sided as Fox news is, I would be a fool to dismiss them all together as a news organization.


----------



## immanuelrx

Tempest said:


> While disappointed by the pusillanimous fair weather turncoats that finally have their excuse to back Hillary (and these non-conservative Republicans deserve to be scorned for eternity), I am heartened by the fact that real women don't seem to care much, or are actually now more drawn to the virile and aggressive alpha Trump. That is what women like. Needless to say, most whining about this, from people apparently never exposed to the old FHRITP gag, is from low testosterone males as well as women envious that nobody has ever moved heavily on them.
> The way the press has been misrepresenting some cracks about the allure of celebrity as though he were actually plotting to brutalize a woman is shameless. These are the scoundrels that sold war against Iraq and I like to think that enough voters see through this sham.


Oh, and....


----------



## eagle2250

^^Indeed, as the father of two married adult ladies and the grandfather of four lovely young granddaughters (and two grandsons), Trump's comments/actions directed at women and the beliefs claimed by Tempest (as quoted in the post above) thoroughly disgust me. While I may have fought for this country, by my words, I am sure by typing this, I must be one of those "low testosterone males" to which member Tempest refers in his post. 

Trump avoided military service with a deferment for heel spurs. That gentlemen, is laughable! Bill Clinton also dodged the draft. I volunteered for service and then proved so mentally challenged, it literally took my just four months short of 31 years to figure a way of getting out...I got so old I was able to retire! That's OK! If the test for being a real man requires that I verbally and, potentially, physically abuse and disrespect women, my wife, my daughters, my granddaughters, then the price is too high. Call me a wuss if you must, but I would rather not be a real man. As Tempest, SG 67 and others would have us believe, Trump is a real man? No he is not...he is a school yard bully and a sniveling coward on so many levels!


----------



## RogerP

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed, as the father of two married adult ladies and the grandfather of four lovely young granddaughters (and two grandsons), Trump's comments/actions directed at women and the beliefs claimed by Tempest (as quoted in the post above) thoroughly disgust me. While I may have fought for this country this country, by my words, I am sure by typing this, I must be one of those "low testosterone males" to which member Tempest refers in his post.
> 
> Trump avoided military service with a deferment for heel spurs. That gentlemen, is laughable! Bill Clinton also dodged the draft. I volunteered for service and then proved so mentally challenged, it literally took my just four months short of 31 years to figure a way of getting out...I got so old I was able to retire! That's OK! If the test for being a real man requires that I verbally and, potentially, physically abuse and disrespect women, my wife, my daughters, my granddaughters, then the price is too high. Call me a wuss if you must, but I would rather not be a real man. As Tempest, SG 67 and others would have us believe, Trump is a real man? No he is not...he is a school yard bully and a sniveling coward on so many levels!


Long. Slow. Clap.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed, as the father of two married adult ladies and the grandfather of four lovely young granddaughters (and two grandsons), Trump's comments/actions directed at women and the beliefs claimed by Tempest (as quoted in the post above) thoroughly disgust me. While I may have fought for this country this country, by my words, I am sure by typing this, I must be one of those "low testosterone males" to which member Tempest refers in his post.
> 
> Trump avoided military service with a deferment for heel spurs. That gentlemen, is laughable! Bill Clinton also dodged the draft. I volunteered for service and then proved so mentally challenged, it literally took my just four months short of 31 years to figure a way of getting out...I got so old I was able to retire! That's OK! If the test for being a real man requires that I verbally and, potentially, physically abuse and disrespect women, my wife, my daughters, my granddaughters, then the price is too high. Call me a wuss if you must, but I would rather not be a real man. As Tempest, SG 67 and others would have us believe, Trump is a real man? No he is not...he is a school yard bully and a sniveling coward on so many levels!


Quite.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Which scoundrels are these? Bush and his associates?


In the interests of accuracy amid the partisan distortion, both major political parties overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War. It's why the _American Conservative_ magazine (a traditional conservative magazine, not one of the neocon publications that abound in the U.S.) vehemently opposed that war as an enormous strategic blunder (as did I) and began referring to the "War Party." That is, the amalgam of Democrats and Republicans whose interventionist foreign policy involved the United States in all sorts of international absurdities, and continue to do so today.

The notion that the war was simply a product of "Bush and his associates" is either pure ignorance or willful deceit.

Full disclosure: I believe the Bush and Obama presidencies have both been disastrous for the United States; please spare me the partisan counterattacks...


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> In the interests of accuracy amid the partisan distortion, both major political parties overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War. It's why the _American Conservative_ magazine (a traditional conservative magazine, not one of the neocon publications that abound in the U.S.) vehemently opposed that war as an enormous strategic blunder (as did I) and began referring to the "War Party." That is, the amalgam of Democrats and Republicans whose interventionist foreign policy involved the United States in all sorts of international absurdities, and continue to do so today.
> 
> The notion that the war was simply a product of "Bush and his associates" is either pure ignorance or willful deceit.


I rather thought that the president was responsible for his actions, and decisions, as well as his policies. Are you suggesting here that Bush wasn't responsible for the invasion of Iraq? Really?



Tiger said:


> Full disclosure: I believe the Bush and Obama presidencies have both been disastrous for the United States; please spare me the partisan counterattacks...


You're not mistaking for for a Democrat, or a Clinton supporter are you? In any case, you are calling me partisan?!


----------



## culverwood

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed, as the father of two married adult ladies and the grandfather of four lovely young granddaughters (and two grandsons), Trump's comments/actions directed at women and the beliefs claimed by Tempest (as quoted in the post above) thoroughly disgust me. While I may have fought for this country this country, by my words, I am sure by typing this, I must be one of those "low testosterone males" to which member Tempest refers in his post.
> 
> Trump avoided military service with a deferment for heel spurs. That gentlemen, is laughable! Bill Clinton also dodged the draft. I volunteered for service and then proved so mentally challenged, it literally took my just four months short of 31 years to figure a way of getting out...I got so old I was able to retire! That's OK! If the test for being a real man requires that I verbally and, potentially, physically abuse and disrespect women, my wife, my daughters, my granddaughters, then the price is too high. Call me a wuss if you must, but I would rather not be a real man. As Tempest, SG 67 and others would have us believe, Trump is a real man? No he is not...he is a school yard bully and a snivelling coward on so many levels!


That's a reply I respect.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> You're not mistaking for for a Democrat, or a Clinton supporter are you? In any case, you are calling me partisan?!


I don't give you much thought, Chouan (experience is an excellent, if sometimes painful, teacher), but based on your posts that I've read over the past few years, you are certainly tendentious.

The comment I highlighted above indicates an attack on one major U.S. political party, while ignoring the enormous complicity of the other party in our Middle East debacles. That would seem to fit the definition of "partisan," no matter how much verbal wriggling from you that is sure to follow.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> I rather thought that the president was responsible for his actions, and decisions, as well as his policies. Are you suggesting here that Bush wasn't responsible for the invasion of Iraq? Really?


I wrote precisely the opposite of this. It's in print for all the world to see/understand.

They'll be a reading comprehension class offered at 2:00 pm today in Cambridgeshire; I suggest you either attend, or stop pretending to understand what you clearly do not.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> I don't give you much thought, Chouan (experience is an excellent, if sometimes painful, teacher), but based on your posts that I've read over the past few years, you are certainly tendentious.


Yet you can't seem to stop yourself from responding to my posts, so you must be giving me *some* thought!



Tiger said:


> The comment I highlighted above indicates an attack on one major U.S. political party, while ignoring the enormous complicity of the other party in our Middle East debacles. That would seem to fit the definition of "partisan," no matter how much verbal wriggling from you that is sure to follow.


You seem to think that I favour one US party over another. The definition of partisan is, from the OED,"_*A strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.*_" As I don't support either party, how can I be partisan? As I pointed out above, are you suggesting that Bush, as president, was not responsible for his foreign policy decisions and actions? Are you suggesting that the US and the UK invaded Iraq, and sent troops into Afghanistan against his wishes? Or, as it was such a disaster, are you trying to involve others in the responsibility?
Whether or not the Democrats supported the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the Bush administration that planned them and carried them out; it is, therefore, *that* administration that is responsible for the current debacle in the Middle East.


----------



## FLMike

Tiger said:


> The comment I highlighted above indicates an attack on one major U.S. political party, while ignoring the enormous complicity of the other party in our Middle East debacles. That would seem to fit the definition of "partisan," no matter how much verbal wriggling from you that is sure to follow.


Do NOT try to use logic in a debate with Chouan. It does not compute with him.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> Trump was boasting about committing sexual assault. Whatever Bill's infidelities may have embraced, there's never been even a remote suggestion of that.


Time out. Was that for real? If so, we have a new winner for most ignorant comment ever written on the interwebs.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I rather thought that the president was responsible for his actions, and decisions, as well as his policies. Are you suggesting here that Bush wasn't responsible for the invasion of Iraq? Really?


He went to the Congress and received overwhelming approval. That comes with funding as well as the moral authority of the legislative branch.

By the way, lest anyone forget, HRC was among those who voted yea:

https://americablog.com/2013/03/in-...-voted-in-the-senate-why-you-should-care.html


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> He went to the Congress and received overwhelming approval. That comes with funding as well as the moral authority of the legislative branch.
> 
> By the way, lest anyone forget, HRC was among those who voted yea:
> 
> https://americablog.com/2013/03/in-...-voted-in-the-senate-why-you-should-care.html


So that makes him and his administration somehow not responsible? If the invasion had been the success that it was thought that it was going to be, would you be giving the credit to the Democrats?


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> Do NOT try to use logic in a debate with Chouan. It does not compute with him.


Only, unfortunately for partisans, it does indeed compute. Please see the OED definition of partisan, posted elsewhere in this thread, and explain how I am partisan. Also, please point out my failings in logic in this, or indeed any other discussion. Please note that my disagreeing with a cherished belief that you, or others, might hold isn't a failing in logic.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> You seem to think that I favour one US party over another. The definition of partisan is, from the OED,"_*A strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.*_" As I don't support either party, how can I be partisan? As I pointed out above, are you suggesting that Bush, as president, was not responsible for his foreign policy decisions and actions? Are you suggesting that the US and the UK invaded Iraq, and sent troops into Afghanistan against his wishes? Or, as it was such a disaster, are you trying to involve others in the responsibility?
> Whether or not the Democrats supported the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the Bush administration that planned them and carried them out; it is, therefore, *that* administration that is responsible for the current debacle in the Middle East.


1. You are unquestionably partisan; you're an ideologue with obvious and strong sympathies for the left. It is why you instinctively attack Republicans, even when Democrats are equally at fault. Your partisanship is in _cause_, not _party _(as per your supplied definition), but that is often irrelevant. You're the Strelnikov of AAAC!

2. Of course the Bush Administration was responsible for the Iraq War! Only a fool could read my posts and think otherwise. But so was Congress, filled with both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton, Biden, Kerry, and a hell of a lot more Democrats were enormous cheerleaders of the war. Since you do not seem to understand this, please spare yourself the embarrassment of commenting; you come across as imbecilic or deceitful.

3. Congress could have stopped the Iraq War in its tracks; it choose not to (see above). When the Obama Administration was poised to launch dozens of missiles at Syria, it was Republican Senator Rand Paul who led the charge to successfully stop it. It can happen, but often does not. Hence, the notion of the "War Party."

4. The Obama Administration has continued the asinine Bush Administration policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has added Libya, Syria, and Yemen to the mix. Politicians of both parties seem to be aiming for war with Iran and Russia. Maybe one day you'll end the sycophantic nonsense and inject a bit of impartial analysis to your rantings.

5. I have not voted for a member of either major U.S. political party for chief executive since the 1980s.

6. I pity your students; your pernicious brew of bias and distortion is causing them irreparable harm.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> So that makes him and his administration somehow not responsible? If the invasion had been the success that it was thought that it was going to be, would you be giving the credit to the Democrats?


No one wrote this - no one! Knock it off...


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> So that makes him and his administration somehow not responsible? If the invasion had been the success that it was thought that it was going to be, would you be giving the credit to the Democrats?


I didn't say that. I'm indicating that many Dems went along with it without asking hard questions.

As to your attempt at some intellectual trap, we deal with the reality that we have and not how we wish things were.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Only, unfortunately for partisans, it does indeed compute. Please see the OED definition of partisan, posted elsewhere in this thread, and explain how I am partisan. Also, please point out my failings in logic in this, or indeed any other discussion. Please note that my disagreeing with a cherished belief that you, or others, might hold isn't a failing in logic.


Already accomplished; see post #1728.


----------



## Dmontez

Tiger said:


> 6. I pity your students; your pernicious brew of bias and distortion is causing them irreparable harm.


Yup, it is unfortunate the type of people that have decided to go into teaching.


----------



## culverwood

I hope nobody here is suggesting that post 9/11 the President and Congress could have sat on their hands and done nothing. Afghanistan was inevitable.

What has happened since then was not inevitable but in many instances the circumstances had nothing to do with the USA and the decision to get involved in other countries domestic problems seems to be a Western first reaction, not just an American one.


----------



## FLMike

Tiger said:


> ....... you come across as imbecilic or deceitful.


I'm leaning toward some combination.



Tiger said:


> 6. I pity your students; your pernicious brew of bias and distortion is causing them irreparable harm.


Quite....indeed.


----------



## FLMike

Tiger said:


> No one wrote this - no one! Knock it off...


See what I mean?


----------



## Tiger

FLMike said:


> See what I mean?


Oh, I knew you were correct, but I just had to attempt to clarify/end the insanity. As usual, Chouan distorted what was written, what has actually occurred in the world, and what he (and others) actually believe.

He's similar to the ideologues that still defend Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, the Rosenbergs, et al. He does such damage to truth and logic - again, I pity his students.


----------



## FLMike

Tempest said:


> The press totally dropped the ball in investigating those bogus WMD claims and the like. They became a government mouthpiece instead of a watchdog. They are dropping the ball in deja vu fashion with Iraq BTW, but the important thing is that they again are selling a distorted reality in the interests of the current administration.
> 
> I really fail to believe that anyone, repeat anyone, got through adolescence without hearing goofy braggadocios sex talk like the "horrifying scary vulgar" recording. The press reporting a lighthearted quip as though it were a rape plot or admission is deliberately misleading exaggeration. The tape is more embarrassing in the juvenilism than any "threat." Has anyone bothered to explain the pussy grabbing thing? Are we grabbing outer lips or doing the old bowling ball carry schtick? It is so obviously a joke that only the truly demented can see it any other way. And this is why the media is distorting it so, to make something of nothing. The sadder thing is that some people seem to be falling for it.


Tempest, your trolling has always been somewhat subtle. Lately, though, you seem to be getting a bit more reckless, more obvious.....escalating, if you will. Maybe the Donald is giving you some kind of vicarious confidence.


----------



## SG_67

Speaking to the media's reaction to this story, it is certainly overblown and DJT is certainly treated by them differently from the way Bill Clinton was. Bill Clinton was certainly every bit the sexual predator that some are accusing Trump of being. In the case of Clinton, there's an actual trail of women who have come out, as opposed (at least so far) to Trump.

Yet the media are content now to let bygones be, or pretend like none of it ever happened.

I'd like to remind those who are clutching at pearls of this:

Like the president, Jordan is given to eyebrow-raising remarks on the looks of pretty women. At a 1995 state dinner, Clinton joked to Jordan that he ought to keep his hands off the comely blonde seated next to the president. "I saw her first, Vernon," the president said, according to an account in Washington Monthly. "Nothing wrong with a little locker room talk," Jordan once told a reporter.

Or this:

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55629

So apparently a little innocent locker room talk is ok when your political views are sympathetic with the news media's.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Tempest said:


> It [the Trump unwind re female genitalia] is so obviously a joke that *only the truly demented* can see it any other way.


Gotta get me some dementia juice. Take it at bedtime, wake up cured, maybe. I've always looked to Tempest for medical insight and wouldn't miss a post of his for a front seat ticket to Hill's inaugural. Well, maybe just that once. As for Eagle's post above, the Eagle's landed, big time, you'd get an Emmy if I were in charge, as I think I should be. I'm thinking coup.


----------



## Peak and Pine

SG_67 said:


> [regarding President Clinton's indiscretions]...the media are content now to let bygones be, or pretend like none of it ever happened.


Probably because they _are_ bygones. Adjudicated ones by the way. Get over it. If it's such a big deal to you, why haven't you been internet harping on this for the past 18 years, why just now as an ill-thought out slam at Hillary? You like Trump, swell. But you're skirting the rim of Hillary's basket, don't fall in. And Hillary, if you're listening, thanks for last night not gathering Ivana and Marla for a prime time press conference on just how wronged they were by Baldswin/Trump. (I get them confused.)


----------



## Tiger

"Bygones"?

One need only read about Bill Clinton pal and criminal Jeffrey Stein, he with the penchant for twelve-year old little girls and the billion dollar bank account. Clinton has flown on Stein's private jet - dubbed the "Lolita Express" because it is often packed with underage girls - nearly a dozen times, and often without his Secret Service detail (because some things really are secret!). Not sure if Loretta Lynch joined them; perhaps she was busy pursuing "justice" somewhere, and couldn't spare the time for another private meaning with Bill. Clinton has also spent time with Stein on a private (I believe) island, also packed with underage girls.

This information is available, if one wishes to search for about five seconds. Of course, the American media won't broach the topic; would do enormous harm to Mrs. Clinton - and we can't have that, can we? That this incredible fraud (either Clinton fits the bill) can even speak about women in _any_ context - let alone the absurdities that emanate from Trump - is risible.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> 6. I pity your students; your pernicious brew of bias and distortion is causing them irreparable harm.


Why do you think I went into teaching? Just think of all of the students of politics that I have taught, and influenced; and despair!


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Already accomplished; see post #1728.


Accomplished? No. Attempted? Yes, but, sadly unsuccessfully. May I refer you again to my final remark? "Please note that my disagreeing with a cherished belief that you, or others, might hold isn't a failing in logic."


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> 1. You are unquestionably partisan; you're an ideologue with obvious and strong sympathies for the left. It is why you instinctively attack Republicans, even when Democrats are equally at fault. Your partisanship is in _cause_, not _party _(as per your supplied definition), but that is often irrelevant. You're the Strelnikov of AAAC!


Ah! Once again you've shown that it is your antipathy for my perceived political viewpoint that is the problem. It's not what I think of the Republicans, per se, it is my political viewpoint that makes you so cross! Get over it.


----------



## Chouan

culverwood said:


> I hope nobody here is suggesting that post 9/11 the President and Congress could have sat on their hands and done nothing. Afghanistan was inevitable.


Afghanistan was only inevitable because populist politicians thought it politically unwise, probably influenced by polls and focus groups, to sit on their hands and do nothing. What was achieved by the military intervention in Afghanistan? Apart from numerous deaths, of course? The adventure wasn't successful by any metric one wants to apply, and now, after all of the expenditure of blood and treasure, the Taleban are regaining control.



culverwood said:


> What has happened since then was not inevitable but in many instances the circumstances had nothing to do with the USA and the decision to get involved in other countries domestic problems seems to be a Western first reaction, not just an American one.


Britain, under Blair, of course gave sufficient backing to Bush to effectively legitimise the invasion of Iraq, but I would suggest that it was an invasion that Bush would have carried out, even without British support. It was, absolutely Bush's war.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Accomplished? No. Attempted? Yes, but, sadly unsuccessfully. May I refer you again to my final remark? "Please note that my disagreeing with a cherished belief that you, or others, might hold isn't a failing in logic."


Ludicrous, of course. Your lack of logic is demonstrated in that you feign outrage over so many issues, except when someone on the left ought to be skewered. It's illogical that a moral compass should be so..immoral.

Glad to see that you ignored the rest of what I wrote. Then again, even you will have difficulty defending the indefensible!


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Ah! Once again you've shown that it is your antipathy for my perceived political viewpoint that is the problem. It's not what I think of the Republicans, per se, it is my political viewpoint that makes you so cross! Get over it.


Do you realize how warped this is? The whole point was that you are unquestionably partisan, but claimed otherwise. I prove that you are an ideologue, and now you cry that I simply don't like your (partisan, warped, tendentious) political viewpoint!


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Afghanistan was only inevitable because populist politicians thought it politically unwise, probably influenced by polls and focus groups, to sit on their hands and do nothing. What was achieved by the military intervention in Afghanistan? Apart from numerous deaths, of course? The adventure wasn't successful by any metric one wants to apply, and now, after all of the expenditure of blood and treasure, the Taleban are regaining control.
> 
> Britain, under Blair, of course gave sufficient backing to Bush to effectively legitimise the invasion of Iraq, but I would suggest that it was an invasion that Bush would have carried out, even without British support. It was, absolutely Bush's war.


And that of Britain, and of the U.S. Congress. Be honest - or at least try, since it conflicts with your nature...


----------



## Tiger

Tiger said:


> "Bygones"?
> 
> One need only read about Bill Clinton pal and criminal Jeffrey Stein, he with the penchant for twelve-year old little girls and the billion dollar bank account. Clinton has flown on Stein's private jet - dubbed the "Lolita Express" because it is often packed with underage girls - nearly a dozen times, and often without his Secret Service detail (because some things really are secret!). Not sure if Loretta Lynch joined them; perhaps she was busy pursuing "justice" somewhere, and couldn't spare the time for another private meaning with Bill. Clinton has also spent time with Stein on a private (I believe) island, also packed with underage girls.
> 
> This information is available, if one wishes to search for about five seconds. Of course, the American media won't broach the topic; would do enormous harm to Mrs. Clinton - and we can't have that, can we? That this incredible fraud (either Clinton fits the bill) can even speak about women in _any_ context - let alone the absurdities that emanate from Trump - is risible.


Here's a piece by Ken Silverstein - a self-described liberal reporter, on the Stein/Clinton cesspool from 2015:

https://observer.com/2015/03/the-je...rils-hillary-clintons-presidential-prospects/


----------



## SG_67

Peak and Pine said:


> Probably because they _are_ bygones. Adjudicated ones by the way. Get over it. If it's such a big deal to you, why haven't you been internet harping on this for the past 18 years, why just now as an ill-thought out slam at Hillary? You like Trump, swell. But you're skirting the rim of Hillary's basket, don't fall in. And Hillary, if you're listening, thanks for last night not gathering Ivana and Marla for a prime time press conference on just how wronged they were by Baldswin/Trump. (I get them confused.)


Because I have a day job. But when I do see Bill Clinton I don't think elder statesman. I think of a guy who was fellated by a 20 year old girl steps from the Oval Office whom he then proceeded to use as an ashtray.

It may have been 18 years ago and so in that vein what Trump said was 11 years ago so get over it....let it go.


----------



## 16412

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed, as the father of two married adult ladies and the grandfather of four lovely young granddaughters (and two grandsons), Trump's comments/actions directed at women and the beliefs claimed by Tempest (as quoted in the post above) thoroughly disgust me. While I may have fought for this country, by my words, I am sure by typing this, I must be one of those "low testosterone males" to which member Tempest refers in his post.
> 
> Trump avoided military service with a deferment for heel spurs. That gentlemen, is laughable! Bill Clinton also dodged the draft. I volunteered for service and then proved so mentally challenged, it literally took my just four months short of 31 years to figure a way of getting out...I got so old I was able to retire! That's OK! If the test for being a real man requires that I verbally and, potentially, physically abuse and disrespect women, my wife, my daughters, my granddaughters, then the price is too high. Call me a wuss if you must, but I would rather not be a real man. As Tempest, SG 67 and others would have us believe, Trump is a real man? No he is not...he is a school yard bully and a sniveling coward on so many levels!


Agree with so much of what you say about Trump. Some years ago I thought, "what would I do if Trump and Hillary ran for president?" Here we are with this dilemma. Didn't know much about Trump then. Some of his business interest sounds like what I was taught against in the churches I went to. "Locker room talk" as such were not the people I stayed around. Some of it, of what little I heard, was just gibberish. The ones that sounded like there was more to it I paid attention to who said it, and stayed away from those guys. Sound headed guys when they get engaged depart that type of thinking. For Trump, well past college, to be thinking like that is terrible. He has a multitude of behaviors I don't like at all. Despite all the negatives there are some values. My opinion, long before Fox news, when I had to do my own hard research, not influenced by other, my own thinking, what I saw of the democratic party, and they have not changed for the better, turned me away from them. We are talking about pre Reagan here. There is no such thing called perfect here of either party. But one is sure far worse than the other here. Hillary is on perfectly well designed, well taken care of, wagon, excellent horses hitched, heading full speed in the wrong direction. A marvelous sight to see. But heading in the wrong direction at full speed. With all the idiot problems Trump has, and he is so foolish he doesn't know it. At least some of the time he is headed in the right direction, which cannot be said for Hillary. Under all of that childesness there is still some human elements to him. Whereas, Hillary is vacant.

I could write on and on about this, but I won't.
Two elephants in the room. Hillary is the biggest. With people smiling around Trump he'll say anything. I think Trump will do some intelligent things for black people that is smarter than anything the democratics have ever done for them. I want to point out something about people. One kind can accumulate a huge amount of knowledge. The other kind can create it. Hillary is the first, if that good. Trump is proven the second. Those with a huge amount of knowledge have caused me many losses, because they have the knowledge they think they know what to do with it. People who create are people who develope wisdom. Even Bill Clinton is a creator and terrible person at the same time. He did good and bad. Hillary doesn't know it, but she believes government should be your master.


----------



## Howard

SG_67 said:


> Hot chicks need saving too.


That's right.


----------



## Howard

SG_67 said:


> He's white, he's rich and he's running for president as a Republican. That's all the excuse the press needs.


Can he make America better?


----------



## FLMike

Howard for President


----------



## SG_67

Howard said:


> Can he make America better?


You know Howard, he certainly can't do any worse than what we've had the last 8 years.


----------



## eagle2250

WA said:


> Agree with so much of what you say about Trump. Some years ago I thought, "what would I do if Trump and Hillary ran for president?" Here we are with this dilemma. Didn't know much about Trump then. Some of his business interest sounds like what I was taught against in the churches I went to. "Locker room talk" as such were not the people I stayed around. Some of it, of what little I heard, was just gibberish. The ones that sounded like there was more to it I paid attention to who said it, and stayed away from those guys. Sound headed guys when they get engaged depart that type of thinking. For Trump, well past college, to be thinking like that is terrible. He has a multitude of behaviors I don't like at all. Despite all the negatives there are some values. My opinion, long before Fox news, when I had to do my own hard research, not influenced by other, my own thinking, what I saw of the democratic party, and they have not changed for the better, turned me away from them. We are talking about pre Reagan here. There is no such thing called perfect here of either party. But one is sure far worse than the other here. Hillary is on perfectly well designed, well taken care of, wagon, excellent horses hitched, heading full speed in the wrong direction. A marvelous sight to see. But heading in the wrong direction at full speed. With all the idiot problems Trump has, and he is so foolish he doesn't know it. At least some of the time he is headed in the right direction, which cannot be said for Hillary. Under all of that childesness there is still some human elements to him. Whereas, Hillary is vacant.
> 
> I could write on and on about this, but I won't.
> Two elephants in the room. Hillary is the biggest. With people smiling around Trump he'll say anything. I think Trump will do some intelligent things for black people that is smarter than anything the democratics have ever done for them. I want to point out something about people. One kind can accumulate a huge amount of knowledge. The other kind can create it. Hillary is the first, if that good. Trump is proven the second. Those with a huge amount of knowledge have caused me many losses, because they have the knowledge they think they know what to do with it. People who create are people who develope wisdom. Even Bill Clinton is a creator and terrible person at the same time. He did good and bad. Hillary doesn't know it, but she believes government should be your master.


Well said, member WA and you are right...the choice this election seems to be the lesser of the two evils. I am a Republican and while I do not vote straight party tickets, I generally prefer to vote for the Republican candidates. However, Mr Trump continues to regularly shoot himself in the foot on a continuing, repeated basis...making this decision harder and harder and much less certain. While a shot to the foot may be considered a low priority wound on the battlefield or by the medical community, repeated shots to the foot will eventually prove fatal! Candidate Trump continuously spouts out the same series of lofty operational goals he intends to achieve, but he has yet to add any details as to how he might get the job done. When should we expect to see some meat on those bones he keeps tossing our way? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

^ How is this really different, though, Eagle? 

Candidates do this all the time. In fact, there's really little comfort in expounding on the legion of 5 point plans one has tucked away in one's website. 

BHO had a plan for the ACA and look at how that's turned out. Shovel ready jobs weren't as "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected", remember that? 

That's the problem with Washington; too focus on process and rhetoric as a poor substitute to actual outcomes.


----------



## Tempest

Eagle is suffering as I did when the GOP was putting up tepid to terrible candidates, as they have about as long as I've been able to vote. Being in a state where my vote had no influence on the electorate, I was free to do the no confidence vote and support third parties. My hope was to nudge the party to put up stalwarts instead of wieners. Needless to say, the GOP has no interest in the wishes of the electorate, and that is why the appearance of Trump led to a massive amount of voter support.

But anyway, is this really an election where one has the luxury of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? I firmly believe that HRC will be the American Merkel and open the floodgates to every illiterate criminal that sees free government money and vulnerable women a plenty in the US. These are people that have no fondness of the nation or its ideals. So they are perfect prospective Democrat voters. The end game is almost definitely to swamp the populace with foreigners that will vote for the free stuff party such that the GOP will never stand a chance again. Her corrupt criminality and other wrongheadedness is almost irrelevant compared to this threat.
To speak to reason, the voters are the party and Trump is a movement more than a man at this point. The movement is growing and the way of the future for the GOP, despite opposition by the hidebound elites. Resistance is futile. The GOP voter majority wants what is good for America, not the old neo-con idiocy of open trade, open borders, endless wars of no national interest, and basically being a sluggish version of the Democrats.
The Trump bloc will not disperse and forget. The war for the GOP is won, and allowing Hillary to win will only strengthen it and accelerate the removal of the old guard establishment Republicans. Join and you have influence. Leave and you have none. Influence from within is the only chance at easing extremism in the future.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> And that of Britain, and of the U.S. Congress. Be honest - or at least try, since it conflicts with your nature...


Presidential government, such as that of the US, is predicated on the President being the executive. As such, he makes policy, as you well know. Consequently, if a president carries out a grotesquely disastrous policy, whether or not he is supported by Congress, it is his policy and his failure. If one refers to an administration, such as the Bush administration, one is referring to the government under Bush, which includes, of course, congress. As such, one doesn't need to refer to congress as well. Unless, of course, one is seeking to deflect the responsibility for disastrous policy decisions from the President and his party. 
If you look at the post that you're criticising, you'll see that I mentioned Britain's involvement..... Be honest, or at least try, since it appears to conflict with your nature.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Do you realize how warped this is? The whole point was that you are unquestionably partisan, but claimed otherwise. I prove that you are an ideologue, and now you cry that I simply don't like your (partisan, warped, tendentious) political viewpoint!


The whole point is that I'm not partisan at all. I refer you again to the definition "_*A strong supporter of a party, cause, or person*_". Please show me where I have shown strong support for any party, or cause, or person. Politics, even for an American, isn't a binary process, so despising the policies of the Republicans doesn't mean that I support the policies of the Democrats, who to most Europeans are so similar to Republicans in outlook that they are perceived as being almost the same.
Where did you prove that I am an ideologue? I assume that you're clever enough to understand that an assertion is not proof. That you assert that I am an ideologue, on grounds that are not clear, to say the least, is true, but that isn't proving that your opinion is correct.
If your perception of my political viewpoint isn't an issue, why do you keep referring to it?


----------



## 16412

Chouan said:


> Are you suggesting here that Bush wasn't responsible for the invasion of Iraq?


How can anyone being irresponsible be responsible?

Sure glade I didn't go to school in England if they allow you to teach.


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> How can anyone being irresponsible be responsible?
> 
> Sure glade I didn't go to school in England if they allow you to teach.


You went to school?!?"

:devil:


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> "Bygones"?
> 
> One need only read about Bill Clinton pal and criminal Jeffrey Stein, he with the penchant for twelve-year old little girls and the billion dollar bank account. Clinton has flown on Stein's private jet - dubbed the "Lolita Express" because it is often packed with underage girls - nearly a dozen times, and often without his Secret Service detail (because some things really are secret!). Not sure if Loretta Lynch joined them; perhaps she was busy pursuing "justice" somewhere, and couldn't spare the time for another private meaning with Bill. Clinton has also spent time with Stein on a private (I believe) island, also packed with underage girls.
> 
> This information is available, if one wishes to search for about five seconds. Of course, the American media won't broach the topic; would do enormous harm to Mrs. Clinton - and we can't have that, can we? That this incredible fraud (either Clinton fits the bill) can even speak about women in _any_ context - let alone the absurdities that emanate from Trump - is risible.





Tiger said:


> Here's a piece by Ken Silverstein - a self-described liberal reporter, on the Stein/Clinton cesspool from 2015:
> 
> https://observer.com/2015/03/the-je...rils-hillary-clintons-presidential-prospects/


I was not previously aware of any of this and I am grateful for your drawing it to my attention - thanks Tiger!


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Presidential government, such as that of the US, is predicated on the President being the executive. As such, he makes policy, as you well know. Consequently, if a president carries out a grotesquely disastrous policy, whether or not he is supported by Congress, it is his policy and his failure. If one refers to an administration, such as the Bush administration, one is referring to the government under Bush, which includes, of course, congress. As such, one doesn't need to refer to congress as well. Unless, of course, one is seeking to deflect the responsibility for disastrous policy decisions from the President and his party.
> If you look at the post that you're criticising, you'll see that I mentioned Britain's involvement..... Be honest, or at least try, since it appears to conflict with your nature.


I'm afraid you're only partially right. The branches of government are co-equal each with their own enumerated role and responsibility.

The president is the chief executive but he cannot do much without the funding that is given by congresss.

Furthermore, congress represents the people and the states. Presidents need the political and moral, not to mention legal, support of congress to engage in such ventures as military conflict. Comgress much approve funding and congress authorizes the use of force or declares war.

The Bush admin took us to war but there were tons on the other side lining up enthusiastically in support. Of course when politically inconvenient, that enthusiasm vanishes.

To listen to HRC now you'd think she were just a bystander in the whole affair.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm afraid you're only partially right. The branches of government are co-equal each with their own enumerated role and responsibility.
> 
> The president is the chief executive but he cannot do much without the funding that is given by congresss.
> 
> Furthermore, congress represents the people and the states. Presidents need the political and moral, not to mention legal, support of congress to engage in such ventures as military conflict. Comgress much approve funding and congress authorizes the use of force or declares war.
> 
> The Bush admin took us to war but there were tons on the other side lining up enthusiastically in support. Of course when politically inconvenient, that enthusiasm vanishes.
> 
> To listen to HRC now you'd think she were just a bystander in the whole affair.


Indeed, but the President takes the policy to congress, rather than Congress taking the policy to the President. I'm not suggesting that Congress had no involvement, but the invasion was the President's decision, supported by Congress, not the other way around. Of course those who supported the war are trying to distance themselves from it now, but that doesn't make the Bush administration any less guilty. In the same way that the "War Party" have tried to distance themselves from endorsing the invasion, if the military adventures had been a success the Republicans would have claimed all of the credit for themselves instead of trying to spread the responsibility.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> You went to school?!?"
> 
> :devil:


Well, yes. Growing up with the wolves we had wolf school. We learned how to howl to the moon. Chase rabbits. Bring down deer, elk, moose, caribou, buffalo, and run from bears. Did you sit at a boring desk for hours at your schoolery?


----------



## culverwood

Chouan said:


> Afghanistan was only inevitable because populist politicians thought it politically unwise, probably influenced by polls and focus groups, to sit on their hands and do nothing. What was achieved by the military intervention in Afghanistan? Apart from numerous deaths, of course? The adventure wasn't successful by any metric one wants to apply, and now, after all of the expenditure of blood and treasure, the Taleban are regaining control.
> 
> Britain, under Blair, of course gave sufficient backing to Bush to effectively legitimise the invasion of Iraq, but I would suggest that it was an invasion that Bush would have carried out, even without British support. It was, absolutely Bush's war.


There is the politics of theory (as practised by Jeremy Corbyn) and the politics of reality as practised by anybody in office. I do not see that there was any alternative to a military reaction to 9/11.

Being one of the millions who marched against the Iraq I have to admit they my motives were different to most. I could not see how intervention there would make us safer - a disproportionate response to a threat which did not exist was bound to stir up anti Western groups. I do remember though that at that time in round table discussion of the topic my view was very much in the minority and I was surprised that well educated people thought that there was any benefit in war with Iraq.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> How can anyone being irresponsible be responsible?
> 
> Sure glade I didn't go to school in England if they allow you to teach.


Why? I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Presidential government, such as that of the US, is predicated on the President being the executive. As such, he makes policy, as you well know. Consequently, if a president carries out a grotesquely disastrous policy, whether or not he is supported by Congress, it is his policy and his failure. If one refers to an administration, such as the Bush administration, one is referring to the government under Bush, which includes, of course, congress. As such, one doesn't need to refer to congress as well. Unless, of course, one is seeking to deflect the responsibility for disastrous policy decisions from the President and his party.
> If you look at the post that you're criticising, you'll see that I mentioned Britain's involvement..... Be honest, or at least try, since it appears to conflict with your nature.


You betray a complete lack of understanding of the general government of the United States, and I do not have the time to provide you with a clarifying lesson. One crucial point: When one refers to a "presidential administration," they are never referring to Congress, as they are separate entities. Most intelligent people refrain from commenting so dogmatically when they have a dearth of knowledge on a topic, but I see it doesn't persuade you at all. What a teacher!

For the umpteenth time, I thought the Bush Administration was disastrous, as I also believe about the Obama Administration. I hope that registers with you...


----------



## 16412

eagle2250 said:


> Well said, member WA and you are right...the choice this election seems to be the lesser of the two evils. I am a Republican and while I do not vote straight party tickets, I generally prefer to vote for the Republican candidates. However, Mr Trump continues to regularly shoot himself in the foot on a continuing, repeated basis...making this decision harder and harder and much less certain. While a shot to the foot may be considered a low priority wound on the battlefield or by the medical community, repeated shots to the foot will eventually prove fatal! Candidate Trump continuously spouts out the same series of lofty operational goals he intends to achieve, but he has yet to add any details as to how he might get the job done. When should we expect to see some meat on those bones he keeps tossing our way? :icon_scratch:


Having watched the evening news yesterday no doubt Trump has some attitude delusional problems. What he wants to achieve maybe impossible now. What I saw yesterday I really don't want to vote for him. But, with the experiences that I've had with people, and what Hillary is, Trump still has my vote. I have been around people that kidnapp, beat into submission that they love having any kind of sex when they are being raped, when pussy (this is not my kind of word) is not tight they are murdered. These people are professors, medical drs., preachers, school teachers, bankers, and the list goes on. They look like ordinary people. I've rubbed shoulders with them in school, not knowing what they were. I have been pursued for prositution, murder attempts, beatings etc. for over 30 years. I know something about whitewash. I know what it is like to talk to police over the phone saying, "we don't care if they beat you up, we don't care if they kill you, we are not going to help you, hang up." that is not what I pay my taxes for. And when the police are working out of a mob bar at night instead of the police office, what do you say? The fbi doesn't know this was happening under their nose?

The manipulation of the media, directing attention to some thoughts but not others, means you've got to do your own thinking. Half truths are lies. What reasoning was left out with this last debate? You, Eagle, have a wife, daughters, and granddaughters. If anyone of them had been raped by Bill Clinton, rape is forced, how would your wife, daughter, or granddaughter feel about seeing that monster in the White House for the next four or eight years? Trumps stupid juvenile talk is nothing compared to what Bill Clinton has done to some very fine people. It will probably continue in the White House. Maybe Trump is just as guilty. I don't know. Hillaries whitewash, and where she wants to take this country is treason.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Indeed, but the President takes the policy to congress, rather than Congress taking the policy to the President. I'm not suggesting that Congress had no involvement, but the invasion was the President's decision, supported by Congress, not the other way around. Of course those who supported the war are trying to distance themselves from it now, but that doesn't make the Bush administration any less guilty. In the same way that the "War Party" have tried to distance themselves from endorsing the invasion, if the military adventures had been a success the Republicans would have claimed all of the credit for themselves instead of trying to spread the responsibility.


While this is far closer to the truth, it still does not recognize that Congress could have stopped the policy in its tracks, but instead blindly supported it.

Of course, Chouan, this post differs greatly from your prior ones, as you continue to shift chameleon-like on your positions until you perhaps stumble upon the truth. Still, the fact that someone so dogmatic and insular was willing to alter his positions is a minor victory for those of us not emeshed in a particular ideology/mindset.


----------



## Chouan

culverwood said:


> There is the politics of theory (as practised by Jeremy Corbyn) and the politics of reality as practised by anybody in office. I do not see that there was any alternative to a military reaction to 9/11.


Indeed, because politicians' actions are pretty much controlled by advice based on focus groups and spads. There was no necessity for military intervention in Afghanistan, indeed, there was an enormous weight of evidence that intervention in Afghanistan would be a pointless failure, which of course it has proved to be. However, the politicians thought it essential to be seen to be doing something, no matter how pointless. I can remember clearly the assurances made when Blair committed British troops to Afghanistan that it wasn't a military adventure, that there was no risk of actual military action, that the troops would merely be there as observers and peace-keepers. Nobody who knew anything of the situation believed them, but they still went ahead, because they thought it necessary to be seen to be doing something.
There was a valid alternative, which was for the US, and us, to not intervene in a struggle that we could not win and could not escape from without losing face. But the populist politician cannot be seen to not being a man of action, so they had to get involved.



culverwood said:


> Being one of the millions who marched against the Iraq I have to admit they my motives were different to most. I could not see how intervention there would make us safer - a disproportionate response to a threat which did not exist was bound to stir up anti Western groups. I do remember though that at that time in round table discussion of the topic my view was very much in the minority and I was surprised that well educated people thought that there was any benefit in war with Iraq.


Indeed. My view at the time was very much anti-war (not that I marched) partly because we were being brought into a war that was 
1) Unwinnable politically
2) Pointless, as, as you say, would not have made us safer, in fact the opposite,
3) Based on a dishonest premise
4) Immoral
5) Hadn't been adequately planned and prepared for. Not the invasion, of course, the Coalition was always going to be able to beat the Iraqis in the field, but there was no adequate planning for what would be done afterwards.
Again, as you say, it was surprising that otherwise intelligent and well educated people should have thought that the invasion was in any way at all justifiable.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> While this is far closer to the truth, it still does not recognize that Congress could have stopped the policy in its tracks, but instead blindly supported it.


Doesn't it? I rather think that it does.



Tiger said:


> Of course, Chouan, this post differs greatly from your prior ones, as you continue to shift chameleon-like on your positions until you perhaps stumble upon the truth. Still, the fact that someone so dogmatic and insular was willing to alter his positions is a minor victory for those of us not emeshed in a particular ideology/mindset.


No shift at all, I can assure you. My view is still the same, as is my position. Your obsessing on my "particular ideology" is still in evidence, of course. Can I assume that you're not going to respond to my earlier post?


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> You betray a complete lack of understanding of the general government of the United States, and I do not have the time to provide you with a clarifying lesson. One crucial point: When one refers to a "presidential administration," they are never referring to Congress, as they are separate entities. Most intelligent people refrain from commenting so dogmatically when they have a dearth of knowledge on a topic, but I see it doesn't persuade you at all. What a teacher!


Complete lack of understanding? Really? You're not exaggerating just a little bit are you?


Tiger said:


> For the umpteenth time, I thought the Bush Administration was disastrous, as I also believe about the Obama Administration. I hope that registers with you...


When have I disagreed with this?


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> I was not previously aware of any of this and I am grateful for your drawing it to my attention - thanks Tiger!


You're welcome, Shaver! The author makes reference to others who may have been involved in the sojourns to Stein's private island on the "Lolita Express" - and at least one source believes that Trump may have done so as well.

As the author noted, perhaps this is why the story is buried - it would be far too devastating to so many of those in power for it to become mainstream.

Time for me to get ready for work (and no, I am not an airline pilot!)...


----------



## 16412

Chouan said:


> Why? I'm genuinely interested.


When I was a very small boy, five or six I learn mathematically logic of sentences, paragraphs. Don't know why. Years later somebody took a college class in it. He involved me with his homework. It was easy. I already knew it. Reasoning and logic are not the same thing. Through school, elementary, middle and high school I laid my writings out with this logic. The teachers didn't like it. They wanted literary writing. 
Anyway, you make to many errors. The proper logic is not there. How much reasoning has feeling. Logic has none. Reasoning has its place. Logic has its place. To swap these two creates many errors. You are governed by certain thoughts by reasoning more than other thoughts with the same amount of reasoning. Therefore, the mathematically answers are false. Question. 1+2-3*4÷a-b÷c+d=x If your reasoning doesn't provide abcd how can you come up with x?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Indeed, but the President takes the policy to congress, rather than Congress taking the policy to the President. I'm not suggesting that Congress had no involvement, but the invasion was the President's decision, supported by Congress, not the other way around. Of course those who supported the war are trying to distance themselves from it now, but that doesn't make the Bush administration any less guilty. In the same way that the "War Party" have tried to distance themselves from endorsing the invasion, if the military adventures had been a success the Republicans would have claimed all of the credit for themselves instead of trying to spread the responsibility.


I'm not suggesting that the Bush admin is any less culpable or guilty, as you are inclined to label it.

What I'm saying is that when the country goes to war, it's the whole country and the whole of government. Congress was briefed on the intel and few voices dissented. HRC didn't ask any of the hard questions. Similarly, water boarding was also discussed with the intel committees of the house and senate and they knew what was happening.

The president as CIC directs the military and political effort and post invasion mistakes were certainly his but the act of committing to the war was a joint effort.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting that the Bush admin is any less culpable or guilty, as you are inclined to label it.
> 
> What I'm saying is that when the country goes to war, it's the whole country and the whole of government. Congress was briefed on the intel and few voices dissented. HRC didn't ask any of the hard questions. Similarly, water boarding was also discussed with the intel committees of the house and senate and they knew what was happening.
> 
> The president as CIC directs the military and political effort and post invasion mistakes were certainly his but the act of committing to the war was a joint effort.


Indeed, but initiated by the President.


----------



## FLMike

WA said:


> When I was a very small boy, five or six I learn mathematically logic of sentences, paragraphs. Don't know why. Years later somebody took a college class in it. He involved me with his homework. It was easy. I already knew it. Reasoning and logic are not the same thing. Through school, elementary, middle and high school I laid my writings out with this logic. The teachers didn't like it. They wanted literary writing.
> Anyway, you make to many errors. The proper logic is not there. How much reasoning has feeling. Logic has none. Reasoning has its place. Logic has its place. To swap these two creates many errors. You are governed by certain thoughts by reasoning more than other thoughts with the same amount of reasoning. Therefore, the mathematically answers are false. Question. 1+2-3*4÷a-b÷c+d=x If your reasoning doesn't provide abcd how can you come up with x?


I'm not exactly sure, but I think he may have just perfectly summed up Chouan. Amazing.


----------



## vpkozel

Not an exaggeration at all. If you pin all of the responsibilities of the US government onto the President, then you either have zero understanding of the way the government works under our Constitution or you simply don't care because it doesn't fit into your world view 

The branches are all equal and they all check and balance each other. 

Also, Congress has the responsibility to declare war, not POTUS.


----------



## SG_67

^ Correct, or in modern parlance, authorize the use of force. Congress also provides the funding. 

Whatever one's view of the war with Iraq and the invasion, it was a joint decision. It's rank hypocrisy for those Dems who voted to got to war to now pretend like they had nothing to do with it.


----------



## LordSmoke

vpkozel said:


> ...
> 
> The branches are all equal and they all check and balance each other.
> ....


Unless one of the two reprehensible private clubs that control the government gain control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and get to appoint a good number to SCOTUS.


----------



## culverwood

I believe perhaps naively that members appointed to the SCOTUS are not at under the boot of the party which appointed them once they are there for life. Perhaps I am too simple-minded and trusting.


----------



## Dmontez

LordSmoke said:


> Unless one of the two reprehensible private clubs that control the government gain control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and get to appoint a good number to SCOTUS.


Bilderberg's


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Not an exaggeration at all. *If you pin all of the responsibilities of the US government onto the President, *then you either have zero understanding of the way the government works under our Constitution or you simply don't care because it doesn't fit into your world view
> 
> The branches are all equal and they all check and balance each other.
> 
> Also, Congress has the responsibility to declare war, not POTUS.


It's a good thing that I didn't, isn't it.


----------



## Tempest

culverwood said:


> I believe perhaps naively that members appointed to the SCOTUS are not at under the boot of the party which appointed them once they are there for life. Perhaps I am too simple-minded and trusting.


It has happened in the past, but it's a different time now. Does anyone really expect some middle of the road youngster to be appointed? It's litmus test nowadays. Like jury selection, the chooser wants someone as likely to side with them as possible.


----------



## vpkozel

In response to Chouan

That is precisely what you did.

I am on my phone and cannot easily quote your post, but you said that the president sets policy and that he is responsible for bad policy, even if it was agreed to by Congress. 

None of that is accurate.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> In response to Chouan
> 
> That is precisely what you did.


Only I didn't. I didn't pin all of the responsibility onto the President himself, I referred to the Bush administration, for example.



vpkozel said:


> I am on my phone and cannot easily quote your post, but you said that the president sets policy and that he is responsible for bad policy, even if it was agreed to by Congress.
> 
> None of that is accurate.


So you are saying that the President doesn't set policy? Really? If so, how can people blame Obama for the actions of the US government during his presidency? You appear to be saying that the President isn't responsible for the policy of his administration, or do you mean that he isn't solely responsible? Or are people using expressions like "Obama is responsible for....." or "It is Obama's fault that ......" as shorthand for "The US government, including President Obama, is responsible for....." or "It is the fault of the US government, including Obama, that ....."?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ Correct, or in modern parlance, authorize the use of force. Congress also provides the funding.
> 
> Whatever one's view of the war with Iraq and the invasion, it was a joint decision. It's rank hypocrisy for those Dems who voted to got to war to now pretend like they had nothing to do with it.


It is indeed.


----------



## Howard

FLMike said:


> Howard for President


No thank you, I don't want to be president.


----------



## FLMike

WA said:


> When I read some of your reasonings, such as this, and, others, I wonder if you have fallen down a flight of stairs and had a head injury, had a stroke in the brain, in military combat training got hit in the head, or some other head damage, because your head doesn't seem to be functioning right.
> 
> I'm around a recent stroke victim, and coffee, a morning must, now, doesn't exist. One side of his body doesn't exist, either, unless he has to use it, and he only thinks of it at the very last moment, and what little he does remember is almost nothing for those parts of the body, so, he needs tremendous amount of hands on help. The medical world worked hard with him to try and get that forgotten leg back into his memory again so at least he can sorta walk again, which is a tremendous help for any caretaker. The information in the brain where the stroke happened doesn't exist, anymore. The medical world says, that part of his brain is dead. No wonder why it doesn't remember what was there. The leg, they tried to get the nerves to connect with another part of his brain so he could develop the use of his leg. It was a life changing stroke. Car accidents and brain injuries can be devastating. One person I know with a major head injury from auto accident came out almost completely unscathed. Another person, what a disaster. The list goes on. Some of the stuff you say doesn't make complete sense. Some sense, and then a gap, some more sense, and then a gap, and so on. At the end, looking at the whole, of what you've said, there is no sense. People have strokes, and they don't even know it. Perhaps you should have the medical world take a look at your brain. What you eat maybe destroying your thinking ability. Some years ago I knew I was having thinking problems. One doctor gave me a large list of foods and drinks not have anymore. Well, of course, he had to be wrong, so I went off to another doctor. He didn't disagree, and gave me his list, which was bigger. About 98% of the food and drinks on those two list I didn't touch again for many years. I'm not out of the woods yet, but my thinking is many many times better than it was when I saw those two doctors. That could have been 15 years ago, or more. If knew what year I visited those two doctors.... I'm still seeing improvements. There are endless reasons why there are holes in what you say.


 I really do think you're on to something lately. Maybe that's why they made him wear that big helmet in his avatar. It's all starting to finally make some sense.


----------



## Shaver

Gents, please, play the ball and not the man.


----------



## 16412

*wa*



FLMike said:


> I really do think you're on to something lately. Maybe that's why they made him wear that big helmet in his avatar. It's all starting to finally make some sense.


Don't over think this now. Or, you will be like me.

He is probably trying to have fun, like on a teeter totter. But hasn't figured out it only works with a proper counter balance.


----------



## Shaver

Howard said:


> No thank you, I don't want to be president.


To my mind such sentiment should be essential for any candidate to the office. A reluctant politician may yet be our best hope.


----------



## eagle2250

Shaver said:


> Gents, please, play the ball and not the man.


Thank you, my friend, for that overdue dose of common sense regarding the personal attacks being made by several of our fellows. Gentlemen, knock off the personal attacks. Should they continue, you will be held accountable!


----------



## Tempest

Mighty fine concern trolling here! Oops, it was addressed. Never mind.


Shaver said:


> To my mind such sentiment should be essential for any candidate to the office. A reluctant politician may yet be our best hope.


I agree. The original idea was that the elite, ahem electors, would be nominating their esteemed fellows, not that parties would have people hyping themselves.
But I do know of a man that is not in this for himself, unlike the womyn that has been plotting for the position for decades.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Only I didn't. I didn't pin all of the responsibility onto the President himself, I referred to the Bush administration, for example.


Except, you did.



Chouan said:


> Presidential government, such as that of the US, is predicated on the President being the executive. As such, he makes policy, as you well know. Consequently, if a president carries out a grotesquely disastrous policy, whether or not he is supported by Congress, it is his policy and his failure. If one refers to an administration, such as the Bush administration, one is referring to the government under Bush, which includes, of course, congress. As such, one doesn't need to refer to congress as well. Unless, of course, one is seeking to deflect the responsibility for disastrous policy decisions from the President and his party.
> If you look at the post that you're criticising, you'll see that I mentioned Britain's involvement..... Be honest, or at least try, since it appears to conflict with your nature.





> So you are saying that the President doesn't set policy? Really? If so, how can people blame Obama for the actions of the US government during his presidency? You appear to be saying that the President isn't responsible for the policy of his administration, or do you mean that he isn't solely responsible? Or are people using expressions like "Obama is responsible for....." or "It is Obama's fault that ......" as shorthand for "The US government, including President Obama, is responsible for....." or "It is the fault of the US government, including Obama, that ....."?


We can have a more a, nuanced discussion after you get a grasp of the basics.


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> Mighty fine concern trolling here! Oops, it was addressed. Never mind.
> 
> I agree. The original idea was that the elite, ahem electors, would be nominating their esteemed fellows, not that parties would have people hyping themselves.
> But I do know of a man that is not in this for himself, unlike the womyn that has been plotting for the position for decades.


I had to Google 'concern troll' and, in truth, I am still none the wiser as to the meaning. Could I call upon you (or anyone really) to illuminate me?


----------



## Tempest

Ah, apparently the listed definitions are a bit different than I intended. My initial understanding was that it was simply a cousin to the humble brag, where one adopts a demeanor of concern for the subject and trolls while pretending to be looking out for them. Apparently the more common definition is to pretend to agree with the opposition, but with reservations, in order to discount stances. Basically the anti-Trump GOP are a whole bunch of concern trolls at this point.


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> We can have a more a, nuanced discussion after you get a grasp of the basics.


I can't really blame Chouan for thinking this way. We have actual citizens in this country who don't understand how the government works.

The president puts forth an agenda and the congress must then act to pass legislation which codifies and funds that agenda. The president being the only truly nationally elected official basically comes in the notion of a mandate and can bully the congrsss if he so wishes.

I'll refer back to the ACA. The Obama administration came up with the scheme and left it to congress to write the legislation and pass it. They did.

It is now a disaster and the fault lies with both the POTUS and the dems in congress.

People blame Obama as they rightly should for the ACA's "spiritual leader" but it was congress which wrote and passed the law.


----------



## Flanderian

*Trumpster Fire*


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Doesn't it? I rather think that it does.
> 
> No shift at all, I can assure you. My view is still the same, as is my position. Your obsessing on my "particular ideology" is still in evidence, of course. Can I assume that you're not going to respond to my earlier post?


Your position-shifting, and temerity in denying it, is stunning, or at least it should be. Experience has taught me to expect nothing less...


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Complete lack of understanding? Really? You're not exaggerating just a little bit are you? When have I disagreed with this?


Did I say "complete"? I apologize, I meant "utter."

I will not document anything for you; we've been down this path before. An apology is what's required, not further arrogance.

Really, enough is enough! Especially when the evidence is apparent to anyone who cares to read it...


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> To my mind such sentiment should be essential for any candidate to the office. A reluctant politician may yet be our best hope.


This is spot on...


----------



## Pentheos

Cincinnatus is a myth.


----------



## Tiger

Pentheos said:


> Cincinnatus is a myth.


But Jefferson wasn't!


----------



## culverwood

> Originally Posted by Howard
> No thank you, I don't want to be president.





Shaver said:


> To my mind such sentiment should be essential for any candidate to the office. A reluctant politician may yet be our best hope.


You only have to say it you do not have to mean it.

Surely there is no such thing as a reluctant politician. It is very easy not to be involved in politics and those who chose to run for office are only reluctant in the sense that they think that seeming to be reluctant is a good political ploy.

"Whoever wants to be a politician is dangerous because they want power." - a statement that seems to apply to both candidates, and probably any politician.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Your position-shifting, and temerity in denying it, is stunning, or at least it should be. Experience has taught me to expect nothing less...


My position, absolutely, has not shifted. Still no response to my earlier post? No? 
As I have pointed out elsewhere, politics aren't binary, one can have political interests and yet support neither of the main US parties.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Did I say "complete"? I apologize, I meant "utter."
> 
> _*I will not document anything for you*_; we've been down this path before. An apology is what's required, not further arrogance.
> 
> Really, enough is enough! Especially when the evidence is apparent to anyone who cares to read it...


Of course you won't, I wouldn't expect it from you. An apology for what? Disagreeing with you? Being what you perceive, without, evidence, that I am an "ideologue"?


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> I really do think you're on to something lately. Maybe that's why they made him wear that big helmet in his avatar. It's all starting to finally make some sense.


Indeed? You think that my wearing kevlar body armour, including a "big helmet" is a subject for levity?


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> My position, absolutely, has not shifted. Still no response to my earlier post? No?
> As I have pointed out elsewhere, politics aren't binary, one can have political interests and yet support neither of the main US parties.


Not sure what post you are referring to; I am certain I have (along with others) proven your inaccuracy and dishonest manipulation. I don't have the time or inclination to once again - as I've done in many threads - painstakingly dismantle what you've written, and reveal your willful distortions. The end result is always the same - you eventually slither away and appear in a new thread, spewing the same mix of historical inaccuracy, political tendentiousness, and dishonest distortion of your own and opposing viewpoints.

You possess the traits of the quintessential modern politician; I would rather engage someone with integrity.


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> Ah, apparently the listed definitions are a bit different than I intended. My initial understanding was that it was simply a cousin to the humble brag, where one adopts a demeanor of concern for the subject and trolls while pretending to be looking out for them. Apparently the more common definition is to pretend to agree with the opposition, but with reservations, in order to discount stances. Basically the anti-Trump GOP are a whole bunch of concern trolls at this point.


Thanks Tempest.

Ever curious, I delved a little deeper- it would seem that the term 'concern troll' is a spurious sobriquet originating on feminist message boards. Essentially, when the members are unable to account for the gaping holes in their *ahem* theories then, of course, whoever applies scrutiny to these flaws is a troll and subsequently ban-hammered.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Not sure what post you are referring to; I am certain I have (along with others) proven your inaccuracy and dishonest manipulation. I don't have the time or inclination to once again - as I've done in many threads - painstakingly dismantle what you've written, and reveal your willful distortions. The end result is always the same - you eventually slither away and appear in a new thread, spewing the same mix of historical inaccuracy, political tendentiousness, and dishonest distortion of your own and opposing viewpoints.
> 
> You possess the traits of the quintessential modern politician; I would rather engage someone with integrity.


Actually, you've proven to your entire satisfaction that you disagree with my views, and that my views don't coincide with your own. You have accused me, without any evidence whatsoever, of being partisan in my views, despite my establishing by the OED definition that I am not partisan. You have accused me, again without any evidence whatsoever, of being an ideologue. Indeed not only without evidence, but refusing to offer evidence. Indeed, one would imagine from these repeated comments, and your refusal to offer evidence to support your assertions that you are unsure of what an ideologue actually is. Perhaps it is, in your mind, simply a term that you use to put down views that you don't like? You seem somewhat exercised by your perception of my being sympathetic to the left, such that you regularly refer to this, although without your perception being relevant to your argument. You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty and of "historical inaccuracy", claiming to be proving, solely by assertion, again to your own satisfaction, that you are right, with no evidence whatsoever. 
In short, you seem to conflate disagreement with your political viewpoint as dishonesty and a lack of integrity. 
Are politics in the US really as anti-intellectual as this? I know that the current Presidential race is a most unedifying spectacle, but if individuals view politics in the personal and unpleasant way that you have repeatedly expressed your attitude to those who you don't agree with, I despair for the future of democracy in the US.


----------



## Tempest

culverwood said:


> Surely there is no such thing as a reluctant politician. It is very easy not to be involved in politics and those who chose to run for office are only reluctant in the sense that they think that seeming to be reluctant is a good political ploy.


I understand that most politicians in our current system have very suspect motives, but this is not an absolute. Trump is rather like both Roosevelts that were quite rich enough and enacted policies that infuriated their social circle and peers. I could ask if you feel the same way about the military, as who wants to be shot? Is not some sense of duty and calling a probable motive?

In other news, I am further delighted that Trump will stop being polite to the GOP Judas goats that betray him and the people of the party by tacitly endorsing HRC. I wish Reince Priebus would just throw all of these disloyalists out of the party. None of them are actual conservatives anyway.


----------



## SG_67

^ Most of these guys didn't want to endorse him anyway and were looking for an excuse. It's really astonishing how little moral courage most of these people have. Then there's the truly astonishing, like Meg Whitman. Why bother calling yourself a republican if you're going to endorse and campaign with HRC. I get it if you don't want to endorse Trump, but if you're going to jump ship, just change your political affiliation.

It's a good thing HP products suck as I don't have to worry about boycotting them.

Elsewhere, Wikileaks continues to serve up some very interesting facts. Who knew that the Hillary campaign took such an interest in who baptizes their children:

https://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-emails-wikileaks-exposes-hatred-christians/


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> Most of these guys didn't want to endorse him anyway and were looking for an excuse.


Totally, and if we want to talk suspect motives, theirs are much more aimed at personal gain. The two biggest names are bitter losers (Ryan '12 and McCain '08) and then a bunch of neocon aspirants that realized they risk losing their gravy train. Also note that the alleged leaker of the bus tape is Dan Senor, who is exactly the kind of person that you'd expect to do such a thing: a neocon Zionist establishment insider. I would tar and feather these people, seriously.

Whoa, thanks for pointing out that rather concrete example of anti-Catholicism. I knew that the Democrats had no love of Christianity, and a fondness for the other two "book" religions (that actually hate each other, nice coalition there) but it's surprising to see such personal vitriol against a mainstream sect.


----------



## culverwood

Tempest said:


> I understand that most politicians in our current system have very suspect motives, but this is not an absolute. Trump is rather like both Roosevelts that were quite rich enough and enacted policies that infuriated their social circle and peers. I could ask if you feel the same way about the military, as who wants to be shot? Is not some sense of duty and calling a probable motive?


Are you suggesting that before the primaries there was anyone apart from Trump desperate for him to put his name forward. Even the most committed Trump supporters on this thread I understand had other Republican candidates they preferred.

I am afraid I see Trump's only calling to be the aggrandisement of Trump - I hope you are right and I am wrong and that his motives are pure and unselfish.


----------



## SG_67

^ my early preference for for others as I though they'd be more electable. We won't know I suppose. 

I've followed Trump for years and have listened to him on Howard Stern so I knew early on stuff like this would come up. What surprises me is that it took so long. 

I don't have a problem with his message. I just thought he was an imperfect vessel for it. But he's our nominee and I'll support him.


----------



## Tempest

culverwood said:


> Are you suggesting that before the primaries there was anyone apart from Trump desperate for him to put his name forward.


I could ask that about most previous nominees as well, but I'm not saying that he was recruited, only that he enlisted and has little to gain financially. Were he solely out for legacy building, he could have chosen a much safer route to political nomination (large donations, currying favor, total corruption) but he instead he took some what taboo stances that coincidentally struck a chord with what the party voters wanted done. I think the case for him being a reluctant patriot performing a duty is more plausible than one of vapid status-seeking. Besides, he's pretty content with himself already and doesn't much care what others think. And I've already shown decades old video of him lamenting poor American policy and people asking him if he'd consider the Presidency.


----------



## rtd1

Seems creepy to go into the girls locker room to check out the naked under-age girls at a pageant.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ns-donald-trump-barged-in-on-us-changing.html

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-beauty-pageants-naked-2dc4b6c6d507#.efemazrnd


----------



## Tempest

This relates to his leadership capabilities because intergalactic war could occur if he peeks in on Princess Amidala of Naboo. Or is this just more cuckservative smearjob nonsense?


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Actually, you've proven to your entire satisfaction that you disagree with my views, and that my views don't coincide with your own. You have accused me, without any evidence whatsoever, of being partisan in my views, despite my establishing by the OED definition that I am not partisan. You have accused me, again without any evidence whatsoever, of being an ideologue. Indeed not only without evidence, but refusing to offer evidence. Indeed, one would imagine from these repeated comments, and your refusal to offer evidence to support your assertions that you are unsure of what an ideologue actually is. Perhaps it is, in your mind, simply a term that you use to put down views that you don't like? You seem somewhat exercised by your perception of my being sympathetic to the left, such that you regularly refer to this, although without your perception being relevant to your argument. You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty and of "historical inaccuracy", claiming to be proving, solely by assertion, again to your own satisfaction, that you are right, with no evidence whatsoever.
> In short, you seem to conflate disagreement with your political viewpoint as dishonesty and a lack of integrity.
> Are politics in the US really as anti-intellectual as this? I know that the current Presidential race is a most unedifying spectacle, but if individuals view politics in the personal and unpleasant way that you have repeatedly expressed your attitude to those who you don't agree with, I despair for the future of democracy in the US.


Against a mountain of evidence consisting of your own posts, you persist in this inane vein. Your insularity and delusional mode of thought makes further discourse meaningless...


----------



## rtd1

Tempest said:


> This relates to his leadership capabilities because intergalactic war could occur if he peeks in on Princess Amidala of Naboo. Or is this just more cuckservative smearjob nonsense?


Sneaking into teenage girls' locker rooms is not only illegal, it's perverted, and speaks to character. This is on a completely different level than the foul talk stuff.


----------



## Tempest

rtd1 said:


> Sneaking into teenage girls' locker rooms is not only illegal, it's perverted, and speaks to character. This is on a completely different level than the foul talk stuff.


Stop the calumny. There was no sneaking in, he brazenly walked right in. You also claimed they were naked, which seems to be unfounded.
Let's be quite honest that his character is not particularly worse than anyone else's. In a ring of Gyges way, he is just freer of consequence and able to do what we only wish to.


----------



## rtd1

Tempest said:


> Stop the calumny. There was no sneaking in, he brazenly walked right in. You also claimed they were naked, which seems to be unfounded.
> Let's be quite honest that his character is not particularly worse than anyone else's. In a ring of Gyges way, he is just freer of consequence and able to do what we only wish to.





> One of them called it "shocking" and "creepy" and said she rushed to cover herself. Another recalled that the contestants were "just scrambling to grab stuff&#8230; whatever garments they had."
> 
> Another called it "really shocking," saying, "We were all naked."
> 
> "I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, 'Oh my god, there's a man in here,'" Mariah Billado, former Miss Vermont Teen USA, said.
> 
> Billado remembered Trump saying something like, "Don't worry, ladies, I've seen it all before." Another who was 17 at the time recalled that it seemed Trump felt "it was his given right&#8230; because he owned the pageant."


As a father of two children, including a 9 year old daughter, I find this absolutely disgusting.


----------



## SG_67

And twenty years later, at the age of 35, they're shocked? 

Interesting how something like this never came out before. Presumably said 15 year olds would have had chaperones with them who would have mentioned something.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tempest said:


> Stop the calumny.
> Let's be quite honest that his character is not particularly worse than anyone else's. In a ring of Gyges way, he is just freer of consequence and able to do what we only wish to.


Just curious: Do you happen to reside on Cass Street in Trenton?


----------



## FLMike

Tiger said:


> ....Your insularity and delusional mode of thought makes further discourse meaningless...


Bravo....you have arrived at the same conclusion reached by most others here.....just a few dozen posts later. Better late than never!


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Against a mountain of evidence consisting of your own posts, you persist in this inane vein. Your insularity and delusional mode of thought makes further discourse meaningless...


What discourse? I make a comment which you don't like, as usual, and your personal remarks begin immediately. Is that discourse? Delusional, why because my political viewpoint differs from yours? 
Actually, for a person who has repeatedly written that you aren't interested in my views, and who spends no thought on me, you seem to spend an awful lot of time writing rather pointless personal remarks that clearly make you feel better in some way. Rarely are they apposite in any way, usually containing some kind of sneering comment, but you are clearly unable to stop yourself from responding. Sadly, almost never with anything that approaches an argument, which is, in a way rather sad. I know that some of your mates on here, who share your views, and your rather personal "ad hom" approach, probably applaud your sneers, so perhaps that's why you write in such a personal vein, to gain approval from your online friends?


----------



## FLMike

rtd1 said:


> As a father of two children, including a 9 year old daughter, I find this absolutely disgusting.


Agreed!


----------



## Tiger

FLMike said:


> Bravo....you have arrived at the same conclusion reached by most others here.....just a few dozen posts later. Better late than never!


Just don't confuse my obstinancy with stupidity!


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> Bravo....you have arrived at the same conclusion reached by most others here.....just a few dozen posts later. Better late than never!


Oh look! Speaking of which! No snide remark this evening?


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> What discourse? I make a comment which you don't like, as usual, and your personal remarks begin immediately. Is that discourse? Delusional, why because my political viewpoint differs from yours?
> Actually, for a person who has repeatedly written that you aren't interested in my views, and who spends no thought on me, you seem to spend an awful lot of time writing rather pointless personal remarks that clearly make you feel better in some way. Rarely are they apposite in any way, usually containing some kind of sneering comment, but you are clearly unable to stop yourself from responding. Sadly, almost never with anything that approaches an argument, which is, in a way rather sad. I know that some of your mates on here, who share your views, and your rather personal "ad hom" approach, probably applaud your sneers, so perhaps that's why you write in such a personal vein, to gain approval from your online friends?


If AAAC issued breathalyzer tests, you would fail!


----------



## FLMike

Tiger said:


> Just don't confuse my obstinancy with stupidity!


Of course not! To the contrary.


----------



## Howard

rtd1 said:


> Seems creepy to go into the girls locker room to check out the naked under-age girls at a pageant.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ns-donald-trump-barged-in-on-us-changing.html
> 
> https://thinkprogress.org/trump-beauty-pageants-naked-2dc4b6c6d507#.efemazrnd


and I bet he grabbed them by the "you know what"?


----------



## rtd1

Howard said:


> and I bet he grabbed them by the "you know what"?


I would certainly hope not.


----------



## 16412

culverwood said:


> "Whoever wants to be a politician is dangerous because they want power." - a statement that seems to apply to both candidates, and probably any politician.


It is a nice quote. But, it's not always true.


----------



## 16412

rtd1 said:


> As a father of two children, including a 9 year old daughter, I find this absolutely disgusting.


Vote democrat. They want open restrooms and locker rooms Obama is pushing for it in the courts with my tax money in public schools. No federal funds unless the schools open the doors to either sex of the restrooms and locker rooms of there choosing.


----------



## Yodan731

I can't wait for this election season to end. Hopefully most of you feel the same. 

Winter is coming, are flannel trousers republican or democrat?


----------



## SG_67

Yodan731 said:


> I can't wait for this election season to end. Hopefully most of you feel the same.
> 
> Winter is coming, are flannel trousers republican or democrat?


Depends on your choice of underwear.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> If AAAC issued breathalyzer tests, you would fail!


Oh look, another "witty" personal remark from Tiger. I bet it took you ages to think it up, and that you sniggered about it for ages as well!


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> Of course not! To the contrary.


Did you mean "On the contrary"?


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Vote democrat. They want open restrooms and locker rooms Obama is pushing for it in the courts with my tax money in public schools. No federal funds unless the schools open the doors to either sex of the restrooms and locker rooms of there choosing.


Obama, personally? Or Obama's administration? Or Congress _*with*_ Obama? Or Obama *with* Congress? Is this really Obama's policy, or is the policy of the Democrats, or the policy of Congress, or the policy of the US government? After everthing that has been posted here about US government policies not being the responsibility of the President, or that the President is not responsible, solely, for policies, I think that you should make this clear.


----------



## culverwood

Chouan said:


> Obama, personally? Or Obama's administration? Or Congress _*with*_ Obama? Or Obama *with* Congress? Is this really Obama's policy, or is the policy of the Democrats, or the policy of Congress, or the policy of the US government? After *everything* that has been posted here about US government policies not being the responsibility of the President, or that the President is not responsible, solely, for policies, I think that you should make this clear.


Whichever is correct it is simpler than the EU division of powers which I have never got my head around.

From Wiki
"The European Union is a supranational polity, and is neither a country nor a federation; but as the EU wields political power and is fully aware of its "democratic deficit", it attempts to comply with the principle of separation of powers. There are seven institutions of the European Union. In intergovernmental matters, most power is concentrated in the Council of the European Union - giving it the characteristics of a normal international organization. Here, all power at the EU level is in one branch. In the latter there are four main actors. The European Commission acts as an independent executive which is appointed by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament; but the Commission also has a legislative role as the sole initiator of EU legislation. As well as both executive and legislative functions, the Commission arguably exercises a third, quasi-judicial, function under Articles 101 & 102 TFEU (competition law ); although the ECJ remains the final arbiter. The European Parliament is one half of the legislative branch and is directly elected. The Council itself acts both as the second half of the legislative branch and also holds some executive functions (some of which are exercised by the related European Council in practice). The European Court of Justice acts as the independent judicial branch, interpreting EU law and treaties. The remaining institution, the European Court of Auditors, is an independent audit authority (due to the sensitive nature of fraud in the EU)."

The last sentence about the ECA is of course a joke - an authority without authority.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Obama, personally? Or Obama's administration? Or Congress _*with*_ Obama? Or Obama *with* Congress? Is this really Obama's policy, or is the policy of the Democrats, or the policy of Congress, or the policy of the US government? After everthing that has been posted here about US government policies not being the responsibility of the President, or that the President is not responsible, solely, for policies, I think that you should make this clear.


In this particular case, Obama. He's using existing laws as a pretext for this.


----------



## Shaver

"I hesitate to use this expression" smirked the geriatric fantasist whilst adding without hesitation "but he was like an octopus".


----------



## FLMike

Chouan said:


> Did you mean "On the contrary"?


Yes, I think I did. I didn't previously know the difference, subtle though it may be, between those two fragments. Thanks.

By the way, you know what that was, that I just did? That was someone being *honest*, admitting they were *wrong* and didn't know something, being *gracious* about their mistake, and acknowledging they are merely *human*. You might try that one day. Or you might not......


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> Yes, I think I did. I didn't previously know the difference, subtle though it may be, between those two fragments. Thanks.
> 
> By the way, you know what that was, that I just did? That was someone being *honest*, admitting they were *wrong* and didn't know something, being *gracious* about their mistake, and acknowledging they are merely *human*. You might try that one day. Or you might not......


One's personal opinion, or political viewpoint is never, and can't be, wrong, because it is one's personal opinion. If you think that the Republican party is the saviour of America, you are perfectly entitled so to do, and you are perfectly entitled to say so. In doing so you are not wrong, although others may disagree with you and even challenge your opinion. That doesn't make your opinion wrong, so you shouldn't need to apologise for having a view that others disagree with. Consequently, although I may not agree with your political views, or opinions, I'm not going to suggest that you should apologise.
Did you see what I just did there?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> In this particular case, Obama. He's using existing laws as a pretext for this.


He is? By himself? Without his administration? Without the approval of the party? Without the approval of Congress? You mean that he is making policy?


----------



## FLMike

Chouan said:


> One's personal opinion, or political viewpoint is never, and can't be, wrong, because it is one's personal opinion. If you think that the Republican party is the saviour of America, you are perfectly entitled so to do, and you are perfectly entitled to say so. In doing so you are not wrong, although others may disagree with you and even challenge your opinion. That doesn't make your opinion wrong, so you shouldn't need to apologise for having a view that others disagree with. Consequently, although I may not agree with your political views, or opinions, I'm not going to suggest that you should apologise.
> Did you see what I just did there?


Yes, I do see. You just made a completely irrelevant post. I have never argued politics with you, or anyone else on this forum. My comments were not in reference to any of your opinions, political or otherwise. They were in reference to your interactions with other members; your disingenuous and dishonest debating style; your delusions and deceit about what you said and what others said; your obfuscations and misrepresentations; your refusal to acknowledge fault; and the overall disagreeable way of dealing with people who aren't of the same mind. Your inability to see any of this suggests, to me, some kind of pathology...but I'll leave that to the experts. Good day.


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> Yes, I do see. You just made a completely irrelevant post. I have never argued politics with you, or anyone else on this forum. My comments were not in reference to any of your opinions, political or otherwise. They were in reference to your interactions with other members; your disingenuous and dishonest debating style; your delusions and deceit about what you said and what others said; your obfuscations and misrepresentations; your refusal to acknowledge fault; and the overall disagreeable way of dealing with people who aren't of the same mind. Your inability to see any of this suggests, to me, some kind of pathology...but I'll leave that to the experts. Good day.


Oh, so it is entirely personal? At least you've admitted that is personal, rather than pretending otherwise.


----------



## RogerP

Well the Trump creep factor keeps climbing daily. A presidential candidate who likes to play peeping tom on 15 year old beauty contestants in the changeroom? How virile!


----------



## vpkozel

I know, right! 

He should have waited a few years until they were interns.....


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> He is? By himself? Without his administration? Without the approval of the party? Without the approval of Congress? You mean that he is making policy?


He instructed his administration, yes. No congressional approval needed. He's the CEO of government.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> He instructed his administration, yes. No congressional approval needed. He's the CEO of government.


Are you sure? I have been told repeatedly by members of this forum, who, apparently know an awful lot about this kind of thing, that presidents don't make policy by themselves, that it has to be agreed by their administration, and Congress. If you like I can refer you to the relevant posts; they were most insistent on this being the case. Indeed, they ridiculed my suggestion that the President can make policy.


----------



## Chouan

RogerP said:


> Well the Trump creep factor keeps climbing daily. A presidential candidate who likes to play peeping tom on 15 year old beauty contestants in the changeroom? How virile!


The BBC reported on an incident where he was showing some 10 year old girls around a building, Trump Tower, I think, when he remarked to one of the film crew about one of the girls "I'll be dating her in ten years." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-u...-old-i-am-going-to-be-dating-her-in-10-years/


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Are you sure? I have been told repeatedly by members of this forum, who, apparently know an awful lot about this kind of thing, that presidents don't make policy by themselves, that it has to be agreed by their administration, and Congress. If you like I can refer you to the relevant posts; they were most insistent on this being the case. Indeed, they ridiculed my suggestion that the President can make policy.


He used the existing Title IX act to justify it.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> He used the existing Title IX act to justify it.


I'm sure that you're right. It's just that I keep being told that presidents don't make policy.


----------



## vpkozel

The Executive branch has latitude in how they enforce or exectue law - although these can be open to legal challenge. This is far different than passing laws without Congress or creating things out of thin air. 

You don't seem to grasp these facts.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> The Executive branch has latitude in how they enforce or exectue law - although these can be open to legal challenge. This is far different than passing laws without Congress or creating things out of thin air.
> 
> You don't seem to grasp these facts.


Indeed? I get told by members that the President doesn't make policy. Now I'm being told that the President *does* make policy. I've never suggested that the President rules by decree, however, SG_67 is asserting that the President is enforcing his own personal policy without Congress. So he is, in effect, ruling by decree. Or isn't he?

It is hard to "grasp facts" when different people tell me different things. Once I accept one "fact" I am told that I know nothing...... When I repeat the "fact" I'm told that I am dishonest.....


----------



## vpkozel

Who has said those things? I am on my phone so searching isn't possible but after reading through the last few pages, it seems like the only person talking about policy is you.


----------



## 16412

Chouan, why don't you go read the constitution, take some classes so you understand it? Then, maybe, there can be, a legitimate conversation. But, I kinda doubt that is possible.


----------



## 16412

Chouan said:


> One's personal opinion, or political viewpoint is never, and can't be, wrong, because it is one's personal opinion. If you think that the Republican party is the saviour of America, you are perfectly entitled so to do, and you are perfectly entitled to say so. In doing so you are not wrong, although others may disagree with you and even challenge your opinion. That doesn't make your opinion wrong, so you shouldn't need to apologise for having a view that others disagree with. Consequently, although I may not agree with your political views, or opinions, I'm not going to suggest that you should apologise.
> Did you see what I just did there?


The first sentence here cannot be correct. It says that 2+2= any number anybody wants to put in there.

Another faulty reasoning. "If you think that the Republican party is the saviour of America...." How can something get saved if it is already saved? If the democrats have run the country down, then how are the democrats going to make the country great again by running the country down even further, since they haven't changed their direction.

Indeed you are a perfect liberal that skirts the law. You break the law by not following the law to change the law. Wherefore, there is no law, because anybody can cheat. And, of course, cheating is not obeying the law. Like Hillary, she made it very clear she is going to break the law by getting people into the supreme court who intend to break the law. Under these conditions it is legal to shoot them, because the law can be whatever one wants as much as the opposition. No person has special rights to make illegal laws, as Hillary and many democrats intend to do.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I'm sure that you're right. It's just that I keep being told that presidents don't make policy.


Policy and law are two different things. A law is passed and policies are enacted to enforce that law.

Obama is not ordering bathrooms to be gender neutral. He's saying that schools not doing this are in violation of Title IX and therefore federal funds are withheld.


----------



## Howard

rtd1 said:


> I would certainly hope not.


From what I've been reading about him, I don't think he deserves to be president.


----------



## Howard

RogerP said:


> Well the Trump creep factor keeps climbing daily. A presidential candidate who likes to play peeping tom on 15 year old beauty contestants in the changeroom? How virile!


disgusting!


----------



## irish95

Did someone just say it is legal to shoot someone on the Supreme Court? Okay.....time for me to go.


----------



## Mike Petrik

irish95 said:


> Did someone just say it is legal to shoot someone on the Supreme Court? Okay.....time for me to go.


Unless I misunderstood him, WA was simply pointing out that in a world where power disguised as law rules instead of law the world is essentially lawless, and in a lawless world all things, even assassinations, are permitted. His observation is perfectly defensible, and was intended to be disturbing.


----------



## 16412

irish95 said:


> Did someone just say it is legal to shoot someone on the Supreme Court? Okay.....time for me to go.


Not saying that anyone go buy a gun and shoot people who ought to be killed. Good people live by the law. Hillary has no interest in laws. She'll make up pretend laws to get what she wants. The Nazis did that. The Nuremberg trials hung some of them. The declaration of independence says inalienable rights. Hillary doesn't believe in that. All those aborted children have that right. Is she defending the law, much more those children? No! She despise the law. America is far from great, when great means good.

If you look at Trump. What a naughty guy. Kissing women where he clearly doesn't have a right to. Worse, grabbing them where his hands don't belong. And those women should speak up. None of those aborted children get to speak out. They're dead. Trump is naughty. Hillary is murderer. Which one are you going to vote for?


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> The first sentence here cannot be correct. It says that 2+2= any number anybody wants to put in there.


Of course it can be correct. It doesn't say that 2+2= anything. You appear to be confusing opinions with facts. If I ask a student to write an essay to explain which they think is the most important cause of the loss of the "Titanic" they aren't going to be wrong, because I've asked them to tell me what they *think* is the most important cause. If one's opinion of the merits of Franco's government in Spain is favourable, it doesn't mean that one's *opinion* is wrong, although it may mean that other people will disagree with it and seek to persuade one otherwise, or, as frequently occurs in this forum, offer insult and ridicule.



WA said:


> Another faulty reasoning. "If you think that the Republican party is the saviour of America...." How can something get saved if it is already saved? If the democrats have run the country down, then how are the democrats going to make the country great again by running the country down even further, since they haven't changed their direction.


You're mistaking me for a person who supports the Democrats. As I have repeatedly explained, just because I find fault with the Republicans doesn't mean that I sympathise with or support the Democrats. It isn't a binary either or situation.



WA said:


> Indeed you are a perfect liberal that skirts the law.


I am?



WA said:


> You break the law by not following the law to change the law.


I do? I wasn't aware of it!



WA said:


> Wherefore, there is no law, because anybody can cheat. And, of course, cheating is not obeying the law. Like Hillary, she made it very clear she is going to break the law by getting people into the supreme court who intend to break the law.


Did she? Really?



WA said:


> Under these conditions it is legal to shoot them, because the law can be whatever one wants as much as the opposition. No person has special rights to make illegal laws, as Hillary and many democrats intend to do.


On what basis do you assert that this is what she, and they, intend to do?


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Not saying that anyone go buy a gun and shoot people who ought to be killed. Good people live by the law. *Hillary has no interest in laws. She'll make up pretend laws to get what she wants.* The Nazis did that. The Nuremberg trials hung some of them. *The declaration of independence says inalienable rights. Hillary doesn't believe in that.* All those aborted children have that right. Is she defending the law, much more those children? No! She despise the law. America is far from great, when great means good.


Really? Are these facts? Or are they just your opinion?



WA said:


> If you look at Trump. What a naughty guy. Kissing women where he clearly doesn't have a right to. Worse, grabbing them where his hands don't belong. And those women should speak up. None of those aborted children get to speak out. They're dead. Trump is naughty._* Hillary is murderer.*_ Which one are you going to vote for?


A murderer? Really? That's quite a serious assertion to make.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Policy and law are two different things. A law is passed and policies are enacted to enforce that law.
> 
> Obama is not ordering bathrooms to be gender neutral. He's saying that schools not doing this are in violation of Title IX and therefore federal funds are withheld.


Surely policy is what determines the law? If a president's policy is to restrict gun ownership by, let us suggest an extreme example, forbidding private citizens from owning .5 and above calibre machine guns. That is the policy. That policy is then translated into law, the legislation determines how that policy is going to be enforced and carried out. Unless of course policy has a different meaning in the US? OED definition is "A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual."


----------



## culverwood

When somebody start trying to rationalise that the ends justify the means - such as killing a supreme court judge - they have lost contact with civilised society. The rule of law is what makes countries like the USA different from countries like Russia.

I would make the comment about a candidate cosying up to the Russians and thereby avoiding any legal hurdles to get dirt on his opponent. Imagine what such a candidate would do in office.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Surely policy is what determines the law? If a president's policy is to restrict gun ownership by, let us suggest an extreme example, forbidding private citizens from owning .5 and above calibre machine guns. That is the policy. That policy is then translated into law, the legislation determines how that policy is going to be enforced and carried out. Unless of course policy has a different meaning in the US? OED definition is "A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual."


I'm sure in your side of the pond often times legislation is passed in order to remedy something and then the wording of that legislation is further used by others to further another agenda.

To go back to a favorite topic of yours, the authorization to use force against Afghanistan after 9/11, obama himself has used that same authorization to escalate conflict elsewhere without congress.


----------



## vpkozel

> OED definition is "A course or principle of action adopted *or proposed* by an organization or individual."


Read the entire definition please.



Chouan said:


> Surely policy is what determines the law? If a president's policy is to restrict gun ownership by, let us suggest an extreme example, forbidding private citizens from owning .5 and above calibre machine guns. That is the policy. That policy is then translated into law, the legislation determines how that policy is going to be enforced and carried out. Unless of course policy has a different meaning in the US? OED definition is "A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual."


A president's position may, or may not, be the impetus for a law. You seem to think it is a requirement, which is not accurate.

If the process is as you say, then why would we need a veto? In fact, a president's agreement is not even a requirement to crate a law.

That you do not know that is stunning.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm sure in your side of the pond often times legislation is passed in order to remedy something and then the wording of that legislation is further used by others to further another agenda.
> 
> To go back to a favorite topic of yours, the authorization to use force against Afghanistan after 9/11, obama himself has used that same authorization to escalate conflict elsewhere without congress.


So, despite what I have been told, and been condemned for my utter lack of knowledge for suggesting, the President is responsible for the actions of the US government? The President can take military action, without the support of Congress, and can thus be held responsible for that action? Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> So, despite what I have been told, and been condemned for my utter lack of knowledge for suggesting, the President is responsible for the actions of the US government? The President can take military action, without the support of Congress, and can thus be held responsible for that action? Thank you for clearing that up.


I think you know the answer and you keep this up for other reasons.

I'll just say that it's complicated and every situation is different. The POTUS is the commander in chief. The congress appropriates funds and is tasked with declaring war. The POTUS is authorized to deploy armed forces for a limited time if there is a national emergency or threat to national security for a limited period of time before having to go to the congress.

Once the conflict is begun, the POTUS is responsible for directing the effort and the overall conduct of strategy.

Entering a conflict is also a political act. It's why the president will seek the approval of the congress so that the decision is seen as a more national one versus the folly of one man.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Read the entire definition please.
> 
> A president's position may, or may not, be the impetus for a law. You seem to think it is a requirement, which is not accurate.
> 
> If the process is as you say, then why would we need a veto? In fact, a president's agreement is not even a requirement to crate a law.
> 
> That you do not know that is stunning.


I have never said that legislation is solely proposed on the say so of the President, but it has been explained to me here that a President does make policy. Yet elsewhere I was ridiculed for saying so. I am fully aware that congress can make laws, subject to presidential veto, or Supreme Court veto. As I said, I have been repeatedly ridiculed when I suggest that the President is responsible for his/her administration's policy, yet I am being told here by SG_69 that the President is indeed responsible for making and implementing policy.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I think you know the answer and you keep this up for other reasons.
> 
> I'll just say that it's complicated and every situation is different. The POTUS is the commander in chief. The congress appropriates funds and is tasked with declaring war. The POTUS is authorized to deploy armed forces for a limited time if there is a national emergency or threat to national security for a limited period of time before having to go to the congress.
> 
> Once the conflict is begun, the POTUS is responsible for directing the effort and the overall conduct of strategy.
> 
> Entering a conflict is also a political act. It's why the president will seek the approval of the congress so that the decision is seen as a more national one versus the folly of one man.


Which is what I have been saying. Yet I am ridiculed for suggesting that the President is responsible for policy and also for suggesting that the President isn't responsible. I'm not seeking to catch people out, but I am seeking an explanation, for my own understanding, of why I am attacked for assigning responsibility, whoever I assign responsibility to. 
One can't have it both ways unless, of course, one wishes to blame a president one doesn't like for actions of the government under their presidency, whilst blaming the "system" or Congress, or others, no matter who, for the actions of the government under a president that one _*does*_ like.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Read the entire definition please.


I did; here it is: "A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual._'the government's controversial economic policies'_


_[mass noun]_ _'it is not company policy to dispense with our older workers'"
_ In what way does this change the sense of what I wrote?


----------



## vpkozel

The president is the head of the executive branch. That's it. There are 3 branches. This means he is not the head of 2 of them. 

So, no, the President is not responsible for the actions of the US government.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> I have never said that legislation is solely proposed on the say so of the President, but it has been explained to me here that a President does make policy. Yet elsewhere I was ridiculed for saying so. I am fully aware that congress can make laws, subject to presidential veto, or Supreme Court veto. As I said, I have been repeatedly ridiculed when I suggest that the President is responsible for his/her administration's policy, yet I am being told here by SG_69 that the President is indeed responsible for making and implementing policy.


As I asked earlier. You are the only person talking about policy, putting words in others' mouths, then arguing against your flawed interpretation of their statements.

Please post the specific quote where someone has said that the President does not make policy or have policy positions, or anything of the like. This should go without saying, but it should be their quote - not your response to their quote


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> I did; here it is: "A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual._'the government's controversial economic policies'_
> 
> 
> _[mass noun]_ _'it is not company policy to dispense with our older workers'"
> _ In what way does this change the sense of what I wrote?


Key words. Or proposed. Proposed <> enacted.


----------



## culverwood

vpkozel said:


> So, no, the President is not responsible for the actions of the US government.


Who is?


----------



## vpkozel

Crap. I meant to quote and respond to those specific posts. On my phone so I will do that later.


----------



## vpkozel

culverwood said:


> Who is?


Depends on which branch you are referring to.

This only takes a few minutes to read and should help answer that question.

https://www.usconstitution.cc

Edit - in my original post, I should have said the entire US goverment to make it more clear.


----------



## culverwood

That makes more sense.


----------



## Mike Petrik

culverwood said:


> When somebody start trying to rationalise that the ends justify the means - such as killing a supreme court judge - they have lost contact with civilised society. The rule of law is what makes countries like the USA different from countries like Russia.


I agree with this. Yet, what WA is suggesting (perhaps a bit too intemperately), I think, is that the rule of law in the US is in a rather unhealthy state, especially given that our judicial branch has on occasion (most notably in Roe v Wade and progeny) used its raw power to dishonestly usurp the rule of law. This suggestion of sanctioned lawlessness is a serious one and one that many constitutional scholars share to various degrees. The Framers almost certainly did not envision the implications of "judicial review," and a sound case can be made that the constitutional checks they crafted to address judicial branch misbehavior are inadequate. While such misbehavior became more pronounced in the 20th century, first in the substantive due process cases and then in the so-called privacy cases, its most notable first instance was Dred Scott (1857). It is infuriating to experience the judicial sabotage of the democratic process and have no practical legal recourse. It should be noted that America's ultimate response to Dred Scott was not especially civilized.


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree with this. Yet, what WA is suggesting, I think, is that the rule of law in the US is in a rather unhealthy state, especially given that our judicial branch has on occasion (most notably in Roe v Wade and progeny) used its raw power to dishonestly usurp the rule of law. This suggestion of sanctioned lawlessness is a serious one and one that many constitutional scholars share to various degrees. The Framers almost certainly did not envision the implications of "judicial review," and a sound case can be made that the constitutional checks they crafted to address judicial branch misbehavior are inadequate. While such misbehavior became more pronounced in the 20th century, first in the substantive due process cases and then in the so-called privacy cases, its most notable first instance was Dred Scott (1857). It is infuriating to experience the judicial sabotage of the democratic process and have no practical legal recourse. It should be noted that America's ultimate response to Dred Scott was not especially civilized.


I disgaree on Scott being a misuse of judicial power. In fact, I believe that it is the most notable example of judicial restraint.

The laws of the country were exceedingly clear. Slavery was legal and the way to change it was not via judicial fiat but through the Constitutional process.

This is not an endorsement of slavery, which is abhorrent.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> I disgaree on Scott being a misuse of judicial power. In fact, I believe that it is the most notable example of judicial restraint.
> 
> The laws of the country were exceedingly clear. Slavery was legal and the way to change it was not via judicial fiat but through the Constitutional process.
> 
> This is not an endorsement of slavery, which is abhorrent.


You apparently misunderstand the holding of Dred Scott. Legal scholars, notwithstanding their political stripes or jurisprudential preferences, agree: the decision was one of rather extreme judicial activism, not judicial restraint.


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> You apparently misunderstand the holding of Dred Scott. Legal scholars, notwithstanding their political stripes or jurisprudential preferences, agree: the decision was one of rather extreme judicial activism, not judicial restraint.


That probaly needs to have its own thread....


----------



## RogerP

Fox News host tweets the address and phone number of one of the women accusing Trump of inappropriate sexual touching. "Deplorables" was putting it charitably, methinks.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Fox News host tweets the address and phone number of one of the women accusing Trump of inappropriate sexual touching. "Deplorables" was putting it charitably, methinks.


It is quite misleading to say that he tweeted it out. He retweeted something that apparently was claiming her nunber was the same as the Clinton Foundation's - which was incorrect. Donbs also apologized.

Still a bad mistake, but in today's technology environment, this is not the first time something like this has happened.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> It is quite misleading to say that he tweeted it out. He retweeted something that apparently was claiming her nunber was the same as the Clinton Foundation's - which was incorrect. Donbs also apologized.
> 
> Still a bad mistake, but in today's technology environment, this is not the first time something like this has happened.


Not misleading at all. The fact that is was a retweet doesn't change the reality that he chose to broadcast this info to his 700k-plus followers. That is deplorable. It wasn't a mistake. His finger didn't slip. And the "apologize and move on" schtick is getting a little tiresome.


----------



## RogerP

Astonishing hypocrisy.


----------



## Dmontez

This ladies and gentlemen is precisely what happens when you do not care what the truth is as long as your narrative continues to be the correct one, and when you only pay attention to mainstream media. 


RogerP said:


> Astonishing hypocrisy.


I had seen a headline on this while perusing facebook, and quite frankly didn't care enough to click on it. When I decided to google it I had to wade through three pages of results from google, and surprise surprise not a single mainstream media outlet has picked it up. It will forever stay local news in New Mexico, because this isn't the idea that the left wants people to get.

Re: Trumps pussy grabbing statements: What I want to know is if any of the women that he allegedly groped told him, "no, dont, or stop" and if he did stop, or if he continued which would be rape.


----------



## 16412

Chouan, why do you reply to things people write that you don't know about? Such as Hillary? Did you watch the second debate? Do you know what she said?

Abortion of innocent people is marginalizing those people's worthy lives. How would you like a group of people get the power, even break the law, to marginalize your life by aborting it?


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> Re: Trumps pussy grabbing statements: What I want to know is if any of the women that he allegedly groped told him, "no, dont, or stop" and if he did stop, or if he continued which would be rape.


I can't speak for American law. In Canada, we have abandoned the notion of "rape" for the broader concept of sexual assault. Many acts of sexual assault can stop short of what was traditionally regarded as rape (i.e. - non-consensual sexual intercourse).

And in Canada, walking up to a woman and grabbing her vagina while sticking your tongue down her throat is sexual assault. It doesn't _become_ sexual assault only at the point when she catches her breath and says "stop".

Just like the predatory creep who gropes women on a crowded bus or train, it's not like he's _prima facie_ entitled to do this until he is told to stop. Just like the man who takes liberties with a woman who is sleeping or inebriated or unconscious - he can't claim "well she didn't say no".

And Donald Trump is manifestly a predatory creep. One who brags about groping and kissing women without their consent. One who brags about getting away with barging into dressing rooms while beauty contestants are half naked. Which may be one of the few times Trump was "telling it like it is".


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Not misleading at all. The fact that is was a retweet doesn't change the reality that he chose to broadcast this info to his 700k-plus followers. That is deplorable. It wasn't a mistake. His finger didn't slip. And the "apologize and move on" schtick is getting a little tiresome.


It was absolutely misleading on your part. He passed on information along without checking it out. Tell me, if it turns out that the ladies are lying about Trump, will you call the NYT deplorable? How about everyone who ran with the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative? The NYT on the Judith Miller reporting?

I must have missed your posts condemning them


----------



## SG_67

We're really straying off topic here but this notion of sexual assault vs. rape is exactly what's happening on campuses around the country. A couple of kids dancing and the man reaches down to grab her butt because she's moving in close to him is now assault. The university of California notion of continuous and ongoing consent is another. 

Of course men aren't supposed to say anything about this sort of stuff becaus we will be stygmatized as misogynists. 

As for Trump, the problem is that when stuff like this comes out, there's a press feeding frenzy that would make sharks blush. If there's evidence to the contrary it's overlooked because it's so much easier to make one's story deadline talking about this. With only a few weeks to go, it's difficult to get anything else out to refute it. 

I'm suspect as to the timing of this and I had quipped a few posts ago about Gloria Allred trotting out an line of women and I see now that I've been served!


----------



## FLMike

SG, you've really come a long way from the days of "guaranteeing" that Trump would not be the GOP nominee. 

At least you didn't promise to wear nothing but DJT pajamas for the rest of your life if he became the nominee, as did member 32rollandrock.


----------



## bernoulli

So you truly think it is ok for a guy to grab a women's butt without her consent? In 2016? Man, I knew America's right was screwed up but this....



SG_67 said:


> We're really straying off topic here but this notion of sexual assault vs. rape is exactly what's happening on campuses around the country. A couple of kids dancing and the man reaches down to grab her butt because she's moving in close to him is now assault. The university of California notion of continuous and ongoing consent is another.
> 
> Of course men aren't supposed to say anything about this sort of stuff becaus we will be stygmatized as misogynists.
> 
> As for Trump, the problem is that when stuff like this comes out, there's a press feeding frenzy that would make sharks blush. If there's evidence to the contrary it's overlooked because it's so much easier to make one's story deadline talking about this. With only a few weeks to go, it's difficult to get anything else out to refute it.
> 
> I'm suspect as to the timing of this and I had quipped a few posts ago about Gloria Allred trotting out an line of women and I see now that I've been served!


----------



## Dmontez

bernoulli said:


> So you truly think it is ok for a guy to grab a women's butt without her consent? In 2016? Man, I knew America's right was screwed up but this....


And there goes another lefty misrepresenting something to fit their narrative.

I think what SG is trying to say is that something that a guy that may have mistaken a sign from a woman he's dancing with to go a little further if he's wrong is now sexual assault.

The way you misrepresent this as a guy walking up behind a lady he's never met before and grabbing her butt is very obviously wrong, and should have consequences.


----------



## SG_67

bernoulli said:


> So you truly think it is ok for a guy to grab a women's butt without her consent? In 2016? Man, I knew America's right was screwed up but this....


Off with his head! Who cares if he maybe, just maybe, he didn't do it. To hell with the presumption of innocence though.

As to FLmike, it's not the first time I've been wrong nor the last. I thought he wouldn't be precisely for this; that these allegations would come up during the primaries. Good timing MSM!


----------



## RogerP

bernoulli said:


> So you truly think it is ok for a guy to grab a women's butt without her consent? In 2016? Man, I knew America's right was screwed up but this....


Yes. Apparently quite a few here either think it's okay or else so trivial as to fall beneath mention.


----------



## RogerP

And this is exactly what endlessly demonizing Muslims will get you.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> It was absolutely misleading on your part. He passed on information along without checking it out.


You know he didn't check it out, how, exactly? The whole subject matter of what he disseminated was the supposed similarity of the victim's phone number to another number. But I'm supposed to believe that a guy with nearly 800k Twitter followers, who was actually endorsing the hair-brained phone-number conspiracy theory, had no idea of the content of the re-tweet? Lol! Lemme guess, you believe Trump's statement in the debate that "Nobody respects women more than me." Amiright?? :laughing:


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> And this is exactly what endlessly demonizing Muslims will get you.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html


Demonising?


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> Yes. Apparently quite a few here either think it's okay or else so trivial as to fall beneath mention.


You continue to misrepresent, but honestly after what I've seen in your last few posts on this thread I expect nothing less.

It is the most common play ran by the left. 
Skew the facts, have people repeat and hope no one checks the facts.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
...and specifically which facts have been misrepresented/skewed. Reading through this thread, I get the sense that several of "The Donald's" more ardent supporters are approaching this election with their "eyes wide-shut" (what an appropriate attribution for this particular thread!)! Have you actually watched any of Trumps rallies and listened to his comments. As a young husband and father, is this the America you want for your beloved family. Honestly, I want more for mine and they certainly deserve such. If anyone treated or spoke to my wife, one of my children or one of my grandchildren in the degrading manner Donald Trump so frequently employs, I would hunt them down and straighten their a**es out...just ask a couple of our daughter's former boyfriends. They can confirm the authenticity of this claim.


----------



## Tiger

I'll say it again - why haven't there been stronger third party candidates in this race? Why aren't the ones in the race being far more aggressive and conspicuous? Why would any sane person of wisdom and virtue vote for either of the two major party candidates?


----------



## RogerP

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ...and specifically which facts have been misrepresented/skewed. Reading through this thread, I get the sense that several of "The Donald's" more ardent supporters are approaching this election with their "eyes wide-shut" (what an appropriate attribution for this particular thread!)! Have you actually watched any of Trumps rallies and listened to his comments. As a young husband and father, is this the America you want for your beloved family. Honestly, I want more for mine and they certainly deserve such. If anyone treated or spoke to my wife, one of my children or one of my grandchildren in the degrading manner Donald Trump so frequently employs, I would hunt them down and straighten their a**es out...just ask a couple of our daughter's former boyfriends. They can confirm the authenticity of this claim.


This.


----------



## SG_67

My wife and I have been in NYC for the past few days. It's our anniversary and we've been coming here for the past 10 years. We usually stay at the Pierre and this year was no expcetion. 

Staying there will also mean that from time to time we will walk by or very near Trump tower. Certainly walking down 5th avenue to go to St. Patrick's takes us right there. 

A lot has been said of the typical "Trump voter" and no one summed it up as eloquently as HRC's deplorables comment. It also seems that any one either against her or for him automatically takes on the veneer of a certain disposition and world outlook. 

Having witnessed the circus that is the front entrance of the tower, I can assure you that there are just as many vulgar, rude, moronic and just plain deplorable people who are opposing him. Assuming this is even real political opposition or someone just wanting to get in on the action. 

If by the same logic used by some here to paint the average Trump voter, I'd have to say that Hillary supporters should fear no shortage of idiots among their ranks. 

Now I would turn your attention back to the fashion forum for something more interesting.


----------



## Dmontez

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ...and specifically which facts have been misrepresented/skewed.


Eagle please read through these and it very simply explains what I am talking about, and then after that I will address the rest of your post.



SG_67 said:


> We're really straying off topic here but this notion of sexual assault vs. rape is exactly what's happening on campuses around the country. A couple of kids dancing and the man reaches down to grab her butt because she's moving in close to him is now assault. The university of California notion of continuous and ongoing consent is another.


The above quote passage is what member bernoulli was referring to in his below quoted passage. You can see very clearly that bernoulli misrepresented SGs statement.



bernoulli said:


> So you truly think it is ok for a guy to grab a women's butt without her consent? In 2016? Man, I knew America's right was screwed up but this....


now you have RogerP jump in and second bernoulli's misrepresentation.



RogerP said:


> Yes. Apparently quite a few here either think it's okay or else so trivial as to fall beneath mention.


This is what I see on a daily basis, it doesn't matter if it's true, it will get repeated ad nauseam, and become truth to those who repeat regardless of what the original content was.



eagle2250 said:


> Reading through this thread, I get the sense that several of "The Donald's" more ardent supporters are approaching this election with their "eyes wide-shut" (what an appropriate attribution for this particular thread!)! Have you actually watched any of Trumps rallies and listened to his comments. As a young husband and father, is this the America you want for your beloved family. Honestly, I want more for mine and they certainly deserve such. If anyone treated or spoke to my wife, one of my children or one of my grandchildren in the degrading manner Donald Trump so frequently employs, I would hunt them down and straighten their a**es out...just ask a couple of our daughter's former boyfriends. They can confirm the authenticity of this claim.


I had a very long post typed out about this, but I am getting beyond tired of politics, and cannot wait for november to be over with, so we wont have to see so much of it, but what I will say is the America I want to live with does not have HRC as our leader.


----------



## immanuelrx

#repealthe19th

This says a lot about the type of people who support trump. Im not talking about the people who are voting their party regardless of their dislike of Trump, nor the people who are voting Trump because they don't want HRC as president. Im talking about the people who somehow believe that Trump is good for the nation and will make America great again. The people who think Mexico will pay for a wall, who support a muslim ban, and who dismiss the Trump videos as silly "locker room talk." This is just sad.


----------



## Orsini

The Donald should eat **** and die


----------



## RogerP

immanuelrx said:


> #repealthe19th
> 
> This says a lot about the type of people who support trump. Im not talking about the people who are voting their party regardless of their dislike of Trump, nor the people who are voting Trump because they don't want HRC as president. Im talking about the people who somehow believe that Trump is good for the nation and will make America great again. The people who think Mexico will pay for a wall, who support a muslim ban, and who dismiss the Trump videos as silly "locker room talk." This is just sad.


Yes, it speaks volumes. "Sad" doesn't quite capture it.


----------



## bernoulli

Maybe I read too much into SG's comment. Yours do not make it any better, though. If you misread a signal and grabs a woman's butt without her consent it is, and it should be, sexual assault. This is not a minor thing that you can wave away with a: oh, he was an innocent poor sap. I want to live in a society in which people should not be afraid of unwanted sexual advances. As it is, a lot of women don't have that choice. I have many friends who cannot simply enjoy themselves freely. to the point that some friends of mine go to gay bars to dance among gay men, just so they are not afraid of something exactly as you described. A short skirt or cleavage is not consent, neither is flirting. This should be basic common sense. That it is not worries me greatly.



Dmontez said:


> And there goes another lefty misrepresenting something to fit their narrative.
> 
> I think what SG is trying to say is that something that a guy that may have mistaken a sign from a woman he's dancing with to go a little further if he's wrong is now sexual assault.
> 
> The way you misrepresent this as a guy walking up behind a lady he's never met before and grabbing her butt is very obviously wrong, and should have consequences.


----------



## 16412

Don't care for either one. The problem is that one is worse. Don't intend to vote for the worse. 

Looking at abortions. Close to a million a year. Cut throats. Back stabbers. Human life is not to be marginalized. Hillary said she would break the law to make for sure the murdering goes on. And all of those who vote for her are guilty. The way things are looking up others are going to be marginalized. Nobody knows what their future health will be. Government health care can mean they might not consider the money should be spent on your health problems. Abortion isn't just for unborn babies.


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> Maybe I read too much into SG's comment. Yours do not make it any better, though. If you misread a signal and grabs a woman's butt without her consent it is, and it should be, sexual assault. This is not a minor thing that you can wave away with a: oh, he was an innocent poor sap. I want to live in a society in which people should not be afraid of unwanted sexual advances. As it is, a lot of women don't have that choice. I have many friends who cannot simply enjoy themselves freely. to the point that some friends of mine go to gay bars to dance among gay men, just so they are not afraid of something exactly as you described. A short skirt or cleavage is not consent, neither is flirting. This should be basic common sense. That it is not worries me greatly.


Perhaps this is a phenomenom which is restricted to the UK (although I doubt it) but a proportion of clubbing male homosexuals enjoy something of a reputation for groping ladies' breasts on a whim.


----------



## bernoulli

You Brits are weird! 



Shaver said:


> Perhaps this is a phenomenom which is restricted to the UK (although I doubt it) but a proportion of clubbing male homosexuals enjoy something of a reputation for groping ladies' breasts on a whim.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> You Brits are weird!


What, no high horse about sexual assault and mass condemnation of gay British men?


----------



## RogerP

bernoulli said:


> Maybe I read too much into SG's comment. Yours do not make it any better, though. If you misread a signal and grabs a woman's butt without her consent it is, and it should be, sexual assault. This is not a minor thing that you can wave away with a: oh, he was an innocent poor sap. I want to live in a society in which people should not be afraid of unwanted sexual advances. As it is, a lot of women don't have that choice. I have many friends who cannot simply enjoy themselves freely. to the point that some friends of mine go to gay bars to dance among gay men, just so they are not afraid of something exactly as you described. A short skirt or cleavage is not consent, neither is flirting. This should be basic common sense. That it is not worries me greatly.


Well said, bernoulli. One of the most odious foundations of the entitled misogyny exemplified by Trump, is the notion that UNTIL a woman screams in protest, a man is entitled to do as he pleases - grope them, kiss them - 'you can do whatever you want - you can do anything'.

We see this repugnance reflected in Tempest's declarations that 'real' women are attracted to 'virile alpha-males' like Trump. Vice is thus not merely denied, but elevated to virtue. In such an absurd reality bubble, groping and kissing a woman who happens to be in reach is simply an expression of male assertiveness which - and here's the really sick part - is what 'real women' really want.

For all the Trump apologists who seem to struggle with the notion that what he was bragging about on tape was sexual assault, let me ask you this: if I black man walked up to Ann Coulter and grabbed her by the pu$$y, what would be the result?

There is nothing misleading about shining a light on such dark ideology and condemning it for what it is:


----------



## Dmontez

Roger, did you ask your wife for consent the first time you kissed her?

How about before you met your wife, did you have any one night stands, or very short relationships where you specifically asked for permission, to kiss and touch?

If you did not then you have done exactly what trump has done that you describe as sexual assault. 

This Donald trump thing and his leaked audio is the definition of hypocrisy.


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> Roger, did you ask your wife for consent the first time you kissed her?.


That's such an absurd attempt at false equivalence as to be unworthy of response. But maybe I will ask you this - the first time you met your wife - did you walk up to her and grab her by the pu$$y?

Would you grab a woman who walked into your office on business and plant one on her lips? If so you are depressingly like Donald Trump.

A kiss that evolves in the course of an existing romantic relationship is NOT what Trump's victims are describing. That you can't see a difference is, unfortunately, unsurprising.


----------



## FLMike

Rog, I love the way you put the dollar signs in the P word. Very pimpin'.


----------



## immanuelrx

What really bothers me about all the defense of Trump is that, if he decided to go independent, you would not see all these people trying to downplay or defend all of his actions. I am willing to bet if Hillary represented the republican party and Trump represented the democratic party, we would be hearing about how horrible Trump is. Meanwhile, Benghazi and the emails would be no big deal and/or just another smear campaign by the democrats and the liberal media. This is what I can't stand about politics and political parties theses days.


----------



## Tiger

FLMike said:


> Rog, I love the way you put the dollar signs in the P word. Very pimpin'.


I would agree, if I knew what "pimpin'" meant!


----------



## LordSmoke

Tiger said:


> I would agree, if I knew what "pimpin'" meant!


 pimping 
More commonly used nowadays as making something cool or better. 
Yeah, I was totally pimping up my profile today!


----------



## RogerP

immanuelrx said:


> What really bothers me about all the defense of Trump is that, if he decided to go independent, you would not see all these people trying to downplay or defend all of his actions. I am willing to bet if Hillary represented the republican party and Trump represented the democratic party, we would be hearing about how horrible Trump is. Meanwhile, Benghazi and the emails would be no big deal and/or just another smear campaign by the democrats and the liberal media. This is what I can't stand about politics and political parties theses days.


As I said, I am at least somewhat heartened by the fact that so many Republicans have denounced his inexcusable comments and conduct in the only way that matters: by withdrawing their support. Some have taken a surprsingly loooooong time to get to that point (I would have thought mocking and demeaning John McCain's capture would have been an early tipping point) but better late than never.

The Republican party has been complicit in their own radicalization to a large degree. But going forward they can either be the OFFICIAL party of bigotry, sexism and intolerance or they can take the hit that will come from alienating their extremist base.


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> That's such an absurd attempt at false equivalence as to be unworthy of response. But maybe I will ask you this - the first time you met your wife - did you walk up to her and grab her by the pu$$y?
> 
> Would you grab a woman who walked into your office on business and plant one on her lips? If so you are depressingly like Donald Trump.
> 
> A kiss that evolves in the course of an existing romantic relationship is NOT what Trump's victims are describing. That you can't see a difference is, unfortunately, unsurprising.


Roger I noticed you completely ignore the rest of my post, but that's okay your hypocrisy on the last couple of pages is very easy to see.

I haven't read all of the specifics about trumps victims, what I have read is that two of them have been debunked, but you being so far up north, and obviously not caring about facts I wouldn't expect you to know that.


----------



## rtd1

WA said:


> Don't care for either one. The problem is that one is worse. Don't intend to vote for the worse.
> 
> Looking at abortions. Close to a million a year. Cut throats. Back stabbers. Human life is not to be marginalized. Hillary said she would break the law to make for sure the murdering goes on. And all of those who vote for her are guilty. The way things are looking up others are going to be marginalized. Nobody knows what their future health will be. Government health care can mean they might not consider the money should be spent on your health problems. Abortion isn't just for unborn babies.


In 1999 Trump said "I'm very very pro-choice."

But hey, at least there's gun rights. Oh wait. In his 2000 book he wrote "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

There's not a conservative bone in Donald Trump's body, he is playing each and every one of you. And no, I'm not saying he's a liberal either. He is 100% a populist and will say whatever he thinks will play well with his audience at the moment.


----------



## rtd1

Dmontez said:


> Re: Trumps pussy grabbing statements: What I want to know is if any of the women that he allegedly groped told him, "no, dont, or stop" and if he did stop, or if he continued which would be rape.


Well, he is facing rape charges in NYC.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...ng-girl-13-december-hearing-article-1.2828413

Hearing is on December 16.


----------



## FLMike

rtd1 said:


> In 1999 Trump said "I'm very very pro-choice."
> 
> But hey, at least there's gun rights. Oh wait. In his 2000 book he wrote "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."
> 
> There's not a conservative bone in Donald Trump's body, he is playing each and every one of you. And no, I'm not saying he's a liberal either. He is 100% a populist and will say whatever he thinks will play well with his audience at the moment.


Who here has claimed that Trump is a conservative?


----------



## blue suede shoes

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says, "The media are really tearing you apart for That Scandal."

Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to Hide my Activities?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything Else?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, hiring cronies, and taking bribes from foreign countries?

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without The Benefit of the law?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it Declared Bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity Deals?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Turning our backs on Israel?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "The joke Iran Nuke deal? "

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos? "

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 Months Later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens' ?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean taking the $145,000,000.00 from Putin for the Uranium Bribe ? "

Trump : " No the other one ."

Hillary: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I've got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware and china when Bill left Office?"

Trump: "THAT'S IT! I almost forgot about that one".


----------



## 16412

Not defending Trump. Not defending Hillary, either. When the crimes are compared, groping women and abortion, one belongs in jail the other should have meet capital punishment by now. Indeed, neither should be running for President.


----------



## bernoulli

Of course. Women should be free to prosecute gay men for sexual assault if they start grabbing their breasts.



vpkozel said:


> What, no high horse about sexual assault and mass condemnation of gay British men?


----------



## bernoulli

I like how you get to define morality for the whole society. I took a former girlfriend to an abortion clinic. It was the correct choice for both of us. Also drove a friend to another one when she needed a friend to be alongside her. Would do it again in a sec. You don't get to define the choices I make.



WA said:


> Not defending Trump. Not defending Hillary, either. When the crimes are compared, groping women and abortion, one belongs in jail the other should have meet capital punishment by now. Indeed, neither should be running for President.


----------



## 16412

bernoulli said:


> I like how you get to define morality for the whole society. I took a former girlfriend to an abortion clinic. It was the correct choice for both of us. Also drove a friend to another one when she needed a friend to be alongside her. Would do it again in a sec. You don't get to define the choices I make.


Who gets to define morality? 
Do you get to define 1+1=8?


----------



## bernoulli

You are the one calling pro-choice people murderers that should meet capital punishment. I am truly glad we live in a society in which you don't get to make the rules about other people's bodies.



WA said:


> Who gets to define morality?
> Do you get to define 1+1=8?


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> You are the one calling pro-choice people murderers that should meet capital punishment. I am truly glad we live in a society in which you don't get to make the rules about other people's bodies.


'Pro-choice' is such a quaint euphemism , isn't it?


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Chouan, why do you reply to things people write that you don't know about? Such as Hillary? Did you watch the second debate? Do you know what she said?
> 
> Abortion of innocent people is marginalizing those people's worthy lives. How would you like a group of people get the power, even break the law, to marginalize your life by aborting it?


Why? As I've said repeatedly, this isn't a binary issue. 
By the way, you have yet to justify your assertion that she is a murderer.


----------



## bernoulli

I would have no problem with stronger terms. Abortionist? Anti-collection of cells in a women's womb? Fetus annihilator? I am cool with any of those...



Shaver said:


> 'Pro-choice' is such a quaint euphemism , isn't it?


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> I would have no problem with stronger terms. Abortionist? Anti-collection of cells in a women's womb? Fetus annihilator? I am cool with any of those...


Well, of course, I prefer to call it what it is. However, in the spirit of friendly cooperation, I am prepared to accept foetus annihilator as suitable alternative terminology.

Never let it be said that I am not a reasonable man. :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> Not defending Trump. Not defending Hillary, either. When the crimes are compared, groping women and abortion, one belongs in jail the other should have meet capital punishment by now. Indeed, neither should be running for President.


A curious paradox, instituting the death penalty for abortion. You are clearly pro-life whilst being clearly pro-death........


----------



## Chouan

The US election system appears to be corrupt...... Really?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37673797
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-rigged-election-poll-giuliani-gingrich-pence


----------



## culverwood

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Hillary leans over, and with a smile on her face, says, "The media are really tearing you apart for That Scandal."

Trump: "Jessica?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Ivana?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Kristin?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Jill?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Tasha?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Mindy?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Nancy?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Natasha?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Summer?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Cassandra?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Jill?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Temple?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Rachel?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Cathy?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Alicia?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Ghazala?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Gonzalo?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "My Tax returns?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Mexico?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "The Veterans"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "Muslims?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Serge?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Putin?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Israel?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump "Birther?"

Hillary: "No the other one."

Trump: "I give up?"

Hillary: "Not yet there are another 200 to go."


----------



## culverwood

Shaver said:


> Well, of course, I prefer to call it what it is. However, in the spirit of friendly cooperation, I am prepared to accept foetus annihilator as suitable alternative terminology.
> 
> Never let it be said that I am not a reasonable man. :icon_saint7kg:


Shaver: What is your position on the murder of abortionists and judges who support the law in that area?


----------



## Shaver

culverwood said:


> Shaver: What is your position on the murder of abortionists and judges who support the law in that area?


I disapprove of such actions. I also disapprove of the picketing of clinics and support the FACE act. I have no patience for the likes of Paul Jennings Hill and his ilk with their Defensive Action Statements.


----------



## rtd1

Chouan said:


> The US election system appears to be corrupt...... Really?
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37673797
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-rigged-election-poll-giuliani-gingrich-pence


It's farcical.

What happens if Trump wins, was the election rigged in his favor? What about downballot Republicans, was the election rigged in their favor?

Of course not, he wants to make the claim that the election was only rigged if he loses. How is that anything other than sour grapes in advance?


----------



## FLMike

FLMike said:


> Who here has claimed that Trump is a conservative?


Hello? CallIng r2d2.


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> Roger I noticed you completely ignore the rest of my post, but that's okay your hypocrisy on the last couple of pages is very easy to see.
> 
> I haven't read all of the specifics about trumps victims, what I have read is that two of them have been debunked, but you being so far up north, and obviously not caring about facts I wouldn't expect you to know that.


I think that you are clearly as indifferent to facts as Donald Trump. But since you seem to endorse his conduct, that's not your biggest problem.


----------



## rtd1

FLMike said:


> Hello? CallIng r2d2.


So then why are so many self-described conservatives supporting him? Because of the "R" next to his name?


----------



## immanuelrx

rtd1 said:


> So then why are so many self-described conservatives supporting him? Because of the "R" next to his name?


Yes. That is exactly why.


----------



## RogerP

immanuelrx said:


> Yes. That is exactly why.


The evangelical Christian lobby has likewise forfeited any political credibility going forward. After years of preaching (literally) that morality matters in the choice of the nation's leader, they throw their support behind this steaming pile of refuse. It's going to be pretty hard for them to question the morality of any future candidate given all that they have endorsed here. And let's not pretend that the candidate can be separated from his character or his conduct.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> The evangelical Christian lobby has likewise forfeited any political credibility going forward. After years of preaching (literally) that morality matters in the choice of the nation's leader, they throw their support behind this steaming pile of refuse. It's going to be pretty hard for them to question the morality of any future candidate given all that they have endorsed here. And let's not pretend that the candidate can be separated from his character or his conduct.


There is very little that Trump has been accused of that Hillary has not also been accused of either doing herself or covering it up for her husband.

They are 2 sides of the same coin, so to pretend that the anti Trump crowd has the moral high ground is beyond laughable.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> Of course. Women should be free to prosecute gay men for sexual assault if they start grabbing their breasts.


What happened to your moral outrage on this issue?


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> I think that you are clearly as indifferent to facts as Donald Trump. But since you seem to endorse his conduct, that's not your biggest problem.


Yes, because anyone who points put your hypocrisy is obviously pro Trump......


----------



## vpkozel

rtd1 said:


> So then why are so many self-described conservatives supporting him? Because of the "R" next to his name?


That, and probably more importantly, the person with the D next to hers.


----------



## bernoulli

Women should be free to prosecute straight men for sexual assault if they start grabbing their breasts. Both are wrong. No false equivalency here. One is probably a little bit worse than the other, but both are utterly and completely wrong.


vpkozel said:


> What happened to your moral outrage on this issue?


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> Women should be free to prosecute straight men for sexual assault if they start grabbing their breasts. Both are wrong. No false equivalency here. One is probably a little bit worse than the other, but both are utterly and completely wrong.


No tag line of "wow, I knew British gay guys were screwed up, ut this"? Cause you know they are pretty much the same and all.

And while I would have to ask out Brit members, my guess is that there were not lots of editorals and news reports decrying the behavior that Shaver referred to.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> There is very little that Trump has been accused of that Hillary has not also been accused of either doing herself or covering it up for her husband.
> 
> They are 2 sides of the same coin, so to pretend that the anti Trump crowd has the moral high ground is beyond laughable.


No, what's beyond laughable is the evangelical Christian right endorsing a morally bankrupt candidate. Good luck to them trying to play the "morality" and "family values" cards going forward. Trump has redefined those terms for them.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> No, what's beyond laughable is the evangelical Christian right endorsing a morally bankrupt candidate. Good luck to them trying to play the "morality" and "family values" cards going forward. Trump has redefined those terms for them.


Same thing goes for the women's rights issue with the Dems.

Again, folks are free to be as hypocritical as they like. Just don't be surprised when I point it out.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> No tag line of "wow, I knew British gay guys were screwed up, ut this"? Cause you know they are pretty much the same and all.
> 
> And while I would have to ask out Brit members, my guess is that there were not lots of editorals and news reports decrying the behavior that Shaver referred to.


As you may imagine the literature is quite scanty as it relates to this subject but I bravely retrieved this essay from the online feminist community on the behalf of my fellow members:

https://www.autostraddle.com/why-do...oobs-the-autostraddle-mini-roundtable-149243/


----------



## bernoulli

What is your point? Because I did not answer in the way it fits your stereotype, I am at fault? You built a narrative in your head and now looks only at the evidence that benefits it.



vpkozel said:


> No tag line of "wow, I knew British gay guys were screwed up, ut this"? Cause you know they are pretty much the same and all.
> 
> And while I would have to ask out Brit members, my guess is that there were not lots of editorals and news reports decrying the behavior that Shaver referred to.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> No, what's beyond laughable is the evangelical Christian right endorsing a morally bankrupt candidate. Good luck to them trying to play the "morality" and "family values" cards going forward. Trump has redefined those terms for them.


While voting is clearly a binary function - you vote for someone or you don't - the actual choice of who one votes for is far more complicated. It seems that some folks here are choosing to play dumb (because I don't believe that you really are), as they are implying that when one casts a vote for someone for a particular office (in this case, the highest in the land), they are at the same time "endorsing" that candidate and all that they do, say, believe, think, and represent with every fiber of their being. Of course, that's not the case. Be assured that there are many, many conservatives, Republicans, Christians, atheists, men, women, gays, straights, whites, blacks, browns, and yellows who will be holding their noses and voting for Trump with very heavy hearts come election day. Again, I know you're smart enough to realize that. Although, I get that it's a lot more fun to accuse every eventual Trump voter of endorsing, and even advocating, all of his unsavory comments and actions, because then you can play the "gotcha" game and accuse them of being hypocrites. It really is very disingenuous, Roger...childish, really. Not quite to the level of another frequent antagonist here, but getting awfully close.

To further illustrate the absurdity of your comments, think about a pro-life Christian woman who decides to vote for Hillary Clinton. I assume there will be many of them who do so, for various reasons (like I said, it's a complicated choice). Should they then be forever labeled hypocrites if they continue to hold true to their personal beliefs after pulling the lever for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate? You see how ridiculous your posts are?


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> What is your point? Because I did not answer in the way it fits your stereotype, I am at fault? You built a narrative in your head and now looks only at the evidence that benefits it.


I have not built up any narrative at all, thanks. Simply factually discussing the matter at hand. Now, if you want to discuss narratives, let's examine who was callin people screwed up.


----------



## RogerP

bernoulli said:


> What is your point? Because I did not answer in the way it fits your stereotype, I am at fault? *You built a narrative in your head and now looks only at the evidence that benefits it*.


This has been the Republican methodology for some time - Trump has just taken it to the next level where he literally lies with impunity, and the square pegs of manufactured facts are hammered into the round holes of realty with ease - at least within the insular Republican echo chamber.


----------



## FLMike

rtd1 said:


> So then why are so many self-described conservatives supporting him? Because of the "R" next to his name?


For a bunch of seemingly intelligent guys, there sure is a lot of "playing dumb" going on here. Do you honestly believe that if a conservative votes for Trump, it means they must think Trump is a conservative? What if a conservative votes for Hillary, as I'm sure that many reluctantly will? Must they be doing so because they believe she is also a conservative?

These kinds of choices are not black and white. They are complicated and they are personal. There are myriad reasons why one ultimately supports and votes for a particular candidate.


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> While voting is clearly a binary function - you vote for someone or you don't - the actual choice of who one votes for is far more complicated. It seems that some folks here are choosing to play dumb (because I don't believe that you really are), as they are implying that when one casts a vote for someone for a particular office (in this case, the highest in the land), they are at the same time "endorsing" that candidate and all that they do, say, believe, think, and represent with every fiber of their being. Of course, that's not the case. *Be assured that there are many, many conservatives, Republicans, Christians, atheists, men, women, gays, straights, whites, blacks, browns, and yellows who will be holding their noses and voting for Trump with very heavy hearts come election day.* Again, I know you're smart enough to realize that. Although, I get that it's a lot more fun to accuse every eventual Trump voter of endorsing, and even advocating, all of his unsavory comments and actions, because then you can play the "gotcha" game and accuse them of being hypocrites. It really is very disingenuous, Roger...childish, really. Not quite to the level of another frequent antagonist here, but getting awfully close.


Indeed, yet there appear to be some who, perhaps, indeed I hope, in order to justify their vote, and keep down the toad that they're feeling the need to swallow, seem to be actively supporting him, and seeking to deny that he's done anything wrong.



FLMike said:


> To further illustrate the absurdity of your comments, think about a pro-life Christian woman who decides to vote for Hillary Clinton. I assume there will be many of them who do so, for various reasons (like I said, it's a complicated choice). Should they then be forever labeled hypocrites if they continue to hold true to their personal beliefs after pulling the lever for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate? You see how ridiculous your posts are?


Hardly ridiculous, and, as has been indicated before, you're not really comparing like with like. A person who votes Democrat despite Hilary's record, is hardly the same as the person who actively argues for Trump in this thread and elsewhere. Essentially, those supporting Trump do so, not only in spite of what he says and has done, but also because of what he says and has done. As can be seen from this thread, there are people who really don't care about these things, or who support Trump even more because of these things.


----------



## RogerP

FLMike said:


> While voting is clearly a binary function - you vote for someone or you don't - the actual choice of who one votes for is far more complicated. It seems that some folks here are choosing to play dumb (because I don't believe that you really are), as they are implying that when one casts a vote for someone for a particular office (in this case, the highest in the land), they are at the same time "endorsing" that candidate and all that they do, say, believe, think, and represent with every fiber of their being. Of course, that's not the case. Be assured that there are many, many conservatives, Republicans, Christians, atheists, men, women, gays, straights, whites, blacks, browns, and yellows who will be holding their noses and voting for Trump with very heavy hearts come election day. Again, I know you're smart enough to realize that. Although, I get that it's a lot more fun to accuse every eventual Trump voter of endorsing, and even advocating, all of his unsavory comments and actions, because then you can play the "gotcha" game and accuse them of being hypocrites. It really is very disingenuous, Roger...childish, really. Not quite to the level of another frequent antagonist here, but getting awfully close.
> 
> To further illustrate the absurdity of your comments, think about a pro-life Christian woman who decides to vote for Hillary Clinton. I assume there will be many of them who do so, for various reasons (like I said, it's a complicated choice). Should they then be forever labeled hypocrites if they continue to hold true to their personal beliefs after pulling the lever for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate? You see how ridiculous your posts are?


I don't think it makes rational sense to claim to be for Tump, but against racism, misogyny and religious persecution because that is who he is and that is what he stands for. Not really that complicated. You don't get to elect just the parts of him that you like (whatever those might be). If you vote for him you are voting to bring ALL he stands for into play.


----------



## immanuelrx

Chouan said:


> Indeed, yet there appear to be some who, perhaps, indeed I hope, in order to justify their vote, and keep down the toad that they're feeling the need to swallow, seem to be actively supporting him, and seeking to deny that he's done anything wrong.
> 
> Hardly ridiculous, and, as has been indicated before, you're not really comparing like with like. *A person who votes Democrat despite Hilary's record, is hardly the same as the person who actively argues for Trump in this thread and elsewhere.* Essentially, those supporting Trump do so, not only in spite of what he says and has done, but also because of what he says and has done. As can be seen from this thread, there are people who really don't care about these things, or who support Trump even more because of these things.


Dear Lord, I agree with Chouan on this. I need a drink....


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> I don't think it makes rational sense to claim to be for Tump, but against racism, misogyny and religious persecution because that is who he is and that is what he stands for. Not really that complicated. * You don't get to elect just the parts of him that you like (whatever those might be). If you vote for him you are voting to bring ALL he stands for into play*.


This is absolutely correct, and quite different from the message of your last few posts. What each and every one of us (not you, of course...I mean Americans) has to decide is what is best for our country....ALL that he stands for, or ALL that she stands for. As I said, not a straightforward decision, by any means. Of course, it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite ifs their personal beliefs don't perfectly align with ALL that their chosen candidate stands for. Boy, wouldn't that be nice if such a candidate existed for anyone!


----------



## immanuelrx

vpkozel said:


> There is very little that Trump has been accused of that Hillary has not also been accused of either doing herself or covering it up for her husband.
> 
> They are 2 sides of the same coin, so to pretend that the anti Trump crowd has the moral high ground is beyond laughable.


I would argue that no one here is saying that Hillary is anything less then, dare I say, deplorable. They are both horrible and I am embarrassed that the United States has allowed the presidential race to become such a mockery. For some reason, a lot of the pro-trump supporters have taken it upon themselves to justify trump and his actions instead of accepting the truth. Trump is making the Republican party look like a sold out joke, but they rather take Trump than Hillary. Either that or they rather take a republican president then a democrat regardless of who is running.


----------



## FLMike

Chouan said:


> Essentially, those supporting Trump do so, not only in spite of what he says and has done, but also because of what he says and has done. As can be seen from this thread, there are people who really don't care about these things, *or who support Trump even more because of these things*.


I can think of only one, and he finally got the ban hammer he should have gotten years ago!


----------



## FLMike

rtd1 said:


> So then why are so many self-described conservatives supporting him? Because of the "R" next to his name?


By the way, to give you a direct answer to your question (in case you really don't know), I think that many of the social conservatives who are so disgusted with Trump's behavior yet still supporting him, are doing so out of concern for who will appoint the next 2-4 justices to the Supreme Court. These appointments, which will very likely occur over the next four or eight years, will have serious implications for our country well beyond the next one or two presidential terms. When viewing this election through that lens, it becomes about much more than DJT or HRC and their respective (and plentiful) shortcomings.

Edit: There is also the concept of "lesser of two evils". Surely you've heard of that one.


----------



## immanuelrx

FLMike said:


> I can think of only one, and he finally got the ban hammer he should have gotten years ago!


I was thinking this thread was a little more rational than usual lately.


----------



## immanuelrx

FLMike said:


> By the way, to give you a direct answer to your question (in case you really don't know), I think that many of the social conservatives who are so disgusted with Trump's behavior yet still supporting him, are doing so out of concern for who will appoint the next 2-4 justices to the Supreme Court. These appointments, which will very likely occur over the next four or eight years, will have serious implications for our country well beyond the next one or two presidential terms. When viewing this election through that lens, it becomes about much more than DJT or HRC and their respective (and plentiful) shortcomings.


I hate the fact that appointment of justices has anything to do with any political party. I guess I was living in this ideal world where justices were appointed based on merit and not political preference. Silly me.


----------



## Mike Petrik

immanuelrx said:


> I hate the fact that appointment of justices has anything to do with any political party. I guess I was living in this ideal world where justices were appointed based on merit and not political preference. Silly me.


The politicization of the judicial branch has been a chronic temptation throughout American history, but any pretense of deferring to merit ended in 1987.


----------



## Mike Petrik

FLMike said:


> By the way, to give you a direct answer to your question (in case you really don't know), I think that many of the social conservatives who are so disgusted with Trump's behavior yet still supporting him, are doing so out of concern for who will appoint the next 2-4 justices to the Supreme Court. These appointments, which will very likely occur over the next four or eight years, will have serious implications for our country well beyond the next one or two presidential terms. When viewing this election through that lens, it becomes about much more than DJT or HRC and their respective (and plentiful) shortcomings.


Agreed, though it is certainly impossible to generalize. While all too many of my social conservative friends engage in ridiculous rationalizations of Trump's odious behavior, many others acknowledge his gross shortcomings but view the associated risks as being outweighed by the risks associated with the potentially transformational mischief Clinton's judicial appointees could cause.


----------



## RogerP

FLMike said:


> This is absolutely correct, and quite different from the message of your last few posts. What each and every one of us (not you, of course...I mean Americans) has to decide is what is best for our country....ALL that he stands for, or ALL that she stands for. As I said, not a straightforward decision, by any means. Of course, it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite ifs their personal beliefs don't perfectly align with ALL that their chosen candidate stands for. Boy, wouldn't that be nice if such a candidate existed for anyone!


My comment about hypocrisy was in reference to the evangelical Christian endorsement of Trump, not of each and every individual who supports Trump. And their endorsement is manifestly hypocritical.


----------



## FLMike

Chouan said:


> Hardly ridiculous, and, as has been indicated before, you're not really comparing like with like. A person who votes Democrat despite Hilary's record, is hardly the same as the person who actively argues for Trump in this thread and elsewhere. Essentially, those supporting Trump do so, not only in spite of what he says and has done, but also because of what he says and has done. As can be seen from this thread, there are people who really don't care about these things, or who support Trump even more because of these things.


Ok, then, how about a left-leaning feminist that supports Hillary, despite knowing about Hillary's willful acceptance and covering up of her husband's womanizing, adulterous behavior, as well as her threatening and intimidating women who have accused him of sexual assault? Does this make said feminist a hypocrite if she continues to advocate for gender equality and women's rights after voting for someone so complicit in demeaning women, including herself? Is that "like with like" enough?

I'm sure there are many feminists who are disgusted with HRC's behavior, especially as an avowed advocate of women' rights (talk about hypocrisy), yet who plan to hold their noses and still vote for her because, on balance, they find her to be less offensive than Donald Trump.

Like I said, it's complicated. Nothing straightforward or easy about this choice. It's a pretty sad state of affairs all around. Nothing to feel good about, in my opinion. So, to single out any particular group, sect, category, or classification of people and castigate them for their decision of who to support, and to call them hypocrites for arriving at that decision, is pretty distasteful in my view.

And, by the way, while I'm sure Roger appreciates you backing him up, he wasn't referring to people who support Trump because of the offensive things he's said and done. He was talking about people who claim to live by a certain (higher) moral standard. As usual, you've twisted things around to try and send the discussion in a different direction....one of your choosing. Sorry, not going to fall for it.


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> The politicization of the judicial branch has been a chronic temptation throughout American history, but any pretense of deferring to merit ended in 1987.


Don't forget FDR....


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> Don't forget FDR....


Indeed. That was one of the historic politicizations I had in mind. And of course the controversy surrounding FDR's court packing plan centered on his proposed legislation to increase the number of the Supreme Court Justices; it was never personalized into a debate on the merit of a proposed Justice.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> My comment about hypocrisy was in reference to the evangelical Christian endorsement of Trump, not of each and every individual who supports Trump. And their endorsement is manifestly hypocritical.


If the evangelical Christian right endorsed Hillary Clinton, an aggressively pro-abortion candidate, would that also be manifestly hypocritical? If not, please explain. If so, do you suggest that Christians sit this election out, or do you just like to pick on Christians?


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> My comment about hypocrisy was in reference to the evangelical Christian endorsement of Trump, not of each and every individual who supports Trump. And their endorsement is manifestly hypocritical.


You cans - and should - be saying the exact same thing about the women's rights crowd. Even if you take the absolute worst accusations against Trump, there is not one thing that Bill has not also been accused of - and Hillary played a large part in their mitigation strategies. Up to and including threatening and harrasing the women who had the gall to speak out agaist her vehicle to power.

So, spare me the seld righteousness unless you are prepared to dish it out all the way round.


----------



## vpkozel

immanuelrx said:


> I would argue that no one here is saying that Hillary is anything less then, dare I say, deplorable. They are both horrible and I am embarrassed that the United States has allowed the presidential race to become such a mockery. For some reason, a lot of the pro-trump supporters have taken it upon themselves to justify trump and his actions instead of accepting the truth. Trump is making the Republican party look like a sold out joke, but they rather take Trump than Hillary. Either that or they rather take a republican president then a democrat regardless of who is running.


There have been plenty of chances for folks to deride Hillary as well as Trump and thus far very few have done so, with some continuing to only hammer one side.

Worse than that though is the total lack of reason a all when it comes to Trump. There are members here who claim they would deal with him violently if they met him and instead of being chastised, they are used as quotes as positive examples.

I agree that they are both awful choices, but the shame of it all is not that we have painted ourselves into this corner, but, in doing so, we have given away the rational thought of a campaign of ideas and have resorted only to name calling and insults.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> You cans - and should - be saying the exact same thing about the women's rights crowd. Even if you take the absolute worst accusations against Trump, there is not one thing that Bill has not also been accused of - and Hillary played a large part in their mitigation strategies. Up to and including threatening and harrasing the women who had the gall to speak out agaist her vehicle to power.
> 
> So, spare me the seld righteousness unless you are prepared to dish it out all the way round.


Sorry Charlie, you don't get to tell me what to think or what to say. If you wish to be spared my posts, then don't read them. But don't imagine that you get to dictate their content.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Worse than that though is the total lack of reason a all when it comes to Trump.
> 
> .


Yes, I agree that we have seen a marked lack of reason in the defense of Trump.


----------



## Shaver

Having recently examined the other two candidates (a seemingly learning disabled chap and an enthusiastically vacuous lady) who are likely to appear on most American ballot papers I wonder: is this the best the States has to offer? If not then how has this position arrived?


----------



## RogerP

FLMike said:


> If the evangelical Christian right endorsed Hillary Clinton, an aggressively pro-abortion candidate, would that also be manifestly hypocritical? If not, please explain. If so, do you suggest that Christians sit this election out, or do you just like to pick on Christians?


I would hardly expect Evangelical Christians to support Hillary given that she is not in favour of criminalizing a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy.

But neither would I expect them to endorse a racist, misogynist, adulterer and sexual predator while in the same breath preaching the foundational importance of morality in a presidential candidate.

Seems to me like they will temporarily endorse and / or excuse ANY vice so long as it is accompanied by an anti - abortion platform.

And yeah, that's some pretty obvious hypocrisy.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> I would hardly expect Evangelical Christians to support Hillary given that she is not in favour of criminalizing a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy.
> 
> But neither would I expect them to endorse a racist, misogynist, adulterer and sexual predator while in the same breath preaching the foundational importance of morality in a presidential candidate.
> 
> Seems to me like they will temporarily endorse and / or excuse ANY vice so long as it is accompanied by an anti - abortion platform.
> 
> And yeah, that's some pretty obvious hypocrisy.


The act is criminal irrespective of its legality.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Sorry Charlie, you don't get to tell me what to think or what to say. If you wish to be spared my posts, then don't read them. But don't imagine that you get to dictate their content.


You opened the door, counselor. If you want to have a tantrum about one candidate while not addressing the same behavior from the other, don't complain when someone calls you on it.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> You opened the door, counselor. If you want to have a tantrum about one candidate while not addressing the same behavior from the other, don't complain when someone calls you on it.


Call me anything you like - embrace the fiction that I care, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> The act is criminal irrespective of its legality.


The question is whether it is hypocritical for those who preach adherence to a moral code, to accept the most abjectly immoral candidate so long as he is willing to advance that point of view on their behalf.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> Having recently examined the other two candidates (a seemingly learning disabled chap and an enthusiastically vacuous lady) who are likely to appear on most American ballot papers I wonder: is this the best the States has to offer? If not then how has this position arrived?


I will be voting for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. Although ideologically suitable for me, I understand that he will get little support (outside of his own household!). Yet, no political/moral compromise necessary on my part...


----------



## RogerP

To use an extreme example, is it okay for a religious moralist to support Hitler, so long as he is anti-abortion?


----------



## Shaver

Roger! Don't Godwin the thread. :surprised:


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> The question is whether it is hypocritical for those who preach adherence to a moral code, to accept the most abjectly immoral candidate so long as he is willing to advance that point of view on their behalf.


Another question- given the choice would you rather be touched up without having consented or destroyed in utero?


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> I would hardly expect Evangelical Christians to support Hillary given that she is not in favour of criminalizing a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy.
> 
> But neither would I expect them to endorse a racist, misogynist, adulterer and sexual predator while in the same breath preaching the foundational importance of morality in a presidential candidate.
> 
> Seems to me like they will temporarily endorse and / or excuse ANY vice so long as it is accompanied by an anti - abortion platform.
> 
> And yeah, that's some pretty obvious hypocrisy.


I would expect any group to support the candidate with which it shares the most common ground. Just because the religious right finds more common ground in Trump than Hillary doesn't mean they also support his bad behavior. In fact, I''m pretty sure the Christian leaders have spoken out emphatically against such behavior, and most of their endorsements are qualified, at best, at this point.

Oh, and do you realize that repeatedly calling a candidate names (racist, misogynist, etc) is only inflammatory and does nothing to promote intelligent, productive discourse? Unfortunately, that's become a big part of the abomination that is this election cycle. The avoidance of intelligent, civil discourse on real issues in favor of insults, name calling, and mud slinging has been perpetuated by the media, by the candidates themselves (crooked Hillary, liar, racist, misogynist, etc), by the current President, and, unfortunately, seemingly intelligent people like yourself. And look where it's gotten us.....the country has never been so divided, in so many ways. But I guess it's easier for someone like yourself to join the masses rather than take the high road and rise above the fray.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> The question is whether it is hypocritical for those who preach adherence to a moral code, to accept the most abjectly immoral candidate so long as he is willing to advance that point of view on their behalf.


If that is the question, then one could not support either of the major party candidates.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Call me anything you like - embrace the fiction that I care, if it makes you feel better.


I feel great thanks. It is always fun watching hypocrites twist themselves into knots.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> The question is whether it is hypocritical for those who preach adherence to a moral code, to accept the most abjectly immoral candidate so long as he is willing to advance that point of view on their behalf.


The way you framed "the question" is once again misleading and inaccurate. Many issues with this. First of all...."the most abjectly immoral candidate"....this has certainly not been factually determined. Not even close. Secondly, you're implying that abortion (and a candidate's stance thereon) is the only issue that matters to evangelical Christians. Again, not so.


----------



## Mike Petrik

RogerP said:


> The question is whether it is hypocritical for those who preach adherence to a moral code, to accept the most abjectly immoral candidate so long as he is willing to advance that point of view on their behalf.


A few thoughts, Roger:

1. Jesus isn't running. Imperfect voters always vote for imperfect candidates.
2. Reasonable people can differ as to whether Trump is more immoral than Hillary.
3. It is not hypocritical to vote for a candidate who you believe will promote the common good instead of a candidate who you believe will subvert the common good, even if you believe that the personal morality of the second candidate is superior to the first.
4. Each voter must always discern a hierarchy of values, and it is not hypocritical to support a candidate whose views and behavior are generally more odious than his opponent if that candidate is more likely than his opponent to advance a superior policy with respect to a value at the top of the hierarchy; to wit -- it is perfectly justifiable to support a candidate who is a moral reprobate, wrong on taxes, foreign policy, size of military, environment, and all manner of things, but who opposes his rival's support for the decriminalization of killing [fill in the blank -- Muslims, Jews, Blacks, the unborn, Serbo-Croatians, whatever].

The charge of "hypocrisy" is the last refuge of a certain brand of progressive who because he aligns morality with his own predilections and preferences can claim an easy integrity. Those of us who favor somewhat higher standards will inevitably fall short and therefore be vulnerable to the cheap charge of hypocrisy.

Finally, as I've mentioned before on this forum. I will vote for neither Clinton nor Trump, having determined to my personal satisfaction that neither is fit for office. But I fully appreciate that a reasonable person could support either of these candidates solely because he believes the other to be even more objectionable and dangerous. What I cannot understand is how anyone can truly enthusiastically endorse either of these horrible candidates.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> To use an extreme example, is it okay for a religious moralist to support Hitler, so long as he is anti-abortion?


Come on, dude. I'm going to have to quit calling you intelligent if you start resorting to this crap.


----------



## FLMike

Mike Petrik said:


> The charge of "hypocrisy" is the last refuge of a certain brand of progressive who because he aligns morality with his own predilections and preferences can claim an easy integrity. Those of us who favor somewhat higher standards will inevitably fall short and therefore be vulnerable to the cheap charge of hypocrisy.


Very well said.


----------



## Shaver

FLMike said:


> Very well said.


Indeed. Lucid, succinct and temperate.

I confess a little envy.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> And twenty years later, at the age of 35, they're shocked?
> 
> Interesting how something like this never came out before. Presumably said 15 year olds would have had chaperones with them who would have mentioned something.


It's not so hard to understand.

Tapes were recently released where Trump BRAGGED about being able to "get away with" walking in on beauty contestants in the changeroom because he was the boss.

Tapes were recently released where Trump BRAGGED about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he is "a star".

It's not that hard for me to understand that his victims would find this recent boasting about past abuse particularly galling and be motivated, as a consequence, to speak up now.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> I agree that they are both awful choices, but the shame of it all is not that we have painted ourselves into this corner, but, in doing so, we have given away the rational thought of a campaign of ideas and *have resorted only to name calling and insults*.


Indeed.



vpkozel said:


> I feel great thanks. *It is always fun watching hypocrites twist themselves into knots.*


----------



## RogerP

FLMike said:


> Come on, dude. I'm going to have to quit calling you intelligent if you start resorting to this crap.


I said it was an extreme example. Trump is Hitler-lite at best.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> It's not so hard to understand.
> 
> Tapes were recently released where Trump BRAGGED about being able to "get away with" walking in on beauty contestants in the changeroom because he was the boss.
> 
> Tapes were recently released where Trump BRAGGED about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he is "a star".
> 
> It's not that hard for me to understand that his victims would find this recent boasting about past abuse particularly galling and be motivated, as a consequence, to speak up now.


Sure...that's plausible. But if someone is so personally shocked by another's behavior it would take something like that for the alleged victim to come forward.

Here's an interesting story that has rarely been covered by the MSM:

https://www.kob.com/politics-news/f...s-buzzfeed-article-on-trump-/4290678/?cat=500


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> I said it was an extreme example. Trump is Hitler-lite at best.


That is absolutely absurd.


----------



## RogerP

FLMike said:


> The way you framed "the question" is once again misleading and inaccurate. Many issues with this. First of all...."the most abjectly immoral candidate"....this has certainly not been factually determined. Not even close. Secondly, you're implying that abortion (and a candidate's stance thereon) is the only issue that matters to evangelical Christians. Again, not so.


Well I gave specific examples of his immorality - racism, misogyny, religious persecution, sexual predation etc. etc. etc. - maybe you think these traits are consistent with the morality which the EC lobby claims to be of importance to a presidential candidate. I do not. Therefore I say they are hypocrites for supporting such an individual just because he's with them on the abortion issue.


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> That is absolutely absurd.


Both sought to rise to power on a platform of ethno-nationalism and race-blaming. They are not equivalent, but they are of a kind.

Make America White Again.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> Sure...that's plausible.


Yes, it is. And the fact that Trump BRAGGED about engaging in the very conduct they describe makes his denial less plausible.


----------



## Mike Petrik

RogerP said:


> Well I gave specific examples of his immorality - racism, misogyny, religious persecution, sexual predation etc. etc. etc. - maybe you think these traits are consistent with the morality which the EC lobby claims to be of importance to a presidential candidate. I do not. Therefore I say they are hypocrites for supporting such an individual just because he's with them on the abortion issue.


You are quite mistaken, Roger, as I explained above.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> Indeed.


Oooh, more "gotcha". So fun....


----------



## SG_67

Or this:
https://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/

I've not seen the NYT or WaPo discuss this story.

I'm not saying that these women are lying. But I'm always suspect when someone waits 30 years to bring forward claims of sexual assault.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Indeed.


Calling someone who is being blatantly hypocritical a hypocrite is neither name calling nor an insult.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Both sought to rise to power on a platform of ethno-nationalism and race-blaming. They are not equivalent, but they are of a kind.
> 
> Make America White Again.


Unreal.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Unreal.


I dearly wish it were.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> Yes, it is. And the fact that Trump BRAGGED about engaging in the very conduct they describe makes his denial less plausible.


The converse being that unsubstantiated claims appearing immediately afterward and capitalising on his indiscretion may appear less than plausible.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Calling someone who is being blatantly hypocritical a hypocrite is neither name calling nor an insult.


Keep it up - like I said, you can do as much name-calling as you need to make it through the day. It bothers me not in the least. Your praise is what would make me cringe, given your comments about Trump.


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> The converse being that unsubstantiated claims appearing immediately afterward and capitalising on his indiscretion may appear less than plausible.


I'd say probably close to 95% of sexual assault claims are similarly "unsubstantiated". But in most cases, the accused isn't caught on tape bragging about getting away with sexually abusing women.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> I dearly wish it were.


Well, unless someone hacked into your account, the only person responsible for writing it was you, so you will pardon my doubt.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Keep it up - like I said, you can do as much name-calling as you need to make it through the day. It bothers me not in the least. Your praise is what would make me cringe, given your comments about Trump.


 My comments about Trump? I think in your efforts to flail about and find a target you have confused me with someone else. I have made almost no comments about Trump in this thread.


----------



## RogerP

It's good to see that some evangelical Christians get it. Just like some Republicans do.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/speak-truth-to-trump.html

*Evangelicals, of all people, should not be silent about Donald Trump's blatant immorality.


*


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> I'd say probably close to 95% of sexual assault claims are similarly "unsubstantiated". But in most cases, the accused isn't caught on tape bragging about getting away with sexually abusing women.


Nevertheless you will appreciate that talking idiotic nonsense is not necessarily guilt? If I were to exclaim that I was so hungry I could have eaten a horse and someone popped up and insisted that I had eaten their horse..... .


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> It's good to see that some evangelical Christians get it. Just like some Republicans do.
> 
> https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/speak-truth-to-trump.html
> 
> *Evangelicals, of all people, should not be silent about Donald Trump's blatant immorality.
> 
> 
> *


Precisely! Thank you for posting this. These are the people I wasted way too much time defending against claims of hypocrisy today. Praise the Lord....someone has seen the light.

Edit: I liked this quote, too.....apropos to my comments today:

"This year's presidential election in the United States presents Christian voters with an especially difficult choice."


----------



## Mike Petrik

FLMike said:


> Precisely! Thank you for posting this. These are the people I wasted way too much time defending against claims of hypocrisy today. Praise the Lord....someone has seen the light.


Bear in mind, one can divide Republican-leaning Evangelicals into three camps:

1. Those who despise Trump's behavior and will therefore not vote for him.
2. Those who despise Trump's behavior but will vote for him because they view him, on balance, as a less dangerous candidate than Clinton. This is just a classic prudential calculus -- not hypocrisy.
3. Those who accord little or no importance to Trump's behavior, and therefore support him with enthusiasm. It is this group, and only this group, that is reasonably open to the charge of hypocrisy.


----------



## SG_67

^ The media has done a good job over the past few decades to depict Christian evangelicals as caring only about, what was it Nancy Pelosi said....the "3 G's"; Gays, Guns and God. 

This automatically marginalizes any other concerns they may have such as the economy and national security. 

Political parties and politicians often try to marginalize their political opponents, both their concerns as well as personally as a voting block. 

The Dems, however, seem to have elevated this to the PhD level. Of course it helps when the wider culture has pretty much declared war as well on your political opponents so anything is fair game.


----------



## FLMike

Mike Petrik said:


> Bear in mind, one can divide Republican-leaning Evangelicals into three camps:
> 
> 1. Those who despise Trump's behavior and will therefore not vote for him.
> 2. Those who despise Trump's behavior but will vote for him because they view him, on balance, as a less dangerous candidate than Clinton. This is just a classic prudential calculus -- not hypocrisy.
> 3. Those who accord little or no importance to Trump's behavior, and therefore support him with enthusiasm. It is this group, and only this group, that is reasonably open to the charge of hypocrisy.


I agree. This election is complicated and it's personal. To lump all evangelical Christians voting for Trump into a group and label them hypocrites is distasteful and ignorant, when any reasonable person can understand the reality of #2 above (even if they don't agree with it). To pretend that position doesn't exist and instead make a sweeping, name-calling generalization is, as I said in my original post today, disingenuous and childish.


----------



## Mike Petrik

FLMike said:


> I agree. This election is complicated and it's personal. To lump all evangelical Christians voting for Trump into a group and label them hypocrites is distasteful and ignorant, when any reasonable person can understand the reality of #2 above (even if they don't agree with it). To pretend that position doesn't exist and instead make a sweeping, name-calling generalization is, as I said in my original post today, disingenuous and childish.


Agreed. Sweeping generalizations might make one feel better, but they seldom do justice to normal human complications.


----------



## 16412

RogerP said:


> It's not so hard to understand.
> 
> Tapes were recently released where Trump BRAGGED about being able to "get away with" walking in on beauty contestants in the changeroom because he was the boss.
> 
> Tapes were recently released where Trump BRAGGED about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he is "a star".
> 
> It's not that hard for me to understand that his victims would find this recent boasting about past abuse particularly galling and be motivated, as a consequence, to speak up now.


Trump should face honest accusers the same as Hillary should be in court about classified information in the wrong email accounts. Neither should get away.

You know Roger, with Hillaries help, and if your parents thought you were an inconvenience, you wouldn't be here writing anything. Aren't you glad you weren't aborted?


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> Having recently examined the other two candidates (a seemingly learning disabled chap and an enthusiastically vacuous lady) who are likely to appear on most American ballot papers I wonder: is this the best the States has to offer? If not then how has this position arrived?


If I ran
Yes! Yes! 
I failed my country 
by not running. 
Can you imagine, though
When looking at the TV 
to see this new president
There will be nobody to bury you
For those at the morgue
Will have died laughing, too


----------



## culverwood

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed. Sweeping generalisations might make one feel better, but they seldom do justice to normal human complications.


Hear. Hear.

What are the current projection for the Senate and House of Representatives post election? Given most people here find both candidates distasteful perhaps a continuation of the current stalemate is the best that can be wished for?


----------



## Mike Petrik

culverwood said:


> Hear. Hear.
> 
> What are the current projection for the Senate and House of Representatives post election? Given most people here find both candidates distasteful perhaps a continuation of the current stalemate is the best that can be wished for?


Stalemate is very likely. Most experts believe that the GOP will retain the House with a smaller majority but the Dems are very slightly favored to take the Senate (especially since the VP -- presumably Kaine -- would break a tie). As you might expect, the winner of the presidential election usually has some "coattails" that help his party in the congressional elections, but oddly recent polls are suggesting very little coattail effect this year. In some cases the opposite is happening. The prospect of Clinton's likely election actually seems to be helping Republicans in some close congressional elections. Seems some voters may agree with you re the value of a stalemate.


----------



## Kingstonian

RogerP said:


> It's good to see that some evangelical Christians get it. Just like some Republicans do.
> 
> https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/speak-truth-to-trump.html
> 
> *Evangelicals, of all people, should not be silent about Donald Trump's blatant immorality.
> 
> 
> *


On the other hand, the Clinton/Democrat crowd are virulent anti Catholics :-

https://buchanan.org/blog/anti-catholics-elitist-bigots-125831


----------



## RogerP

Interesting that among the group jumping down my throat for pointing out the very obvious shortcomings of a patently odious candidate, very few felt motivated to say anything at all in response to Tempest's truly offensive series of posts about women. Fascinating, what provokes one's outrage, and what does not.


----------



## RogerP

Kingstonian said:


> On the other hand, the Clinton/Democrat crowd are virulent anti Catholics :-
> 
> https://buchanan.org/blog/anti-catholics-elitist-bigots-125831


On the first hand, it is heartening to see a laudable absence of hypocrisy amongst some evangelical Christians who won't engage in the self-deception of supporting an anti - choice candidate whose character and conduct run wholly afoul of their core beliefs. This subset is unwilling to hold their collective noses and temporarily stifle the principles which they hold dear.

Much that is wrong can be justified on the basis of a lot of hand-wringin navel - gazing imagination of complexity. Sometimes things are both simple and obvious. I am reminded of Trump's laboured machinations when first asked if he would renounce the KKK. He got there, eventually and reluctantly. But it wasn't a complex question.

Oh, and that article lost me at the claim that anti-Catholic sentiment is ' the deepest bias known to American history.' Really? Seriously? THAT'S the worst? More evidence of the impenetrable reality bubble. Then again, you are quoting Pat Buchanan, which in itself speaks volumes.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> Interesting that among the group jumping down my throat for pointing out the very obvious shortcomings of a patently odious candidate.


I am curious....who did this and where?


----------



## Kingstonian

^ Buchanan is free of politically correct bs that has infected political debate over the decades.

America was better for the average voter in the 1950s and 1960s. There was plenty of work and it was reasonably paid. Similar story in most of the western world.

Politicians did not waste time discussing imagined grievances let alone pandering to them.

Trump will be routinely attacked in the media while Bill Clintons philandering does not seem to bother them. It certainly does not rub off on Billary. Tapes of her laughing about child rapists certainly do not give them cause for concern. Then again Clinton did what his lobby paymasters wanted and Mrs. Clinton offers more of the same.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> Interesting that among the group jumping down my throat for pointing out the very obvious shortcomings of a patently odious candidate, very few felt motivated to say anything at all in response to Tempest's truly offensive series of posts about women. Fascinating, what provokes one's outrage, and what does not.


You may also accept the compliment that your opinions are taken more seriously, are considered more worthy of engagement, than certain other members.


----------



## RogerP

WA said:


> Trump should face honest accusers the same as Hillary should be in court about classified information in the wrong email accounts. Neither should get away.


There first must be a determination that charges are warranted. In Hillary's case, that determination has been made.

I'm curious - were you clamoring for Bush to face charges for the 22 million emails deleted from a Republican private server?


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> You may also accept the compliment that your opinions are taken more seriously, are considered more worthy of engagement, than certain other members.


My good man, how you do disarm me.


----------



## bernoulli

Better for the average white male heterosexual, for sure. Not true for most of the Western world (Spain, Portugal, Germany, etc and so on and so forth). You are wrong.



Kingstonian said:


> ^ Buchanan is free of politically correct bs that has infected political debate over the decades.
> 
> America was better for the average voter in the 1950s and 1960s. There was plenty of work and it was reasonably paid. Similar story in most of the western world.
> 
> Politicians did not waste time discussing imagined grievances let alone pandering to them.
> 
> Trump will be routinely attacked in the media while Bill Clintons philandering does not seem to bother them. It certainly does not rub off on Billary. Tapes of her laughing about child rapists certainly do not give them cause for concern. Then again Clinton did what his lobby paymasters wanted and Mrs. Clinton offers more of the same.


----------



## RogerP

Kingstonian said:


> ^ Buchanan is free of *politically correct bs * that has infected political debate over the decades.
> 
> *America was better for the average voter in the 1950s and 1960s.* There was plenty of work and it was reasonably paid. Similar story in most of the western world.
> 
> Politicians did not waste time discussing imagined grievances let alone pandering to them.
> 
> Trump will be routinely attacked in the media while Bill Clintons philandering does not seem to bother them. It certainly does not rub off on Billary. Tapes of her laughing about child rapists certainly do not give them cause for concern. Then again Clinton did what his lobby paymasters wanted and Mrs. Clinton offers more of the same.


Buchanan is a fairly overt racist, endlessly screeching about the end of "White America", raging against the Mexican "invasion" and casting dire warnings about white Americans in the future having to "ride at the back of the bus". His goal, and that of Trump, is to make such sentiments very much politically correct once again. Like you, he thinks life was much better back in the 1950's.

By "averaqe voter", I take it you mean average white voter? Because you can't seriously be suggesting that things were better for all voters back then in the good old days of Jim Crow. Can you?

It will be interesting indeed to see who, if anyone, finds your post sufficiently objectionable to comment.

Edit - I see Bernoulli beat me to it. Well said good sir.


----------



## RogerP

FLMike said:


> I am curious....who did this and where?


That's what you are curious about? Wow.


----------



## FLMike

That's what I thought.


----------



## bernoulli

And actually not even true for the white America of the Jim Crow era. Unemployment then is the same as today's (under black Obama, oh the horror!) and GDP per capita in the 1950s one third (yes, a measly 1/3) of GDP per capita in 2015. But you know, facts, numbers and stuff. Here is the GDP per capita data (BTW, in real terms, accounting for inflation, no argument such as lower cost of living in the past applies):

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> My good man, how you do disarm me.


I think that was his way of telling you that most of us treated Tempest like the troll he was. His comments were ignored and deemed unworthy of response until the mods finally gave him the long overdue boot.


----------



## Chouan

Kingstonian said:


> ^ Buchanan is free of politically correct bs that has infected political debate over the decades.
> 
> _*America was better for the average voter in the 1950s and 1960s. There was plenty of work and it was reasonably paid. Similar story in most of the western world.*_
> 
> Politicians did not waste time discussing imagined grievances let alone pandering to them.
> 
> Trump will be routinely attacked in the media while Bill Clintons philandering does not seem to bother them. It certainly does not rub off on Billary. Tapes of her laughing about child rapists certainly do not give them cause for concern. Then again Clinton did what his lobby paymasters wanted and Mrs. Clinton offers more of the same.


Better still, people knew their place and didn't challenge their betters, in any sense. The good old days of deference eh!


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> That's what you are curious about? Wow.


Seriously, who has jumped down your throat for pointing out Trump's obvious shortcomings? The statement was important to the premise of your post, so I would think you could substantiate it.

(I assume Trump was the odious candidate you were talking about....if it was Hillary, question still stands.)


----------



## Shaver

FLMike said:


> I think that was his way of telling you that most of us treated Tempest like the troll he was. His comments were ignored and deemed unworthy of response until the mods finally gave him the long overdue boot.


Not necessarily, whilst I was not in agreement with a sizeable proportion of the contributions from a certain member, still, he was an intelligent commentator and a valid counterpoint. I wish that he had been capable of exercising more restraint.

This aside, the compliment remains, Roger is a valued member of no small standing within this community and deserving of respectful engagement even when our opinions are wholly at odds with one another. I shall also take the opportunity to extend the preceding to sentiment to you too, Mike.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> Better still, people knew their place and didn't challenge their betters, in any sense. The good old days of deference eh!


Better still politicians needed to address the concerns of voters and were not entirely in the pay of lobbies. The good old days of accountability eh!


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> This aside, the compliment remains, Roger is a valued member of no small standing within this community and deserving of respectful engagement even when our opinions are wholly at odds with one another. I shall also take the opportunity to extend the preceding to sentiment to you too, Mike.


I certainly took your comment as a compliment, hence my acknowledgement of being disarmed as a consequence. Rest assured that I hold you in like regard.


----------



## Chouan

Kingstonian said:


> Better still politicians needed to address the concerns of voters and were not entirely in the pay of lobbies. The good old days of accountability eh!


Indeed? Look at the disaster at Aberfan, and the actions of Lord Robens:
_"*Actions of Lord Robens[edit]*

The chairman of the National Coal Board (NCB) at the time of the disaster was Alfred Lord Robens. Robens had been a senior union official in the 1930s and then served as a Labour MP, briefly becoming Minister of Power in the final days of the Attlee Labour government. His actions immediately after the Aberfan disaster and in the years that followed have been the subject of considerable criticism.
When word of the Aberfan disaster reached him, Robens did not immediately go to the scene; he instead went ahead with his investiture as Chancellor of the University of Surrey, and did not arrive at the village until the evening of the following day (Saturday). NCB officers covered up for Robens when contacted by the Secretary of State for Wales, Cledwyn Hughes, falsely claiming that Robens was personally directing relief work when he was not present.
When he reached Aberfan, Robens told a TV reporter that nothing could have been done to prevent the slide, attributing it to 'natural unknown springs' beneath the tip, a statement which the locals challenged - the NCB had in fact been tipping on top of known springs that were clearly marked on maps of the neighbourhood, and where villagers had played as children.[SUP][7][/SUP]
__His evidence to the Tribunal of Inquiry was unsatisfactory; so much so that counsel for the NCB in their closing speech to the Tribunal asked for Robens' evidence to be ignored. He took a very narrow view of the NCB's responsibilities over the remaining Aberfan tips. His opposition to doing anything more than was needed to make the tips safe (even after the Prime Minister had promised villagers the tips would have to go) was overcome only by an additional grant from the government and a (bitterly opposed and subsequently much resented) contribution from the disaster fund of £150,000 (nearly 10% of the money raised)."_

Plenty of accountability there, eh!
Look at Marples and the Beeching report! Marples' involvement in the road transport industry had nothing to do with the outcome, I'm sure!


----------



## RogerP

Kingstonian said:


> Better still politicians needed to address the concerns of voters and were not entirely in the pay of lobbies. The good old days of accountability eh!


I'll ask again - were you referring to all voters, or just white voters? If the former, how do you square that claim with the Jim Crow laws in effect at that time? If the latter..... ????


----------



## Chouan

RogerP said:


> I'll ask again - were you referring to all voters, or just white voters? If the former, how do you square that claim with the Jim Crow laws in effect at that time? If the latter..... ????


In fairness, Kingstonian was, I assume, referring to voters in the UK in this instance, where such bars didn't obtain.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> I'll ask again - were you referring to all voters, or just white voters? If the former, how do you square that claim with the Jim Crow laws in effect at that time? If the latter..... ????


Jim Crow laws existed only in the South, but don't let facts start getting in the way of your generalizations now.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Jim Crow laws existed only in the South, but don't let facts start getting in the way of your generalizations now.


Was Kingstonian's comment restricted only to northern voters? Because that's not what he said. But don't let reality get in the way of your obsessive sniping.


----------



## bernoulli

The rest of the world was a great place for non-white people in the 1950s! superb!



vpkozel said:


> Jim Crow laws existed only in the South, but don't let facts start getting in the way of your generalizations now.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> The rest of the world was a great place for non-white people in the 1950s! superb!


That is irrelevant to any point or complaint about Jim Crow laws and the US elections.

But, the rest of the world certainly did have it bad - especially the Eastern Bloc and China....


----------



## bernoulli

You are so wrong it is not even funny. inequality, gdp per capita, inflation, everything was worse in the 1950s. And let's not talk about social data: illiteracy, access to health and education, etc. You may live in your bubble but I am a development economist and truly familiar with the data. I have sent you data for the US, do you want me to flood you with data? Or do you want to continue your lovefest with dictators and derision of third world savages without any base in reality whatsoever? BTW, you do realize that there was something called East Germany at the time right? Or do you think East Germans then are better than today?

I truly wish I could live in a world where facts did not matter and I could build whatever narrative I wanted. In that, I envy you.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> You are so wrong it is not even funny. inequality, gdp per capita, inflation, everything was worse in the 1950s.


Please post those charts. Let's start with just the US.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> Better still, people knew their place and didn't challenge their betters, in any sense. The good old days of deference eh!





bernoulli said:


> Better for the average white male heterosexual, for sure. Not true for most of the Western world (Spain, Portugal, Germany, etc and so on and so forth). You are wrong.





RogerP said:


> I'll ask again - were you referring to all voters, or just white voters? If the former, how do you square that claim with the Jim Crow laws in effect at that time? If the latter..... ????





bernoulli said:


> You are so wrong it is not even funny.


No I am not. 
People still had aspirations. 
Things were getting better. 
As Harold macmillan pointed out:-
"you have never had it so good."

Today? 
Youngsters will have less than the generation before.


----------



## bernoulli

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ (average of the 1950s higher than today)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA (Real GDP per capita - today more than 3x the top of the 1950s)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE (unemployment - average in the 1950s is 5%, same as today)
No good data about income inequality but top 1% seems to have a higher share of income today (https://inequality.org/income-inequality/)
Education: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf (every single indicator gets better over time).
Life expectancy: https://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html 67years for a newborn male in the 1950s, over 76 years today.

So today: triple income with less inflation and comparable unemployment, better education, literacy, health etc. And with gay marriage, less discrimination against minorities, black president etc. Inequality probably worse. 2016 kicks ass!



vpkozel said:


> Please post those charts. Let's start with just the US.


----------



## RogerP

Kingstonian said:


> Politics had not been hijacked for minority issues.southern USA had its own ways. South Africa had apartheid.Rhodesia was still a great country and you could advertise "no blacks" in the UK. As uk is a white country that's not a major concern for most people.


Well that clears things up. Guess I won't hold my breath for any widespread condemnation by participants in this thread.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ (average of the 1950s higher than today)
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA (Real GDP per capita - today more than 3x the top of the 1950s)
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE (unemployment - average in the 1950s is 5%, same as today)
> No good data about income inequality but top 1% seems to have a higher share of income today (https://inequality.org/income-inequality/)
> Education: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf (every single indicator gets better over time).
> Life expectancy: https://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html 67years for a newborn male in the 1950s, over 76 years today.
> 
> So today: triple income with less inflation and comparable unemployment, better education, literacy, health etc. And with gay marriage, less discrimination against minorities, black president etc. Inequality probably worse. 2016 kicks ass!


There is a reason that I asked you to post the graph. It generally never decreases, which is to be expected becuase the economy continually grows (in the long term).

You are trying to link that to politics and voting, but as of yet have failed to draw that linkage.


----------



## FLMike

I don't make a habit out of condemning people for their opinions or beliefs. I save my condemnation for people who are disingenuous, dishonest, deceitful, insincere, and/or inauthentic.


----------



## bernoulli

not true. 8 recessions from the 1950s to today. real income fell in every single one of them. The economy rebounded, and in most cases quickly, but it goes to show how today is a huge improvement over the 1950s. I make or made no point linking it to politics. I just want to dispel unfounded nostalgia. Yet, my argument may fail if one believes that racism is a social good. If one believes, like me, that economic and social gains make society better and a simple welfare function considers that decreasing racism is good for society, one has to agree that the world today is, on average, a huge improvement over the 1950s.


----------



## RogerP

FLMike said:


> I don't make a habit out of condemning people for their opinions or beliefs. I save my condemnation for people who are disingenuous, dishonest, deceitful, insincere, and/or inauthentic.


I find that justification wholly unsurprising.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> not true. 8 recessions from the 1950s to today. real income fell in every single one of them. The economy rebounded, and in most cases quickly, but it goes to show how today is a huge improvement to the 1950s. I make or made no point linking it to politics. I just want to dispel unfounded nostalgia. Yet, my argument may fail if one believes that racism is a social good. If one believes, like me, that economic and social gains make society better and a simple welfare function considers that decreasing racism is good for society, one has to agree that the world today is, on average, a huge improvement over the 1950s.


Do you have a graph of the GDP aince 1960? Or 1920 even? I am on my phone so I cannot easily post.

But long term the gdp goes up rapidly. Minor blips tell you nothing in a macro sense, and any published developmental economist should know better than to claim otherwise, don't you think.

No one other than you - and perhaps Roger - is trying to make any claims that racism is good for the economy, or indeed good for any reason.


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> I am uncertain of the position that is being advanced here........?


Are you? I'm not. Read in response to the question I had posed, his position is quite clear.


----------



## Dhaller

Shaver said:


> I am uncertain of the position that is being advanced here........?


Look to his earlier comment on a glorious Germany "free of Muslims and third-world savages" for further clarification.

DH


----------



## bernoulli

Clearly, in the case of the US standards of living have been rising almost continuously since the mid-19th century. That reinforces my point, that today is an improvement over earlier times.

It is not true for all economies. Argentinians would love that to be true. And yes, there was somebody making a point earlier that the past was better because the blacks knew their proper place. Attached is the graph for your convenience. I posted earlier data on Real GDP per capita, but the pattern is similar.














vpkozel said:


> Do you have a graph of the GDP aince 1960? Or 1920 even? I am on my phone so I cannot easily post.
> 
> But long term the gdp goes up rapidly. Minor blips tell you nothing in a macro sense, and any published developmental economist should know better than to claim otherwise, don't you think.
> 
> No one other than you - and perhaps Roger - is trying to make any claims that racism is good for the economy, or indeed good for any reason.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> Are you? I'm not. Read in response to the question I had posed, his position is quite clear.


Honestly, I am not so certain. There is a perspective from which the response can be viewed as a celebration of the listed events but I suspect (or is it hope?) that this may not have been the intent.....


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> Clearly, in the case of the US standards of living have been rising almost continuously since the mid-19th century. That reinforces my point, that today is an improvement over earlier times.
> 
> It is not true for all economies. Argentinians would love that to be true. And yes, there was somebody making a point earlier that the past was better because the blacks knew their proper place. Attached is the graph for your convenience. I posted earlier data on Real GDP per capita, but the pattern is similar.
> 
> 
> View attachment 16623


The world graph looks similar enough to the US one to indicate that there is nothing externally driving GDP growth. The economy improves and builds on technological advances over time.

This is hardly front page news.

But what is changing is that this is the first US generation that may not hand a better future to its children.

And that is definitely headline stuff.


----------



## bernoulli

Sorry, I did not understand you wanted the world gdp graph. Here it is. GDP per capita in PPP. Similar to the US (same driving forces yes).









Yes, this may (emphasis on may) be the first generation not to be as well off as the previous one. It also may not be.



vpkozel said:


> The world graph looks similar enough to the US one to indicate that there is nothing externally driving GDP growth. The economy improves and builds on technological advances over time.
> 
> This is hardly front page news.
> 
> But what is changing is that this is the first US generation that may not hand a better future to its children.
> 
> And that is definitely headline stuff.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> Sorry, I did not understand you wanted the world gdp graph. Here it is. GDP per capita in PPP. Similar to the US (same driving forces yes).
> 
> View attachment 16624
> 
> 
> Yes, this may (emphasis on may) be the first generation not to be as well off as the previous one. It also may not be.


Considering the lack of major world military conflicts over the past 70 years, the fact that it even might be a possibility is quite a counter to your argument that today rocks like Cleveland.


----------



## RogerP

Dhaller said:


> Just for clarity - you're saying that these are good things? That majority-disenfranchisement of minorities is the preferred status quo? That one of the great aspects of "the 50s" was being free to advertise "no blacks"?
> 
> (How many bans is this thread going to generate before November!)
> 
> DH


Yes, that is exactly what he is saying.


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> Honestly, I am not so certain. There is a perspective from which the response can be viewed as a celebration of the listed events but I suspect (or is it hope?) that this may not have been the intent.....


I struggle to articulate the perspective from which this could be viewed as anything other than a celebration of the listed events, having regard to the context in which the statement was made. In this instance my friend, I believe you hope in vain.


----------



## Kingstonian

Shaver said:


> I am uncertain of the position that is being advanced here........?


To put it in an American phrase

"It's the economy stupid."

Social Justice Warriors on here try to hijack most people's main concerns - jobs, pay, families, pensions etc. and make out that the minority stuff is more important.

It is not - unless you are :-

a) in that minority

and

b) suffering unfairly because of this - rather than through your own inability, fecklessness, criminality etc.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> Indeed. I worked in Mozambique, and Angola, pre-Revolution, as well as in Portugal. If one was a wealthy white person one could have a good life in those days, with plenty of fearful black and working class white people who knew their place, and knew the consequences of stepping out of line. An earthly paradise! As long as one was a wealthy white person ......!!


Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have any idea just how many Portuguese lived in those colonies and what became of them after the revolution? Then you get idiots on here trying to tell me how bad Portugal was in the 1960s.

As for the black Africans, well they have a hard time under any regime - whether it is a white colonial regime, or a black kleptocracy. Look at Rhodesia. Ian Smith was correct in his predictions. It is a basket case.


----------



## RogerP

Kingstonian said:


> To put it in an American phrase
> 
> "It's the economy stupid."
> 
> Social Justice Warriors on here try to hijack most people's main concerns - jobs, pay, families, pensions etc. and make out that the minority stuff is more important.
> 
> It is not - unless you are :-
> 
> a) in that minority
> 
> and
> 
> b) suffering unfairly because of this - rather than through your own inability, fecklessness, criminality etc.


So Shaver, do you get it now?


----------



## Chouan

Kingstonian said:


> Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have any idea just how many Portuguese lived in those colonies and what became of them after the revolution? Then you get idiots on here trying to tell me how bad Portugal was in the 1960s.
> 
> As for the black Africans, well they have a hard time under any regime - whether it is a white colonial regime, or a black kleptocracy. Look at Rhodesia. Ian Smith was correct in his predictions. It is a basket case.


As I said, Portugal pre-Revolution was wonderful for the wealthy and white, less good for anybody else. The Revolution, brought about by the lack of social justice under the dictatorship was dreadful for everybody, but only happened because the wealthy and white had continued the repression of everybody else beyond breaking point. Even the wealthy and white of Spain realised that keeping the rest under a repressive regime wouldn't last. 
The good old days. Prison (or service in a penal battalion in the colonies) for going on strike, or joining a Union, or speaking Catalan, or criticising Franco, or Salazar. Compulsory military service for those without exemptions (only the wealthy white could get exemptions) on a pittance in Morocco, or Angola, or Mozambique, with leave only for officers, with only those officers who weren't quite wealthy enough to avoid it having to serve in such dreadful places.
It is mostly the wwealthy and white who miss the good old days.


----------



## Kingstonian

Salazar was in power for a long time and did a lot to lift the country from its low point when the Freemasons and anticlerical elements held power. Huge increase in literacy rates for example.

He had some interesting ideas on running the economy as well, not ruthless neoliberal policies.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> So Shaver, do you get it now?


It is not looking good, is it?


----------



## Kingstonian

Dhaller said:


> Just for clarity - you're saying that these are good things? That majority-disenfranchisement of minorities is the preferred status quo? That one of the great aspects of "the 50s" was being free to advertise "no blacks"?
> 
> (How many bans is this thread going to generate before November!)
> 
> DH


It was an entirely different world. The state did not try to force integration and equal opportunities through. I would be very upset if I was in a school and my education suffered through bussing pupils in from outside areas. Terrible idea. The rich do not suffer because they can afford to send their children to Eton or similar schools.


----------



## Shaver

Kingstonian said:


> To put it in an American phrase
> 
> "It's the economy stupid."
> 
> Social Justice Warriors on here try to hijack most people's main concerns - jobs, pay, families, pensions etc. and make out that the minority stuff is more important.
> 
> It is not - unless you are :-
> 
> a) in that minority
> 
> and
> 
> b) suffering unfairly because of this - rather than through your own inability, fecklessness, criminality etc.


Ok, well I'm no SJW (certain misguided souls consider me transphobic and Islamophobic - both laughable concepts as far as I am concerned) and I am wary of the excessively disproportionate representation of minority voices that some people seem willing to extoll but, all of this aside, the colour of a man's skin is not the index of his value - such a sentiment is absurd.


----------



## FLMike

How did this thread get so off track? Can we get back to talking about something we all agree on....what a dreadful choice Americans are saddled with this election year?


----------



## FLMike

Shaver said:


> Ok, well I'm no SJW (many consider me transphobic and Islamophobic - both laughable concepts as far as I am concerned) and I am wary of the disproportionate representation of minority voices that some people seem willing to extoll but, all of this aside, the colour of a man's skin is not the index of his value - such a sentiment is absurd.


Please tell me we can all agree on this.


----------



## Kingstonian

Shaver said:


> Ok, well I'm no SJW (certain misguided souls consider me transphobic and Islamophobic - both laughable concepts as far as I am concerned) and I am wary of the excessively disproportionate representation of minority voices that some people seem willing to extoll but, all of this aside, the colour of a man's skin is not the index of his value - such a sentiment is absurd.


I have not said anything about an index of value. All I have said is that prosperity is people's main concern in judging politicians. On that concern, people were better off in earlier decades.

The civil rights stuff is irrelevant; it only affects a small element of a small minority. Though the state should mostly stay clear of social engineering and leave people to lead their lives as they wish.


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> It is not looking good, is it?


Nope. Very far from good, actually.


----------



## Mike Petrik

FLMike said:


> Please tell me we can all agree on this.


One would hope.


----------



## 16412

(unemployment - average in the 1950s is 5%, same as today)

Many unemployed people today are not being counted. They gave up. The statement above is not true.

Financial wealth is one thing. 
Psychological wealth is quite another.


----------



## vpkozel

FLMike said:


> Please tell me we can all agree on this.





Mike Petrik said:


> One would hope.


I don't think either of you should get your hopes up.


----------



## Chouan

Kingstonian said:


> The civil rights stuff is irrelevant; it only affects a small element of a small minority.


That's alright then.



Kingstonian said:


> Though the state should mostly stay clear of social engineering and leave people to lead their lives as they wish.


Especially the white and wealthy.

"I*n a civilised community, although it may be composed of self-reliant individuals, there will be some persons who will be unable at some period of their lives to look after themselves, and the question of what is to happen to them may be solved in three ways - they may be neglected, they may be cared for by the organised community as of right, or they may be left to the goodwill of individuals in the community."

"**A right established by law, such as that to an old age pension, is less galling than an allowance made by a rich man to a poor one, dependent on his view of the recipient's character, and terminable at his caprice."*

Social engineering or letting the wealthy and white, or simply the wealthy, decide who is deserving of charity, at their caprice, according to who they think are deserving?


----------



## culverwood

We are well away from Mr Trump bu anyway.

For once I agree with Chouan, I think, it being better to tax a little more than to rely on the philanthropy of rich people. My opinion on International Aid is a little different to most in that under our present system in the UK it is little more than the type of philanthropy discussed above. I would prefer a more trade based aid system using direct UK state investment in local industries and agriculture in the country in need. Perhaps outside the EU such a method would be allowed.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> "I*n a civilised community, although it may be composed of self-reliant individuals, there will be some persons who will be unable at some period of their lives to look after themselves*


That seems to describe a safety net. Most people do not have a problem with that.

However, if you go on to expand that to encompass a mass of people living at the taxpayer's expense - sometimes over several generations - then the system is not fit for purpose.

Some politicians may accept this in the hope that it adds to their support base.

Some individuals may welcome it to destroy cohesion and undermine the current status quo.


----------



## bernoulli

Your ideological lens are outstanding. Where can I get a pair? Methodology is the same. 1950s also had the same issue of people dropping out of the labor force. Or, you know, women. Given that both sexes are part of the labor force today, unemployment in 2016 is relatively much lower than in the 1950s. Facts are a-*****, right?



WA said:


> (unemployment - average in the 1950s is 5%, same as today)
> 
> Many unemployed people today are not being counted. They gave up. The statement above is not true.
> 
> Financial wealth is one thing.
> Psychological wealth is quite another.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> Your ideological lens are outstanding. Where can I get a pair? Methodology is the same. 1950s also had the same issue of people dropping out of the labor force. Or, you know, women. Given that both sexes are part of the labor force today, unemployment in 2016 is relatively much lower than in the 1950s. Facts are a-*****, right?


A few things.

1) Has there been any methodology change at all in the way that we colect unemployment data since 1950?

2) In order for things to truly be better from a real owrld perspective, the purchasing power of the consumer would have to have increased. This site disputes that theory.

https://www.mybudget360.com/cost-of-living-1938-to-2013-inflation-history-cost-of-goods-inflation/

I would expect a published economist to know these things and include them in any analysis.


----------



## bernoulli

1) Not substantially. Not to derive the effect you want. We still count people looking for jobs as unemployed. No major changes in methodology. Again, here is my riddle: mostly men worked in the 1950s when unemployment averaged 5%. Now most men AND women work, and unemployment is still 5%. How is that worse?

2) Given GDP per capita more than tripled in real terms - i.e., accounting for inflation, you are again wrong. The website you use is so full of bs it is not even funny. Again, it clashes with simple facts. Why do you keep insisting on points in which you are patently wrong? I am not arguing politics or anything subjective. I am just stating facts.

They clash with your perceived view of reality. Accommodate it somehow. But please don't imply anything about my skills as an economist. I never used the fallacy of argument of authority. I am not right because I am about to publish a book on macroeconomics, but because I not only give you the data, but also data sources. No bs websites on my side. Just pure data and a basic understanding of how the economy works. I do not have time to list all the stupid things in your website source. Here is a simple yes/no question: do you still believe that the 1950s were economically objectively better?



vpkozel said:


> A few things.
> 
> 1) Has there been any methodology change at all in the way that we colect unemployment data since 1950?
> 
> 2) In order for things to truly be better from a real owrld perspective, the purchasing power of the consumer would have to have increased. This site disputes that theory.
> 
> https://www.mybudget360.com/cost-of-living-1938-to-2013-inflation-history-cost-of-goods-inflation/
> 
> I would expect a published economist to know these things and include them in any analysis.


----------



## FLMike

bernoulli said:


> Again, here is my riddle: mostly men worked in the 1950s when unemployment averaged 5%. Now most men AND women work, and unemployment is still 5%. *How is that worse?*


Well, because now there's no one at home to cook dinner, clean the house, and do laundry. Duh!

(I kid, I kid.......as my wife looks over my shoulder at the computer screen and smacks me upside the head.....)


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> 1) Not substantially. Not to derive the effect you want. We still count people looking for jobs as unemployed. No major changes in methodology. Again, here is my riddle: mostly men worked in the 1950s when unemployment averaged 5%. Now most men AND women work, and unemployment is still 5%. How is that worse?
> 
> 2) Given GDP per capita more than tripled in real terms - i.e., accounting for inflation, you are again wrong. The website you use is so full of bs it is not even funny. Again, it clashes with simple facts. Why do you keep insisting on points in which you are patently wrong? I am not arguing politics or anything subjective. I am just stating facts.
> 
> They clash with your perceived view of reality. Accommodate it somehow. But please don't imply anything about my skills as an economist. I never used the fallacy of argument of authority. I am not right because I am about to publish a book on macroeconomics, but because I not only give you the data, but also data sources. No bs websites on my side. Just pure data and a basic understanding of how the economy works. I do not have time to list all the stupid things in your website source. Here is a simple yes/no question: do you still believe that the 1950s were economically objectively better?


How do we determine who is looking for work?

For comparison purposes, that site used a constant (2010 dollars I think). This is a standard practice when comparing eras, because inflation does not allow for a simple dollar to dollar comparison.

You keep saying that you are using facts, but you rarely post anything but your opinion and then seem to get angry when someone asks for back up.

So, just to be clear could you provide some sites that state that unemployment is actually much better now and also that purchasing power is actual much better now as well?

Thanks.


----------



## SG_67

Our lives are qualitatively and quantitatively better now than in the 1950's. I wouldn't argue from that perspective. 

The question needs to be, how are we to move forward. The global situation is not as it was in the 1950's either. Europe was in tatters and we were the largest industrial economy in the world. The Soviets in the span of little more than a generation had lost some 30 million people yet we were relatively untouched. 

Now we are competing directly with other nations and instead of trying to use our dominance to further our position, we are going around talking about global warming and worried about how other countries treat journalists.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> do you still believe that the 1950s were economically objectively better?


 I missed this in my previous response. I think that you have confused me with someone else, as I have not ever said that. I have simply challenged your very loose "facts".

From a purely economic standpoint, I think that there is definitely a case to be made that the standard of living was better back then for a large segment of society. But there were also a lot fewer people able to take advantage of it and there were just a lot fewer things to spend money on.

From a societal perspective, I would certainly not want to go back to a time where many people were effectively deprived of equality.


----------



## Tiger

The other issue here is the subjectivity inherent in the social sciences. Economics, history, political science, et al. are plagued by the varying perspectives that make up these professions. The very fact that we often have such disparate views on AAAC on these topics is, I believe, ipso facto proof of this.

For instance, some economists believe that FDR's "New Deal" lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Others believe that the "New Deal" prolonged the Depression and made it worse. Some believe that government spending enhances economic growth; others believe it hinders it. Some believe that war is an economic panacea; others point out that it is unquestionably destructive to a nation's economy.

Each has their "facts" of course, but those facts have to be studied contextually, and holistically, not in piecemeal. In addition, are these "facts" really factual? Did the compiler of the facts have an ideological axe to grind? Does a "fact" actually mean what someone purports it to mean? Was something crucial omitted? What about clashing "facts"?

Unsurprisingly, many economists who are politically liberal and believe in more aggressive/expansive government tend to support Democratic Party economic policies (greater government spending, higher taxes, etc.) Economists who are politically conservative tend to favor market-based concepts, less government spending, etc.

I remember having a discussion with another AAAC member about an economic topic a couple of years ago. He wrote so dogmatically and authoritatively, as if no other perspective existed. When I pointed out a plethora of ideas/economists contrary to his viewpoints, he attacked not only me, but those economists in very uncharitable terms. I guess some people have all of the answers, and the rest of the world in opposition to their viewpoints are idiots...


----------



## bernoulli

We ask people. We did it then, and we do it now.

Purchasing power is taken into account in real GDP data. This is very but truly very basic statistics. When I stated that real GDP more than tripled in real terms it means that it is three times higher accounting for differences in purchasing power.

Such a website about unemployment as you ask makes no sense. It is a standard universal measure of economic well being. Far from perfect, but standardized across nations and methodologically relatively sound over time.

One thing is social sciences reliance on conditional forecasts. I am not making any point based on social science, or opinions but on pure math and statistics. In this case, they don't lie. I am not conjuring crazy explanations. I am saying simply 3 is higher than 1 in real terms. Simple math, with a basis on statistics because GDP's is methodologically sound, but of course far from perfect. Not opinions. I am making factual statements on the fact that standards of living, by almost every single measure, are much higher today. Data show this. Not an opinion. Why you can't accept this is beyond me.

Look, the website you cite is wrong, misleading, bordering on malpractice. It fails basic math. I posted a simple graph that refutes it: growth in real GDP per capita. Truly basic stuff.

As for your last question: I posted the data! What more do you need?



vpkozel said:


> How do we determine who is looking for work?
> 
> For comparison purposes, that site used a constant (2010 dollars I think). This is a standard practice when comparing eras, because inflation does not allow for a simple dollar to dollar comparison.
> 
> You keep saying that you are using facts, but you rarely post anything but your opinion and then seem to get angry when someone asks for back up.
> 
> So, just to be clear could you provide some sites that state that unemployment is actually much better now and also that purchasing power is actual much better now as well?
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## FLMike

Tiger said:


> The other issue here is the subjectivity inherent in the social sciences. Economics, history, political science, et al. are plagued by the varying perspectives that make up these professions. The very fact that we often have such disparate views on AAAC on these topics is, I believe, ipso facto proof of this.
> 
> For instance, some economists believe that FDR's "New Deal" lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Others believe that the "New Deal" prolonged the Depression and made it worse. Some believe that government spending enhances economic growth; others believe it hinders it. Some believe that war is an economic panacea; others point out that it is unquestionably destructive to a nation's economy.
> 
> Each has their "facts" of course, but those facts have to be studied contextually, and holistically, not in piecemeal. In addition, are these "facts" really factual? Did the compiler of the facts have an ideological axe to grind? Does a "fact" actually mean what someone purports it to mean? Was something crucial omitted? What about clashing "facts"?
> 
> Unsurprisingly, many economists who are politically liberal and believe in more aggressive/expansive government tend to support Democratic Party economic policies (greater government spending, higher taxes, etc.) Economists who are politically conservative tend to favor market-based concepts, less government spending, etc.
> 
> I remember having a discussion with another AAAC member about an economic topic a couple of years ago. He wrote so dogmatically and authoritatively, as if no other perspective existed. When I pointed out a plethora of ideas/economists contrary to his viewpoints, he attacked not only me, but those economists in very uncharitable terms. I guess some people have all of the answers, and the rest of the world in opposition to their viewpoints are idiots...


The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: They're both wrong.


----------



## Tiger

FLMike said:


> The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: They're both wrong.


True also for historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, teachers, professors, and others! Not sure about tailors...


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> From a purely economic standpoint, I think that there is definitely a case to be made that the standard of living was better back then for a large segment of society.


I don't think that this can remotely withstand scrutiny. If one were to divide American households by wealth or income into 10 equal 10% segments the standard of living of each segment today is superior to that of its 1950s analog by a long shot. The technological advances created by our market system have been the chief driver.

That said, quality of life differences are harder to measure, especially those associated with the sexual revolution. Many more women are working, and whether that enhances or diminishes quality of life depends on numerous factors, many of which are largely subjective. While it is absolutely true that women should be afforded opportunities equal to those of men, it is also true that most women (like most men) work because they believe they must, and would rather be doing something else -- including in many cases raising children. More importantly, the divorce rate is now about 50% and our national out-of-wedlock birthrate exceeds 40%, yielding a much higher percentage of single-parent households and the statistically associated myriad of social pathologies.

While governmental policies might have contributed to a decline in "quality of life" for "a large segment of society," in all fairness it is exceedingly difficult to disentangle the effects of those policies from other widespread social phenomena.

Finally, I am not convinced that either Clinton or Trump has a clue about these issues or cares about them. I can understand that one might conclude in good faith that one is more clueless than the other.


----------



## 16412

"We ask people...."

What does this mean?


----------



## SG_67

I'm more inclined to think that Trump has more of a clue than does Hillary Clinton. 

Trump is in business. He employs people and I'm inclined to think that he does not employ a political litmus test when deciding whom to hire. As such, he is more exposed to people from varying backgrounds and with different opinions. 

HRC surrounds herself with like minded people. They all talk about the same things and share a common world view. That's why if you ask a group of women working for Hillary Clinton they'll tell you that publically funded birth control and empowering little girls are the most pressing issues society faces during the 21st century.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm more inclined to think that Trump has more of a clue than does Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Trump is in business. He employs people and I'm inclined to think that he does not employ a political litmus test when deciding whom to hire. As such, he is more exposed to people from varying backgrounds and with different opinions.


Remind me, how many times has become bankrupt?



SG_67 said:


> HRC surrounds herself with like minded people. They all talk about the same things and share a common world view. _*That's why if you ask a group of women working for Hillary Clinton they'll tell you that publically funded birth control and empowering little girls are the most pressing issues society faces during the 21st century.*_


You know this do you?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Remind me, how many times has become bankrupt?


In the real world sometimes things don't work out. Unlike in government when failure is categorized as a problem with "underfunding".



> You know this do you?


Lucky guess but I'm quite certain I'm not that far off.


----------



## RogerP

This just in: the election is rigged. Totally and completely rigged. The evidence of this rigging? Never mind - it's just entirely rigged. Like, totally. By 'you know who I'm talking about'.


----------



## SG_67

At least in the case of the primaries on the Dem side between HRC and Bernie, one could make the argument that it was.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> I'm more inclined to think that Trump has more of a clue than does Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Trump is in business. He employs people and I'm inclined to think that he does not employ a political litmus test when deciding whom to hire. As such, he is more exposed to people from varying backgrounds and with different opinions.
> 
> *HRC surrounds herself with like minded people.* They all talk about the same things and share a common world view. That's why if you ask a group of women working for Hillary Clinton they'll tell you that publically funded birth control and empowering little girls are the most pressing issues society faces during the 21st century.


I can more see Trump surrounded by a bunch of sycophants than as an open-minded individual welcoming of the thoughts and contributions of others. Indeed, I can hardly conceive of a presidential candidate who presents as more rigid and dogmatic. He certainly doesn't appear to be listening to anyone but his Breitbart adviser - and that's one seriously small and psychotic echo chamber.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> At least in the case of the primaries on the Dem side between HRC and Bernie, one could make the argument that it was.


One can make an argument in support of just about any proposition. But that's not the election he's talking about.


----------



## drlivingston

Chouan said:


> Remind me, how many times has become bankrupt?


Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy.*

*No... I am not a Trump supporter. It's just a fact.


----------



## Dhaller

RogerP said:


> This just in: the election is rigged. Totally and completely rigged. The evidence of this rigging? Never mind - it's just entirely rigged. Like, totally. By 'you know who I'm talking about'.


"The rigging is great, really tremendous. Only the best rigging."

"Mr. Trump, it's THEM who are doing the rigging?"

"What? This rigging is totally unfair."


----------



## Gurdon

*Jobs and GDP*

I understand the figure for unemployment to be based on the number of people actively looking for work. This excludes those individuals who are not working nor seeking a job. It does not include people who have been laid off and are now working at low-paying jobs.

5% unemployment is, I believe, considered to be a low rate. In some cases a tight job market is considered beneficial to labor. Sometimes, as now, when many jobs are part-time, and at will, this is not the case.

GDP is, I'm sure, three times higher than it was previously. What is not clear from what has been posted thus far, is how the proceeds are allocated between the workers and the people who are paying the workers and those who are financing the various job-producing enterprises.

One issue, laid bare by the French economist, Picketty, is that the wealth gap between the richest and poorest in the developed countries is as great as it has ever been. This implies that the wealthy get the largest share of the increased GDP.

I am not an economist, so I hope people who know more than I do will chime in with corrections and additions.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67

^ Wealth gap? What does that mean anyway? Should some people just make less money?


----------



## 16412

*wa*



SG_67 said:


> ^ Wealth gap? What does that mean anyway? Should some people just make less money?


That sounds like pre-Reagan. What an awful economy.


----------



## bernoulli

Survey methodology.



WA said:


> "We ask people...."
> 
> What does this mean?


----------



## 16412

*wa*



bernoulli said:


> Survey methodology.


Is it a count of how many show up to collect unemployment pay?

Is it how many people companies hire and lay off?

If you know, why don't you give a simple explaintion?


----------



## bernoulli

Median income rose the most in history in the US last year (over 5%). It does not mean that this is, by itself, an indication of anything.

Wealth distribution is not that relevant. What economists care for is income distribution. During the 1990s the economy experienced a huge boom and wealth distribution got worse. Nobody cared, as incomes were rising fast across the board.

Income inequality is probably a bit worse today than in the 1950s but there is no good data to back it up that I could easily find. However, poverty is much lower than in the 1950s. Check https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html. From table 6: poverty was roughly 30% of the households in the 1950s, and less than 17% today.



Gurdon said:


> I understand the figure for unemployment to be based on the number of people actively looking for work. This excludes those individuals who are not working nor seeking a job. It does not include people who have been laid off and are now working at low-paying jobs.
> 
> 5% unemployment is, I believe, considered to be a low rate. In some cases a tight job market is considered beneficial to labor. Sometimes, as now, when many jobs are part-time, and at will, this is not the case.
> 
> GDP is, I'm sure, three times higher than it was previously. What is not clear from what has been posted thus far, is how the proceeds are allocated between the workers and the people who are paying the workers and those who are financing the various job-producing enterprises.
> 
> One issue, laid bare by the French economist, Picketty, is that the wealth gap between the richest and poorest in the developed countries is as great as it has ever been. This implies that the wealthy get the largest share of the increased GDP.
> 
> I am not an economist, so I hope people who know more than I do will chime in with corrections and additions.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't think that this can remotely withstand scrutiny. If one were to divide American households by wealth or income into 10 equal 10% segments the standard of living of each segment today is superior to that of its 1950s analog by a long shot. The technological advances created by our market system have been the chief driver.
> 
> That said, quality of life differences are harder to measure, especially those associated with the sexual revolution. Many more women are working, and whether that enhances or diminishes quality of life depends on numerous factors, many of which are largely subjective. While it is absolutely true that women should be afforded opportunities equal to those of men, it is also true that most women (like most men) work because they believe they must, and would rather be doing something else -- including in many cases raising children. More importantly, the divorce rate is now about 50% and our national out-of-wedlock birthrate exceeds 40%, yielding a much higher percentage of single-parent households and the statistically associated myriad of social pathologies.
> 
> While governmental policies might have contributed to a decline in "quality of life" for "a large segment of society," in all fairness it is exceedingly difficult to disentangle the effects of those policies from other widespread social phenomena.
> 
> Finally, I am not convinced that either Clinton or Trump has a clue about these issues or cares about them. I can understand that one might conclude in good faith that one is more clueless than the other.


Sorry, I think that the better phrase would have been the quality of life one that you used.

That's what I get for posting from my phone while walking between meetings I guess.


----------



## drlivingston

After watching yet another dismal debate between two total idiots, I want to flip the political etch-a-sketch over and shake it vigorously. Then, we can start over and find at least one suitable candidate.


----------



## Chouan

drlivingston said:


> Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy.*
> 
> *No... I am not a Trump supporter. It's just a fact.


His businesses have, of course https://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091?rm=eu https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/companies/donald-trump-bankruptcy/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-bankruptcy-math-doesn-t-add-n598376 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html?_r=0


----------



## Chouan

Given Trump's claim that he repeated last night, is the US electoral system really as rigged and corrupt as he suggests? Do people think that he really won't accept the electoral result if he loses? What would that entail if he refuses to accept the result? None of this bodes well for American democracy......


----------



## culverwood

I suppose it matters little if he cannot accept he has lost, much like any bully. 

What matters more is that millions of voters take his lead and do not accept their new President has authority. These are the people who already believe in a conspiracy against their candidate so such an outcome is very likely.

Of course all this is theoretical as he may win this "rigged and corrupt election".


----------



## Dhaller

Chouan said:


> Given Trump's claim that he repeated last night, is the US electoral system really as rigged and corrupt as he suggests? Do people think that he really won't accept the electoral result if he loses? What would that entail if he refuses to accept the result? None of this bodes well for American democracy......


The electoral system has its imperfections, but no, it's not rigged or corrupt.

I will be very, very surprised if Trump accepts a loss; I am sure he plans to gum up the works for months; that said, if it's a clear result, there's little he can do beyond (oh, hey!) remaining interesting to the media.

DH


----------



## Shaver

Dhaller said:


> *The electoral system has its imperfections, but no, it's not rigged or corrupt.*
> 
> I will be very, very surprised if Trump accepts a loss; I am sure he plans to gum up the works for months; that said, if it's a clear result, there's little he can do beyond (oh, hey!) remaining interesting to the media.
> 
> DH


*cough* Bush vs Gore.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Sounds strangely reminiscent of the Gore...Bush debacle of years gone by! Nothing new here...just move on. (heavy sigh!)


----------



## Dhaller

Shaver said:


> *cough* Bush vs Gore.


That was hardly "a clear result", margins being so razor-thin (600 votes!) that a single state (Florida) could swing the election.

Clinton is likely to win by a larger margin, and very likely by double-digit margins ("a landslide"), so a recount scenario is unlikely.

DH


----------



## RogerP

culverwood said:


> I suppose it matters little if he cannot accept he has lost, much like any bully.
> 
> What matters more is that millions of voters take his lead and do not accept their new President has authority. These are the people who already believe in a conspiracy against their candidate so such an outcome is very likely.
> 
> Of course all this is theoretical as he may win this "rigged and corrupt election".


No, you don't understand - it's only rigged and corrupt IF he loses. If he wins it is a sanctified expression of the will of the people.

I feel certain that it has never dawned on Donald that a loss will rest upon his own very obvious shortcomings.


----------



## RogerP

Dhaller said:


> That was hardly "a clear result", margins being so razor-thin (600 votes!) that a single state (Florida) could swing the election.
> 
> Clinton is likely to win by a larger margin, and very likely by double-digit margins ("a landslide"), so a recount scenario is unlikely.
> 
> DH


Exactly correct. No equivalence at all between that circumstance and Trump's endless (and wholly unsubstantiated) bellowing about the fix being in weeks in advance of the declaration of a winner.


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> His businesses have, of course https://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091?rm=eu https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/companies/donald-trump-bankruptcy/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-bankruptcy-math-doesn-t-add-n598376 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html?_r=0


Right. And he's running in no small part on the basis that he is a business genius.


----------



## drlivingston

They can both bite my hanging chad. With all of the intelligent people out there who are more than capable of leading this country, we get to choose between these two imbeciles. Is there any wonder why we are the laughing stock of the civilized world?


----------



## drlivingston

RogerP said:


> Right. And he's running in no small part on the basis that he is a business genius.


Fortunately, most people see through his purported business success claims. He is to business and politics what the Kardashians are to the acting trade.


----------



## RogerP

drlivingston said:


> Fortunately, most people see through his purported business success claims. He is to business and politics what the Kardashians are to the acting trade.


That was very well put.


----------



## Chouan

culverwood said:


> I suppose it matters little if he cannot accept he has lost, much like any bully.
> 
> What matters more is that millions of voters take his lead and do not accept their new President has authority. These are the people who already believe in a conspiracy against their candidate so such an outcome is very likely.
> 
> Of course all this is theoretical as he may win this "rigged and corrupt election".


Indeed, that is my concern. I'm sure that the US electoral system is no more rigged or corrupt than ours, but it is the response of his supporters who seem to be desperate to believe everything he says that could cause problems if he is defeated in the election.


----------



## Dmontez

drlivingston said:


> After watching yet another dismal debate between two total idiots, I want to flip the political etch-a-sketch over and shake it vigorously. Then, we can start over and find at least one suitable candidate.


Oh how I wish that were possible.


----------



## Chouan

I didn't realise that Trump had also been less than supportive of Native Americans....


----------



## eagle2250

However, considering Hillary's opinions regarding the Second Amendment expressed in last nights debate and "The Donald's" ongoing penchant for putting his foot (all the way up to his a**) in his mouth, I sure am glad I have my personal arsenal already in place! LOL.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Wifey watched the debate last night while I worked, but I overheard bits and pieces. My intention to not vote for either Clinton or Trump stands, but I have to admit every time one of them opened his or her mouth I was tempted to vote for the other.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> Sorry, I think that the better phrase would have been the quality of life one that you used.
> 
> That's what I get for posting from my phone while walking between meetings I guess.


Actually, I kind of suspected that is what you meant, and I regret not phrasing my response based on that assumption. My apologies.


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> Actually, I kind of suspected that is what you meant, and I regret not phrasing my response based on that assumption. My apologies.


It's all good.

As I said, I don't want to minimize the fact that the world back then was not as inclusive at all and I would never propose going back to that.

But, having said that, Do we have definitive dta whether or not the major costs for a family like housing, education, healthcare, taxes, etc. have increased faster or slower faster than wages?


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> It's all good.
> 
> As I said, I don't want to minimize the fact that the world back then was not as inclusive at all and I would never propose going back to that.
> 
> But, having said that, Do we have definitive dta whether or not the major costs for a family like housing, education, healthcare, taxes, etc. have increased faster or slower faster than wages?


The cost of some of these items have certainly risen faster than inflation (i.e., higher education and health care), but one must avoid comparing apples to oranges. If one offered a health care option at inflation-adjusted 1955 prices no one would buy it if the health care was 1955 quality. I'm more doubtful that the same point would apply to higher education, the cost of which has been artificially inflated by easy access to student loans.

But in any event any person alive in the 1950s (who is not suffering from Alzheimers) can tell you that the overall standard of living is much better today. Not much market today for a 1000 square foot home with 2 bedrooms and a single bath, which indeed was the norm in the 1950s. https://patch.com/pennsylvania/hell...t-sized-1950s-home-became-a-tight-fit-in-2012


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> The cost of some of these items have certainly risen faster than inflation (i.e., higher education and health care), but one must avoid comparing apples to oranges. If one offered a health care option at inflation-adjusted 1955 prices no one would buy it if the health care was 1955 quality. I'm more doubtful that the same point would apply to higher education, the cost of which has been artificially inflated by easy access to student loans.
> 
> But in any event any person alive in the 1950s (who is not suffering from Alzheimers) can tell you that the overall standard of living is much better today. Not much market today for a 1400 square foot home with 2 bedrooms and a single bath, which indeed was the norm in the 1950s.


That is all true, absolutely. But a person in the 50's was living far, far better than one from 75 years prior, and you can keep doing that back hundreds of years. Although at aome point the returns diminish.

And to a point folks always lament the good, old days. But I also don't think that you can discount the idea that in some ways life was better in prior times.


----------



## bernoulli

Not true. GDP per capita was almost stagnant for 2,000 years. Grew a little in the West from 1600-1800. Prosperity has been achieved only in the last 200 years. Your nostalgic view has no basis in reality. Life was harsher and poorer in the past. We halved poverty in the last 15 years. We are talking the scale of a billion people here. Nostalgia is either misguided or privilege - i.e., the world as better because a precious few benefited. Screw the past.











vpkozel said:


> That is all true, absolutely. But a person in the 50's was living far, far better than one from 75 years prior, and you can keep doing that back hundreds of years. Although at aome point the returns diminish.
> 
> And to a point folks always lament the good, old days. But I also don't think that you can discount the idea that in some ways life was better in prior times.


----------



## Dmontez

*Rigged Elections, voter fraud etc.*

I've said it before that I am not here to defend or apologize for anything Donald Trump, does or says. When I comment here its usually just to set the record straight. We have a lot of people here, mainly from outside of the US saying that this is obviously not a rigged election.

I must say that it is pretty clearly rigged to favor the democratic candidate regardless of who that is.

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/4985...emocrats-describing-how-to-commit-voter-fraud
NPR adresses a video done by project veritas in which people that work for firm hired by democrats plotting voter fraud, by insinuating that the video was selectively edited to make it seem like they were plotting illegal activites, and the history of the people recording, rather than calling out the dems for conspiring to commit voter fraud.

Donna Brazille CNN commentator sent an e-mail to the clinton campaign titled "from time to time I get the questions ahead of time" in the e-mail was a question that would be asked verbatim at a cnn townhall debate during the primaries, and it just so happens that Donna Brazille is now the interim DNC Chair. You literally cannot find this on any main stream news outlet.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ehand_brazile_i_will_not_be_persec uted.html

ABC, NBC and CBS dedicated more airtime to trumps pussy grabbing statement than the potentially seriously damaging wikileaks by a ratio of 7to1
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...mp-sex-scandals-vs-hillary-wikileaks-coverage

Here is CNN saying don't look at the wikileaks stuff because its illegal for you to handle it, but it's different for a reporter, so everything you need to learn we will tell you.


----------



## Mike Petrik

bernoulli said:


> Not true. GDP per capita was almost stagnant for 2,000 years. Grew a little in the West from 1600-1800. Prosperity has been achieved only in the last 200 years. Your nostalgic view has no basis in reality. Life was harsher and poorer in the past. We halved poverty in the last 15 years. We are talking the scale of a billion people here. Nostalgia is either misguided or privilege - i.e., the world as better because a precious few benefited. Screw the past.
> 
> View attachment 16628


Yes, the technological advances made over the last three centuries have allowed for a spectacular improvement in the standard of living for almost the entire world. But economists and anthropologists point out that once basic needs are satisfied, the relationship between human happiness (what economists call utility) and increased living standards is elusive. I think vpkozel is simply pointing out that not all the social norms that have collapsed over the past century were odious ones, and the various social maladies associated with the collapse of some healthy norms may well overwhelm the benefit of enhanced living conditions in terms of actual human happiness (i.e., quality of life) for many people, including those who were victims of the injustices of past odious social norms. This suggestion is insightful, I think -- though many social scientists would find it almost unremarkable.


----------



## bernoulli

I would agree with you if a) social norms were exogenously determined and b) if we did not have something like 1 billion people still in abject poverty. For your argument to hold social norms and progress cannot be correlated; if they are there is an intrinsic trade-off, regardless of how one views the morality of such social norms in the first place. Let's assume for argument's sake that they are indeed exogenously determined. Clearly, as you pointed out, some have been abandoned. Maybe, and I am not sold on this, some good social norms are lost to the ashes of history. Should one still be nostalgic for the past, even under ideal conditions? I find that proposition very hard to defend, given all the benefits of economic and social progress. If one is a Ralwsian, then by definition the future is always worse for society, as long as a single person is worse off by progress. *These philosophical considerations did not seem to be the basis of our previous discussions though.* There were intense arguments about costs of living and such objective facts. Including many clarifications about unemployment measures etc. I am not disputing subjective utility functions, but mainly statements regarding the objective measures of quality of life. You are trying to portray arguments under a completely different light. Please reread the thread.

BTW, studies show that your elusiveness only arise after approximately USD 75,000 of income (much above subsistence level), something that is still much above median income in the US, the richest large economy on Earth (the large adjective is important so we can disregard some outliers such as Luxembourg, Qatar etc).

Edited to add: there was a previous post with a ridiculous website making laughable claims about cost of living comparison with the past and the debasement of the currency with QE (yeah, USD 3 trillion in printed money and 1.5% CPI to show for all of it. Debasement indeed). I was mostly stating facts.



Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, the technological advances made over the last three centuries have allowed for a spectacular improvement in the standard of living for almost the entire world. But economists and anthropologists point out that once basic needs are satisfied, the relationship between human happiness (what economists call utility) and increased living standards is elusive. I think vpkozel is simply pointing out that not all the social norms that have collapsed over the past century were odious ones, and the various social maladies associated with the collapse of some healthy norms may well overwhelm the benefit of enhanced living conditions in terms of actual human happiness (i.e., quality of life) for many people, including those who were victims of the injustices of past odious social norms. This suggestion is insightful, I think -- though many social scientists would find it almost unremarkable.


----------



## phyrpowr

RogerP said:


> No, you don't understand - it's only rigged and corrupt IF he loses. If he wins it is a sanctified expression of the will of the people.


No, it will still have been rigged, but he was so wonderful that he overcame it. I had a friend like that once, we all did, but by the 5th grade I quit hanging out with him. You always have to remember that he's a rich, well-connected man's son, who started out as "the boss", and quite possibly _does not understand_ why everyone isn't kowtowing


----------



## Mike Petrik

bernoulli said:


> I would agree with you if a) social norms were exogenously determined and b) if we did not have something like 1 billion people still in abject poverty. For your argument to hold social norms and progress cannot be correlated; if they are there is an intrinsic trade-off, regardless of how one views the morality of such social norms in the first place. Let's assume for argument's sake that they are indeed exogenously determined. Clearly, as you pointed out, some have been abandoned. Maybe, and I am not sold on this, some good social norms are lost to the ashes of history. Should one still be nostalgic for the past, even under ideal conditions? I find that proposition very hard to defend, given all the benefits of economic and social progress. If one is a Ralwsian, then by definition the future is always worse for society, as long as a single person is worse off by progress. *These philosophical considerations did not seem to be the basis of our previous discussions though.* There were intense arguments about costs of living and such objective facts. Including many clarifications about unemployment measures etc. I am not disputing subjective utility functions, but mainly statements regarding the objective measures of quality of life. You are trying to portray arguments under a completely different light. Please reread the thread.
> 
> BTW, studies show that your elusiveness only arise after approximately USD 75,000 of income (much above subsistence level), something that is still much above median income in the US, the richest large economy on Earth (the large adjective is important so we can disregard some outliers such as Luxembourg, Qatar etc).
> 
> Edited to add: there was a previous post with a ridiculous website making laughable claims about cost of living comparison with the past and the debasement of the currency with QE (yeah, USD 3 trillion in printed money and 1.5% CPI to show for all of it. Debasement indeed). I was mostly stating facts.


A few points:
1. I do not know anything about your referenced website. 
2. I made and make no Rawlsian claims.
3. I don't think that quality of life can be reduced to standard of living.
4. I never suggested that increased standards of living can or do cause diminished quality of life.
5. What I am asserting is that a society can experience a diminished quality of life even in the face of rising living standards, and that vpkozel's claim that this phenomenon has some currency in the United States is entirely plausible.
6. In particular, I think what vpkozel is suggesting is that if one applied hypothetical util-meters to all Americans north of the poverty level the "general happiness" scores might well have been higher in the 1950s than today. There is no way of knowing, of course, but the fact that living standards are much higher today than in the 1950s (and they most certainly are) does not afford us a dispositive answer.


----------



## bernoulli

1. Please reread the thread as some of my rejoinders were based on vpkzovel posting of a ridiculous website.
2. I know. I never implied that you did. If you think I did, it is withdrawn. No malice intended, I assure you.
3. Agreed. I only made statements of fact regarding the latter, never the former, and it was the basis of all discussion before your sensible comments.
4. noted.
5. I have absolutely no problem with that statement.
6. I strongly disagree. He made many factual statements regarding objective standards of living (arguments about unemployment, inflation, costs of living etc) that were absolutely wrong. He asked for proof that inflation and unemployment are lower today. Then claimed that methodologies were different. And could not comprehend the meaning of real GDP. Most of the discussion centered on basic facts on economic data.

You present a much more coherent argument regarding intergenerational comparison of standards of living. That was not the discussion we were having, though. I humbly refer to previous posts but if you want I can make a collection of many quotes that defy basic economic concepts.



Mike Petrik said:


> A few points:
> 1. I do not know anything about your referenced website.
> 2. I made and make no Rawlsian claims.
> 3. I don't think that quality of life can be reduced to standard of living.
> 4. I never suggested that increased standards of living can or do cause diminished quality of life.
> 5. What I am asserting is that a society can experience a diminished quality of life even in the face of rising living standards, and that the claim that the current incidence of this experience in the United States is rather widespread is entirely plausible.
> 6. I think what vpkozel is suggesting is that if one applied hypothetical util-meters to all Americans north of the poverty level the scores might well have been higher in the 1950s than today. There is no way of knowing, of course, but the fact that living standards are much higher today than in the 1950s (and they most certainly are) does not give us a dispositive answer.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> I've said it before that I am not here to defend or apologize for anything Donald Trump, does or says.


Really? Are you sure?



Dmontez said:


> When I comment here its usually just to set the record straight.


Is that what you call it!? And now you're going to present some dubious "evidence" to prove that your man Trump has been right about the election being rigged all along.......

If, when the time comes that he loses the election, and refuses to accept the result, what will you do then?


----------



## Mike Petrik

bernoulli said:


> 1. Please reread the thread as some of my rejoinders were based on vpkzovel posting of a ridiculous website.
> 2. I know. I never implied that you did. If you think I did, it is withdrawn. No malice intended, I assure you.
> 3. Agreed. I only made statements of fact regarding the latter, never the former, and it was the basis of all discussion before your sensible comments.
> 4. noted.
> 5. I have absolutely no problem with that statement.
> 6. I strongly disagree. He made many factual statements regarding objective standards of living (arguments about unemployment, inflation, costs of living etc) that were absolutely wrong. He asked for proof that inflation and unemployment are lower today. Then claimed that methodologies were different. And could not comprehend the meaning of real GDP. Most of the discussion centered on basic facts on economic data.
> 
> You present a much more coherent argument regarding intergenerational comparison of standards of living. That was not the discussion we were having, though. I humbly refer to previous posts but if you want I can make a collection of many quotes that defy basic economic concepts.


Fair enough, bernoulli, and thank you. I perhaps have interpreted vpkozel's claims too charitably. You will recall that in post 2111 I disagreed with his claim re a declining standard of living (instead agreeing with you), but pointed out that perhaps he is really talking about a declining quality of life, which would be more defensible. He then politely agreed with my clarification. To the extent he still believes that the current US standard of living is inferior to that of the 1950s then I obviously would still disagree -- and agree with you. My speculation, however, is that he strongly believes that the quality of life is in general decline and has innocently confused that putative decline (which is plausible) with a putative decline in standard of living (which is not plausible), and he has glommed onto some shaky evidence re the latter to support his innocently confused claim. Just my guess though.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Really? Are you sure?
> 
> Is that what you call it!? And now you're going to present some dubious "evidence" to prove that your man Trump has been right about the election being rigged all along.......
> 
> If, when the time comes that he loses the election, and refuses to accept the result, what will you do then?


Yes chouan someone has to set the record straight when you try and spread lies.

Thank you for not adding anything of value to this discussion, I have come to expect nothing more from you. I suppose you didn't read any of the articles or watch the video making you ignorant to the issue, but I see that doesn't stop you from injecting yourself into it anyways.

If the day comes that trump loses and he has concrete evidence that says there are people that voted multiple times for one candidate I would fully expect him to take legal action, and then I would go on with my day. There's not much else the government can screw up that they haven't already.


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair enough, bernoulli, and thank you. I perhaps have interpreted vpkozel's claims too charitably. You will recall that in post 2111 I disagreed with his claim re a declining standard of living (instead agreeing with you), but pointed out that perhaps he is really talking about a declining quality of life, which would be more defensible. He then politely agreed with my clarification. To the extent he still believes that the current US standard of living is inferior to that of the 1950s then I obviously would still disagree -- and agree with you. My speculation, however, is that he strongly believes that the quality of life is in general decline and has innocently confused that putative decline (which is plausible) with a putative decline in standard of living (which is not plausible), and he has glommed onto some shaky evidence re the latter to support his innocently confused claim. Just my guess though.


I was not using that site to make any claim other than to point out that making a claim that things are better now because the GDP per capita has grown is far too simplistic. GDP per capita is a useful measure for productivity but it certainly has it limits.

The very real fact that this my generation may be the first In US history not to pass along a better world to its children is quite troubling.

That site was sinply the first in a google search and I didn't spend a lot of time going through it, which I obviously regret. But again, I am not saying that guy is right specifically, rather using him to illustrate the concept.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> I was not using that site to make any claim other than to point out that making a claim that things are better now because the GDP per capita has grown is far too simplistic. GDP per capita is a useful measure for productivity but it certainly has it limits.
> 
> The very real fact that this my generation may be the first In US history not to pass along a better world to its children is quite troubling.
> 
> That site was sinply the first in a google search and I didn't spend a lot of time going through it, which I obviously regret. But again, I am not saying that guy is right specifically, rather using him to illustrate the concept.


I agree that GDP growth and standard of living are not the only ways to measure quality of life. In particular the rates of divorce and illegitimate births are much higher and are associated with many social pathologies. I think where things went sideways is when you incorrectly suggested that material welfare is in decline or is somehow inferior to the 1950s. That is demonstrably false. I think the more plausible claim is that notwithstanding gains in material welfare, Americans are generally less happy due to social changes that are not necessarily related to the economic well-being as such.


----------



## vpkozel

Of course, the counter to any of that line of thinking is that we are doing way better than before, so we should continue merrily along with our current economic policies of low taxes, no universal healthcare, complex tax laws, high military spending, etc. 

My guess is that the left leaning among us may have a bit of an issue with that though


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that GDP growth and standard of living are not the only ways to measure quality of life. In particular the rates of divorce and illegitimate births are much higher and are associated with many social pathologies. I think where things went sideways is when you incorrectly suggested that material welfare is in decline or is somehow inferior to the 1950s. That is demonstrably false. I think the more plausible claim is that notwithstanding gains in material welfare, Americans are generally less happy due to social changes that are not necessarily related to the economic well-being as such.


I have never been trying to suggest that we don't have more or that we are not more effecient. But does that equate to "better off" overall?


----------



## Dmontez

Dmontez said:


> I've said it before that I am not here to defend or apologize for anything Donald Trump, does or says. When I comment here its usually just to set the record straight. We have a lot of people here, mainly from outside of the US saying that this is obviously not a rigged election.
> 
> I must say that it is pretty clearly rigged to favor the democratic candidate regardless of who that is.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/4985...emocrats-describing-how-to-commit-voter-fraud
> NPR adresses a video done by project veritas in which people that work for firm hired by democrats plotting voter fraud, by insinuating that the video was selectively edited to make it seem like they were plotting illegal activites, and the history of the people recording, rather than calling out the dems for conspiring to commit voter fraud.
> 
> Donna Brazille CNN commentator sent an e-mail to the clinton campaign titled "from time to time I get the questions ahead of time" in the e-mail was a question that would be asked verbatim at a cnn townhall debate during the primaries, and it just so happens that Donna Brazille is now the interim DNC Chair. You literally cannot find this on any main stream news outlet.
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...orehand_brazile_i_will_not_be_persecuted.html
> 
> ABC, NBC and CBS dedicated more airtime to trumps pussy grabbing statement than the potentially seriously damaging wikileaks by a ratio of 7to1
> https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...mp-sex-scandals-vs-hillary-wikileaks-coverage
> 
> Here is CNN saying don't look at the wikileaks stuff because its illegal for you to handle it, but it's different for a reporter, so everything you need to learn we will tell you.


Now you have Zulema Rodriguez from the project veritas video bragging about being one of the people that shut down the trump rally in Chicago, being on the HRC payroll about a week before the trump rally was supposed to happen.

https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursem...IGUEZ&min_date=01/01/2015&max_date=12/31/2016

but no one is trying to steal the election...


----------



## drlivingston

This is precisely what happens when you have career politicians. Those elected should go to Washington, serve a set amount of time, and get their asses back to their respective states.


----------



## SG_67

drlivingston said:


> This is precisely what happens when you have career politicians. Those elected should go to Washington, serve a set amount of time, and get their asses back to their respective states.


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> Really? Are you sure?


I literally burst out laughing when I read that.



Dmontez said:


> I've said it before that *I am not here to defend or apologize for anything Donald Trump, does or says.* When I comment here its usually just to set the record straight. We have a lot of people here, mainly from outside of the US saying that this is obviously not a rigged election.


Yet you seem to exclusively and relentlessly seek to "set the record straight" on each and every criticism directed at Donald Trump.


----------



## RogerP

phyrpowr said:


> No, it will still have been rigged, but he was so wonderful that he overcame it. I had a friend like that once, we all did, but by the 5th grade I quit hanging out with him. You always have to remember that he's a rich, well-connected man's son, who started out as "the boss", and quite possibly _does not understand_ why everyone isn't kowtowing


Indeed.


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> I literally burst out laughing when I read that.
> 
> Yet you seem to exclusively and relentlessly seek to "set the record straight" on each and every criticism directed at Donald Trump.


Well Roger, this is the Donald Trump and the Republicans thread... so it makes sense that I am setting the record straight when you lie and misrepresent facts about Donald Trump and other republicans. I haven't seen any lies spread about democrats here...

Yet again I must point out that you have completely skipped the purpose of the post you are referring to, and decided to attack me instead, still this is not a surprise it what you do when you cannot dispute the facts I brought to the table.


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> Well Roger, this is the Donald Trump and the Republicans thread... so it makes sense that I am setting the record straight when you lie and misrepresent facts about Donald Trump and other republicans. I haven't seen any lies spread about democrats here...
> 
> Yet again I must point out that you have completely skipped the purpose of the post you are referring to, and decided to attack me instead, still this is not a surprise it what you do when you cannot dispute the facts I brought to the table.


I have neither lied about anything nor attacked you in any way. I've just pointed out that your claim that you aren't a Trump defender is as untenable as mine would be to claim that I am not a Trump critic.

I'm curious, does your sense of irony even get the slightest twitch when in the same breath you complain about me attacking you while calling me a liar? :biggrin:

I\m not going to sink to your level of personal attacks - sorry to disappoint. Like the First Lady said, "When they go low, we go high."


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> I have neither lied about anything nor attacked you in any way. I've just pointed out that your claim that you aren't a Trump defender is as untenable as mine would be to claim that I am not a Trump critic.
> 
> I'm curious, does your sense of irony even get the slightest twitch when in the same breath you complain about me attacking you while calling me a liar? :biggrin:
> 
> I\m not going to sink to your level of personal attacks - sorry to disappoint. Like the First Lady said, "When they go low, we go high."


You can look through the last few pages to follow your lies, and your piggy backing on misrepresented facts.

I see no irony in calling out someone for lying when they have done so blatantly.

Frankly I am stunned that taking the high ground allows you you call a presidential candidate a racist misogynist and whatever other deplorable "ist" words you can think of, and then include the entire conservative crowd. All of this without even offering up a shred of evidence.


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> You can look through the last few pages to follow your lies, and your piggy backing on misrepresented facts.
> 
> I see no irony in calling out someone for lying when they have done so blatantly.
> 
> Frankly I am stunned that taking the high ground allows you you call a presidential candidate a racist misogynist and whatever other deplorable "ist" words you can think of, and then include the entire conservative crowd. All of this without even offering up a shred of evidence.


You wish to make this thread about me - which is odd.

You seem to think I will actively assist you in that endeavor - which is almost as laughable as your claim that you are not a Trump defender.

This thread isn't about me - but feel free to engage in as many personal attacks as you need to in order to feel better about yourself.

This thread is about Trump - who is quite obviously a racist, a misogynist, and a compulsive liar. If you think that there exists "not a shred of evidence" in support of those assertions, then your grip on reality has slipped away quite completely.


----------



## RogerP

Here's an interesting video of Trump lying his way through the debate.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...deo/playlists/third-presidential-debate-2016/


----------



## bernoulli

Your points are sensible and outside of trying to define a social welfare function in which we classify changing social norms as good or bad there is no way to establish a structural happiness index that would indicate how society's happiness evolved. There are researchers trying to measure it today, but there is no past data. Moreover, social norms evolve through conflict between different strata in society. This evolution always leave many people feeling like losers in social change processes. I wouldn't say all Americans are less happy, but certainly a large swath of the population will necessarily feel less happy with changing social mores. Unavoidable. Resistance may lead to reversal to earlier social norms (see the dismantling of Roe vs Wade by many states as a successful political representation of the strengthening of past social norms), and it is all part of the political game. I have absolutely no issue with somebody saying that they were happier with a return to the past to benefit THEIR group. But the idea that such a look for past "glory" (make America great again!) is something good for the average american needs to be substantiated. I don't feel that it can be true, as the past alienated over 50% of the population (most women and all minorities), but once we are on moral grounds there is much less objectivity.



Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that GDP growth and standard of living are not the only ways to measure quality of life. In particular the rates of divorce and illegitimate births are much higher and are associated with many social pathologies. I think where things went sideways is when you incorrectly suggested that material welfare is in decline or is somehow inferior to the 1950s. That is demonstrably false. I think the more plausible claim is that notwithstanding gains in material welfare, Americans are generally less happy due to social changes that are not necessarily related to the economic well-being as such.


----------



## Chouan

RogerP said:


> You wish to make this thread about me - which is odd.
> 
> You seem to think I will actively assist you in that endeavor - which is almost as laughable as your claim that you are not a Trump defender.
> 
> This thread isn't about me - but feel free to engage in as many personal attacks as you need to in order to feel better about yourself.
> 
> This thread is about Trump - who is quite obviously a racist, a misogynist, and a compulsive liar. If you think that there exists "not a shred of evidence" in support of those assertions, then your grip on reality has slipped away quite completely.


Indeed. Not a shred of evidence about how you, or anybody else have lied, just a plethora of accusations of lying, and apologist responses and justifications, and, of course, avoidance of anything that can't be explained away. Quite predictable really, and both amusing and depressing at the same time.


----------



## culverwood

Dmontez said:


> I've said it before that I am not here to defend or apologise for anything Donald Trump, does or says. When I comment here its usually just to set the record straight. We have a lot of people here, mainly from outside of the US saying that this is obviously not a rigged election.
> 
> I must say that it is pretty clearly rigged to favor the democratic candidate regardless of who that is.


Trump has many similar supporters who are at the wrong end of election results on this side of the Atlantic. There are many on the Remain side of the Brexit referendum and And on the Yes side of the Scottish Independence referendum who do not accept the result. The want to keep on having referendums until they produce the result they want.

The French, Dutch and to some extent the Irish (the vote never happened as the knew it would produce the "wrong" result) were on the end of such a situation a few years ago (2005) when they voted against a revision to the EU constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_European_Constitution_referendum


----------



## Langham

culverwood said:


> Trump has many similar supporters who are at the wrong end of election results on this side of the Atlantic. There are many on the Remain side of the Brexit referendum and And on the Yes side of the Scottish Independence referendum who do not accept the result. The want to keep on having referendums until they produce the result they want.
> 
> The French, Dutch and to some extent the Irish (the vote never happened as the knew it would produce the "wrong" result) were on the end of such a situation a few years ago (2005) when they voted against a revision to the EU constitution.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_European_Constitution_referendum


Apparently the Brexit vote was not a referendum, but rather a type of opinion poll, an insignificant snapshot in time.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Apparently the Brexit vote was not a referendum, but rather a type of opinion poll, an insignificant snapshot in time.


Indeed. It has no actual legal standing. It is for Parliament to follow if they choose to. Dictatorships tend to use referendums to consolidate their authority. We, however, have a representative parliamentary democracy, or a temporary dictatorship that is elected every few years......


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed. It has no actual legal standing. It is for Parliament to follow if they choose to. Dictatorships tend to use referendums to consolidate their authority. We, however, have a representative parliamentary democracy, or a temporary dictatorship that is elected every few years......


Merely the freely expressed and democratic wish of the British people. Parliament, however, would not be playing a straight bat if the vote were to be ignored.

That various Euro leaders apparently hope the vote can be reversed lays bare their flimsy attachment to, if not outright contempt for, democratic principles.


----------



## culverwood

Its funny how people can castigate a man for refusing to accept the result of a vote and then defend their own behaviour when doing exactly the same thing.


----------



## RogerP

In the Trump bubble, his awesomeness is so awesome that if he doesn't win the election by the bigliest margin in history then the only possible explanation is that the election is fixed. Because it couldn't possibly be his failure as a candidate - that doesn't even make sense given his awesome awesomeness.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Merely the freely expressed and democratic wish of the British people. Parliament, however, would not be playing a straight bat if the vote were to be ignored.
> 
> That various Euro leaders apparently hope the vote can be reversed lays bare *their flimsy attachment to, if not outright contempt for, democratic principles*.


Indeed? Any evidence for this contempt for democratic principles?


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> You wish to make this thread about me - which is odd.
> 
> You seem to think I will actively assist you in that endeavor - which is almost as laughable as your claim that you are not a Trump defender.
> 
> This thread isn't about me - but feel free to engage in as many personal attacks as you need to in order to feel better about yourself.
> 
> This thread is about Trump - who is quite obviously a racist, a misogynist, and a compulsive liar. If you think that there exists "not a shred of evidence" in support of those assertions, then your grip on reality has slipped away quite completely.


What's funny to me is that I do not accept your opinion as fact, and when I call you on that as I have done to Bernoulli, and chouan, the former being the only one that has accepted and corrected them self, you accuse me of making this thread all about you.

If there is evidence of trump being a racist misogynist, I have not seen it, and I think
I have asked you about 4 or 5 times now to cite your source, you refuse to do so.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed? Any evidence for this contempt for democratic principles?


I'm surprised you even ask. You could try googling 'EU contempt for democracy', or better still, 'Brexit sore losers'. However, here is a very brief random sample, even including some from what I imagine to be Chouan-friendly sources, lest you suspect my choice of media of being somewhat narrowly focused.

https://leftfootforward.org/2015/06...oses-european-leaders-contempt-for-democracy/
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-browne2/eu-referendum-vote-leave_b_10569358.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...emocratic-deficit-grows-wider-by-the-day.html


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I'm surprised you even ask. You could try googling 'EU contempt for democracy', or better still, 'Brexit sore losers'. However, here is a very brief random sample, even including some from what I imagine to be Chouan-friendly sources, lest you suspect my choice of media of being somewhat narrowly focused.
> 
> https://leftfootforward.org/2015/06...oses-european-leaders-contempt-for-democracy/
> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-browne2/eu-referendum-vote-leave_b_10569358.html
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...emocratic-deficit-grows-wider-by-the-day.html


Yet all of these countries operate on a representative democratic principle. All have elected governments in free fair and open elections. How is that showing contempt for democracy? Rule by opinion pole, pressure group, focus group and referendum is not democracy. One might disagree with a policy that a democratically elected government is implementing, like the proposed introduction of grammar schools in the UK, but the government isn't showing contempt for democracy by disregarding the opposition; they have a mandate to act in what they consider to be our interests, whether or not we agree. We can, of course, demonstrate our opposition to government policies, and a government would be wise to take opposition into account, but ignoring the opposition isn't contempt of democracy.
I agree that rule by committees of bankers isn't democracy, but in the case of Greece, the democratic principle was upheld when the Greek people were asked to vote directly on the matter, and the EU, Germany in particular, had to accept the Greek response.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> Indeed. Not a shred of evidence about how *you*, or anybody else have lied, just a plethora of accusations of lying, and apologist responses and justifications, and, of course, avoidance of anything that can't be explained away. Quite predictable really, and both amusing and depressing at the same time.


I agree I have yet to see any evidence given to from someone saying that I am lying, however I have given plenty of evidence on the lies and misrepresentations that I have seen.

It really is sad that you refuse to enter into a meaningful discussion about the evidence I have provided, instead you ignore, and then say I never gave any.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> If there is evidence of trump being a racist misogynist, I have not seen it, and I think
> I have asked you about 4 or 5 times now to cite your source, you refuse to do so.


Read the thread, there are plenty of examples, only you refuse to read them. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## culverwood

In his speech on the “State of the European Union”, Mr Juncker said: 

“In former times, all those involved in the project were full-time Europeans. Now we have too many part-time Europeans.

That is a problem because some of our colleagues in the European Council are listening to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion, you are not developing what should be common European sense: a feeling for the need we have to put together our efforts.

“We are observing an increasing gap between public opinions and the European policy-makers.” 

At other times

On EU monetary policy
"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates"

On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”

On French referendum over EU constitution
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”

On the introduction of the euro
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."



If that is not a contempt for democracy I do not know what is.


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> In the Trump bubble, his awesomeness is so awesome that if he doesn't win the election by the bigliest margin in history then the only possible explanation is that the election is fixed. Because it couldn't possibly be his failure as a candidate - that doesn't even make sense given his awesome awesomeness.


I've provided facts to back up that there are some people trying to skirt laws in order to get the democratic candidate elected. Even media is no longer hiding their bias, and you not being able to accept that show just how biased you really are.

again I have provided facts, and cited sources, you chose to ignore them and continue your narrative, even though your narrative has been debunked.


----------



## bernoulli

When have we ever sparred? I don't recall and would certainly try to avoid trading arguments with you as I feel you have your narrative built up and no facts will be able to change that.



Dmontez said:


> What's funny to me is that I do not accept your opinion as fact, and when I call you on that as I have done to Bernoulli, and chouan, the former being the only one that has accepted and corrected them self, you accuse me of making this thread all about you.
> 
> If there is evidence of trump being a racist misogynist, I have not seen it, and I think
> I have asked you about 4 or 5 times now to cite your source, you refuse to do so.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Yet all of these countries operate on a representative democratic principle. All have elected governments in free fair and open elections. How is that showing contempt for democracy? Rule by opinion pole, pressure group, focus group and referendum is not democracy. One might disagree with a policy that a democratically elected government is implementing, like the proposed introduction of grammar schools in the UK, but the government isn't showing contempt for democracy by disregarding the opposition; they have a mandate to act in what they consider to be our interests, whether or not we agree. We can, of course, demonstrate our opposition to government policies, and a government would be wise to take opposition into account, but ignoring the opposition isn't contempt of democracy.
> I agree that rule by committees of bankers isn't democracy, but in the case of Greece, the democratic principle was upheld when the Greek people were asked to vote directly on the matter, and the EU, Germany in particular, had to accept the Greek response.


I was referring to politicians, ministers and bureaucrats within the EU institutions (such as Mr Juncker), rather than individual states of the EU - though it has to be said, in a few of those, democracy is a relatively recent concept.

Secrecy and lack of accountability in the EU naturally go hand in glove with suspicions of corruption. Statements such as those of Mr Juncker, highlighted for you by Mr Culverwood, reveal what dark machinations are afoot in Brussels.

Those at the top of the EU are, of course, infuriated that one of their most productive milch cows is trying to make its way from the farm. How will they square their crooked books then? Actually they probably won't care one way or the other because they're never audited anyway.


----------



## Dmontez

bernoulli said:


> So you truly think it is ok for a guy to grab a women's butt without her consent? In 2016? Man, I knew America's right was screwed up but this....





Dmontez said:


> And there goes another lefty misrepresenting something to fit their narrative.
> 
> I think what SG is trying to say is that something that a guy that may have mistaken a sign from a woman he's dancing with to go a little further if he's wrong is now sexual assault.
> 
> The way you misrepresent this as a guy walking up behind a lady he's never met before and grabbing her butt is very obviously wrong, and should have consequences.





bernoulli said:


> *Maybe I read too much into SG's comment. *Yours do not make it any better, though. If you misread a signal and grabs a woman's butt without her consent it is, and it should be, sexual assault. This is not a minor thing that you can wave away with a: oh, he was an innocent poor sap. I want to live in a society in which people should not be afraid of unwanted sexual advances. As it is, a lot of women don't have that choice. I have many friends who cannot simply enjoy themselves freely. to the point that some friends of mine go to gay bars to dance among gay men, just so they are not afraid of something exactly as you described. A short skirt or cleavage is not consent, neither is flirting. This should be basic common sense. That it is not worries me greatly.





bernoulli said:


> When have we ever sparred? I don't recall and would certainly try to avoid trading arguments with you as I feel you have your narrative built up and no facts will be able to change that.


and with the highlighted part I left it alone. You did read too much into SGs comments and that was all that I wished to get straight.

yes the truth is a tough narrative to dispute, thats why you see chouan and roger going after me instead of the substance of my posts.


----------



## bernoulli

Before reading your message above I did not even remember replying to you. How is that going after you? I have no interest in debating with you and never engaged your arguments. I tend to leave people like you, those who claim to know the truth! The truth!, alone. If in a subjective discussion with varying degrees of relations with reality one claims to know the truth, that is my queue to quietly exit the conversation.



Dmontez said:


> and with the highlighted part I left it alone. You did read too much into SGs comments and that was all that I wished to get straight.
> 
> yes the truth is a tough narrative to dispute, thats why you see chouan and roger going after me instead of the substance of my posts.


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> Read the thread, there are plenty of examples, only you refuse to read them. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


So true. Anyone who claims they have seen no evidence of Trump racism must have their head.... Well, let's just say some place that does not afford an expansive view of the world around them. They cannot see and they will not see.


----------



## RogerP

bernoulli said:


> When have we ever sparred? I don't recall and would certainly try to avoid trading arguments with you as I feel you have your narrative built up and no facts will be able to change that.


Also entirely spot on. There's not really any point in engaging with someone who has locked themselves within the confines of a fictional narrative and has thrown away the key.


----------



## bernoulli

You sir are a braver man than I.



RogerP said:


> Also entirely spot on. There's not really any point in engaging with someone who has locked themselves within the confines of a fictional narrative and has thrown away the key.


----------



## Dmontez

bernoulli said:


> Before reading your message above I did not even remember replying to you. *How is that going after you?* I have no interest in debating with you and never engaged your arguments. I tend to leave people like you, those who claim to know the truth! The truth!, alone. If in a subjective discussion with varying degrees of relations with reality one claims to know the truth, that is my queue to quietly exit the conversation.


never said you did. When I referred to you I was responding to rogers notion that I wish to make this thread entirely about him, I then called him on that.


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> So true. Anyone who claims they have seen no evidence of Trump racism must have their head.... Well, let's just say some place that does not afford an expansive view of the world around them. They cannot see and they will not see.


unfortunately you continue to live up to my expectations, of not answering questions and instead leveling insults.


----------



## 16412

culverwood said:


> In his speech on the "State of the European Union", Mr Juncker said:
> 
> "In former times, all those involved in the project were full-time Europeans. Now we have too many part-time Europeans.
> 
> That is a problem because some of our colleagues in the European Council are listening to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion, you are not developing what should be common European sense: a feeling for the need we have to put together our efforts.
> 
> "We are observing an increasing gap between public opinions and the European policy-makers."
> 
> At other times
> 
> On EU monetary policy
> "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates"
> 
> On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty
> "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,"
> 
> On French referendum over EU constitution
> "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue',"
> 
> On the introduction of the euro
> "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
> 
> If that is not a contempt for democracy I do not know what is.


The Brits did the right thing. Get out!

It looks more and more like EU has been taken over by a few greedy people who intend to tread upon everybody else. That above looks like proof.


----------



## Haffman

Langham said:


> I was referring to politicians, ministers and bureaucrats within the EU institutions (such as Mr Juncker), rather than individual states of the EU - though it has to be said, in a few of those, democracy is a relatively recent concept.
> 
> Secrecy and lack of accountability in the EU naturally go hand in glove with suspicions of corruption. Statements such as those of Mr Juncker, highlighted for you by Mr Culverwood, reveal what dark machinations are afoot in Brussels.
> 
> Those at the top of the EU are, of course, infuriated that one of their most productive milch cows is trying to make its way from the farm. How will they square their crooked books then? Actually they probably won't care one way or the other because they're never audited anyway.


Well said. The EU is a "fanatical" organisation.

They are willing to allow generations of southern Europeans to face a lifetime of impoverishment. Why? Because of an unreflective and orthodox interpretation of how the discredited Eurozone should operate. They were also willing to lose the UK as a member state because of unquestioning adherence to the principle of "freedom of movement of persons" (as opposed to "labour"), for no better reason than it had become one of their totems and thus unable to be challenged. The savagery of unfettered bureaucracy - we are better off out... IF we can escape.


----------



## bernoulli

I missed this. I do not obfuscate. I just assumed that survey methodology was a clear description to most people. A survey is, like the name implies, 'to ask (many people) a question or a series of questions in order to gather information about what most people do or think about something'. A simple FAQ from the BLS is here: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

It comes from primary data (asking a sample of American households) and not from secondary data (number of hires and lay-offs). There are many reasons from that, and in this particular case primary data is more reliable than secondary.

I have no problem educating people (it is my day job after all), but my students are usually more polite and try harder. A simple google of survey methodology, if you are not familiar with the concept, would have yielded the same explanation.

I tried to give the simplest and most concise explanation possible instead of writing long posts like this to answer a simple undisputed methodological issue. Sorry for the confusion.



WA said:


> Is it a count of how many show up to collect unemployment pay?
> 
> Is it how many people companies hire and lay off?
> 
> If you know, why don't you give a simple explaintion?


----------



## RogerP

An interesting article discussing the relationship between white nationalism and the Republican party.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy

In my view, the greatest harm already inflicted by the Trump candidacy is the normalization of naked bigotry. It explains why, on a forum like this, we see indignant expressions of outrage over the 'hijacking of politics for minority issues' and wistful longings for 'the good old days of white Rhodesia when you could advertise "no blacks" ' - comments which are permitted, encouraged and pass very nearly unopposed.

Should Trump succeed, the train wreck will be complete at a national level.


----------



## bernoulli

this.



RogerP said:


> we see indignant expressions of outrage over the 'hijacking of politics for minority issues' and wistful longings for 'the good old days of white Rhodesia when you could advertise "no blacks" ' - comments which are permitted, encouraged and pass very nearly unopposed.


----------



## Chouan

RogerP said:


> An interesting article discussing the relationship between white nationalism and the Republican party.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy
> 
> In my view, the greatest harm already inflicted by the Trump candidacy is the normalization of naked bigotry. It explains why, on a forum like this, we see indignant expressions of outrage over the 'hijacking of politics for minority issues' and wistful longings for 'the good old days of white Rhodesia when you could advertise "no blacks" ' - comments which are permitted, encouraged and pass very nearly unopposed.
> 
> Should Trump succeed, the train wreck will be complete at a national level.


Even worse actually. The original post referred to the good old days of White Rhodesia _*and*_ when you could advertise "no blacks" in the UK.


----------



## FLMike

RogerP said:


> - comments which are permitted, encouraged and pass very nearly unopposed.


So, "Banned" = permitted, encouraged, and unopposed? Huh.

And, do you have some special way of seeing how many of us did or didn't report his offensive comments to the mods?


----------



## SG_67

I'm truly enjoying this Trump bashing echo chamber that this is turning into. 

The dialogue is reminiscent of an Alphonse & Gaston cartoon.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> It explains why, on a forum like this, we see indignant expressions of outrage over the 'hijacking of politics for minority issues' and wistful longings for 'the good old days of white Rhodesia when you could advertise "no blacks" ' - comments which are permitted, encouraged and pass very nearly unopposed.


Give 'em enough rope.....


----------



## Chouan

FLMike said:


> So, "Banned" = permitted, encouraged, and unopposed? Huh.
> 
> And, do you have some special way of seeing how many of us did or didn't report his offensive comments to the mods?


It really doesn't matter how many, the posts were allowed.


----------



## Odradek

WA said:


> The Brits did the right thing. Get out!
> 
> It looks more and more like EU has been taken over by a few greedy people who intend to tread upon everybody else. That above looks like proof.


It hasn't been "taken over".
The EU has always been rotten to the core.



> "The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe."


- Mikhail Gorbachev


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> Indeed? Any evidence for this contempt for democratic principles?


Any so-called news programme on the so-called BBC.
Any article about "Brexit" in the Guardian, the Telegraph or The Times.
The contempt with which the Quislington elites hold the common people is abhorrent.


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> Indeed. It has no actual legal standing. It is for Parliament to follow if they choose to. Dictatorships tend to use referendums to consolidate their authority. We, however, have a representative parliamentary democracy, or a temporary dictatorship that is elected every few years......





> "David Cameron has told MPs they must abide by the outcome of the referendum decision, amid the suggestion that some could try to prevent Britain leaving the single market.
> The Prime Minister insisted the question of the UK's membership of the European Union was the "British people's decision" that Parliament should treat as an "instruction to deliver".
> It comes after speculation that pro-EU MPs, who enjoy a significant majority in the Commons, could attempt to block Britain's withdrawal from the single market in case of a Brexit vote."
> "I think my Right Honourable Friend is absolutely right, every vote counts the same. We have asked the British people for their opinion and we should treat their decision as an instruction to deliver," he said


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36615028


> *"The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their
> will must be respected," said Mr Cameron. "The will of the British
> people is an instruction that must be delivered."*


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> It really doesn't matter how many, the posts were allowed.


In fairness, I have to acknowledge that appropriate action was ultimately taken. While I more than understand that a broad range of differing views must be permitted in a political discussion, I am heartened that such hateful comments are not welcomed by those who hold a gatekeeper function. A tip of the hat to those gentlemen.

That said, the silence from certain thread participants, who are otherwise not the least bit reticent to voice repeated and strenuous objection to comparatively innocuous comments in this thread, was deafening.


----------



## 16412

RogerP said:


> In fairness, I have to acknowledge that appropriate action was ultimately taken. While I more than understand that a broad range of differing views must be permitted in a political discussion, I am heartened that such hateful comments are not welcomed by those who hold a gatekeeper function. A tip of the hat to those gentlemen.
> 
> That said, the silence from certain thread participants, who are otherwise not the least bit reticent to voice repeated and strenuous objection to comparatively innocuous comments in this thread, was deafening.


Some people think subtle can be just as destructive.


----------



## culverwood

Odradek said:


> The contempt with which the Quislington elites hold the common people is abhorrent.


Quislington - what a beautiful word. My bet for the OED word of the year.


----------



## Chouan

Oh dear......
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ion-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/
No doubt we'll soon see justifications for this!


----------



## culverwood

Oh dear...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone
Any justification?


----------



## Chouan

culverwood said:


> Oh dear...
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone
> Any justification?


For an idiot idea by a red Tory? Or are you asking for a justification for the fine?


----------



## culverwood

I just thought the timing was choice given your previous comment. 

Most electoral overspend in the UK seem to be incompetence rather than deliberate but I may be a little naive.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> For an idiot idea by a red Tory?


Your definition of Tory, even 'red' Tory, must be a highly elastic one to encompass Ed Miliband.


----------



## Chouan

culverwood said:


> I just thought the timing was choice given your previous comment.
> 
> Most electoral overspend in the UK seem to be incompetence rather than deliberate but I may be a little naive.


The timing was apposite, but on the other hand, I'm not aware of any British political party seeking funding from overseas with a promise of influence in return.


----------



## culverwood

Oh I thought the Conservatives had a little history in that area and the Labour party must remember Bernie Ecclestone although I can't remember if he lived in Monaco at the time.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...ing-scandals-led-to-foreign-donation-law.html


----------



## Chouan

I know that both parties have accepted money from overseas residents, but, as far as I am aware, soliciting money from foreign nationals in return for a promise of influence is illegal in the UK as well as in the US. 
Anyway, these stories must be true as they're published in the Torygraph!


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Your definition of Tory, even 'red' Tory, must be a highly elastic one to encompass Ed Miliband.


If one looks at his policies, and the policies of Labour under his leadership, how can one imagine him to be anything *other* than a Tory?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> If one looks at his policies, and the policies of Labour under his leadership, how can one imagine him to be anything *other* than a Tory?


What, hopelessly muddled and confused? What are you suggesting here?


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> I know that both parties have accepted money from overseas residents, but, as far as I am aware, soliciting money from foreign nationals in return for a promise of influence is illegal in the UK as well as in the US.
> Anyway, these stories must be true as they're published in the Torygraph!


well your not american, so I don't blame you for your ignorance on the details of campaigns, and super pacs, I mean it's not like your teaching an entire generation about it... oh wait....

"Citizens United paved the way for independent groups that could raise unlimited amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to spend on elections, as long as they did not coordinate with individual candidates or parties. Republican donors moved quickly to seize on the ruling, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the last three national elections, while Democrats struggled to persuade their donors to invest in "super PACs" at the same scale."

Unless Donald Trump himself or someone from his campaign brokered that deal there is no wrong doing. Just another reason to keep foreign money out of US politics..

the NY times has an article about how foreign money has been raised 2 to 1 to HRC over Donald Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/us/politics/clinton-trump-gop-money.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FCampaign%20Finance&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

quite frankly the guys soliciting on behalf of a super PAC are not much better than used car salesmen whom promise the world in order to get you to sign your paperwork.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> well your not american, so I don't blame you for your ignorance on the details of campaigns, and super pacs, I mean it's not like your teaching an entire generation about it... oh wait....


I have a very good idea of what PACS and super PACS are, thank you. They are topics that feature in the exams at times.




Dmontez said:


> Unless Donald Trump himself or someone from his campaign brokered that deal there is no wrong doing. Just another reason to keep foreign money out of US politics..


But surely, if you read the article, you would realise that that is exactly what his campaign team are being accused of.




Dmontez said:


> *quite frankly the guys soliciting on behalf of a super PAC are not much better than used car salesmen whom promise the world in order to get you to sign your paperwork*.


Well, that's alright then........


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> I have a very good idea of what PACS and super PACS are, thank you. They are topics that feature in the exams at times.




quite obviously, you do not.




Chouan said:


> But surely, if you read the article, you would realise that that is exactly what his campaign team are being accused of.




I read every word of the article, and that is not mentioned anywhere in it, please in case I missed it quote it for me. 



Chouan said:


> Well, that's alright then........


no, it's not. This is why I added that it's just another reason to keep foreign money out of US politics.


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> quite obviously, you do not.




That's quite an assertion to make without any evidence whatsoever, however, it is something I've grown accustomed to from you.




Dmontez said:


> I read every word of the article, and that is not mentioned anywhere in it, please in case I missed it quote it for me.


Really? You read the whole article and couldn't find anything that suggested that what was happening was illegal? Really?
How about the second paragraph? 
*"Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.**In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain "influence" if Mr Trump made it to the White House."

*Or even "*Under US law it is illegal for a foreign national to make any contribution in connection with an election."*
Has the Torygraph got this wrong?


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> That's quite an assertion to make without any evidence whatsoever, however, it is something I've grown accustomed to from you.




and yet you continue to show that my original assertion is still true.





Chouan said:


> Really? You read the whole article and couldn't find anything that suggested that what was happening was illegal? Really?
> How about the second paragraph?
> *"Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.**In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain "influence" if Mr Trump made it to the White House."
> 
> *Or even "*Under US law it is illegal for a foreign national to make any contribution in connection with an election."*
> Has the Torygraph got this wrong?


This still DOES NOT show any wrong doing from Donald Trump or his campaign. Do you understand, that the super PAC is a separate entity entirely from Donald Trump, and his campaign?

there is literally nothing in the article that links Donald Trump or his campaign, to the fictitious donor aside from the accused person saying "after the campaign, we could have someone whisper in his ear that you need a line of communication"


----------



## SG_67

An odd line of reasoning. I don't remember anyone from Qatar lining up to give me a $1 million on my last birthday either. 

Nor can I remember the last time the King of Morrocco gave me $12 million to meet with him.


----------



## 16412

Maybe Hillary will go down after all.
What a weird election. 
Maybe God is punishing America?
If I were rich I'd move to the South Sea Island to get away from the next four dreaded years.


----------



## eagle2250

I cannot remember ever feeling such a sense of dread as we approached an election. I have never come close to considering just not voting, since becoming of age to do so, but such thoughts are running through my mind with increasing frequency as election day approaches!


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> I cannot remember ever feeling such a sense of dread as we approached an election. I have never come close to considering just not voting, since becoming of age to do so, but such thoughts are running through my mind with increasing frequency as election day approaches!


Just vote down ticket or third party, eagle. It is not a sin to conclude that neither candidate is fit for office. I do share your discouragement, though. Given the two candidates and their supporters, I increasingly feel estranged from my country.


----------



## CSG

Trump is an easy and clear choice for me. The rest of you can fret and wring your hands.


----------



## Chouan

CSG said:


> Trump is an easy and clear choice for me. The rest of you can fret and wring your hands.


How interesting. And such an interesting way of expressing your support. It speaks volumes about you.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> How interesting. And such an interesting way of expressing your support. It speaks volumes about you.


How interesting. And such an interesting way of expressing your interest. It truly speaks volumes about you....in an interesting way of course.


----------



## RogerP

Trump supporter charged with voter fraud. Oh the irony.... :biggrin:


----------



## Mike Petrik

RogerP said:


> Trump supporter charged with voter fraud. Oh the irony.... :biggrin:


Routine Dem voter fraud in Philadelphia, Chicago and Minnesota, but the Washington Post decides to cover one Iowa voter. Too funny.


----------



## vpkozel

For all of you who poo poo the idea of voter fraud and potentially manipulated elections I implore you to watch the documentary Hacking Democracy. 

It is non partisan and shows that it is possible to hack the electronic voting machines to change votes.


----------



## RogerP

Mike Petrik said:


> Routine Dem voter fraud in Philadelphia, Chicago and Minnesota, but the Washington Post decides to cover one Iowa voter. Too funny.


Too ironic. Republicans whip up this notion of widespread voter fraud as a justification for all manner of voter suppression, and who gets caught red handed? Priceless.


----------



## Dhaller

eagle2250 said:


> I cannot remember ever feeling such a sense of dread as we approached an election. I have never come close to considering just not voting, since becoming of age to do so, but such thoughts are running through my mind with increasing frequency as election day approaches!


I have already voted.

I finally simply voted strategically, philosophically repellent though it was.

As I was in the voting booth manipulating the machine's screen, I simply pretended that I was cleaning a fish - you just roll up your sleeves, have your pliers, scaling and filet knives at the ready, and just do it. 5 minutes and you can go wash your hands.

At least we had some interesting State referenda to vote on, so there was some sense of useful citizenship in the process.

DH


----------



## 16412

eagle2250 said:


> I cannot remember ever feeling such a sense of dread as we approached an election. I have never come close to considering just not voting, since becoming of age to do so, but such thoughts are running through my mind with increasing frequency as election day approaches!


Last presidential election I wrote my name in as president.

Hillary seems to believe in world government, top down. If these people make errors then everyone pays, everyone looses. With multiple governments people can move away from bad government decisions by moving to another government. Her want of abortion is ruthless. And none of us are God. This deciding death out of convenience my conscience says is murder. The ilresponsibility that leads to murder, murder is not the answer.

Trump no doubt has a number of problems, too. But, I'd rather have a loose cannon with the mouth than behind my back with the law.


----------



## FLMike

I saw Donald Trump Jr last night. We were tailgating before the Florida State/Clemson game up in Tallahassee, and he and his entourage walked right by our tailgate. Seemed to have lots of fans...was enjoying the attention. Apparently, he was also at the Florida/Georgia game earlier in the day. Making the rounds....


----------



## Mike Petrik

RogerP said:


> Too ironic. Republicans whip up this notion of widespread voter fraud as a justification for all manner of voter suppression, and who gets caught red handed? Priceless.


Isn't it hard to breath with your head so deep in the sand?

Look, I'm a longstanding Republican somewhat active in party politics, and I have never encountered a Republican who wanted to keep a qualified voter from voting. Ever. But we do think that only qualified voters should vote, and ideally only after studying the candidates and issues rather than after taking walking around money. I acknowledge that the best studies indeed show that the widespread voter fraud many Republicans fear is greatly exaggerated. But those studies also show that fraud is not as rare as Dems would have us believe.

The surgical point of my post was simply this: that multiple instances of fraud are discovered each election cycle throughout the country (Google is your friend), but while these instances are never covered by the WaPo (your friend can help!), this one single instance was -- and even a person breathing sand instead of air knows why.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> How interesting. And such an interesting way of expressing your interest. It truly speaks volumes about you....in an interesting way of course.


Indeed.


----------



## FLMike

^Quite


----------



## Howard

I feel if Trump is elected he might name some things after himself like Trump cereal,Trump cookies and a Trump Subway Sub since he's always referring to how rich he is in his speeches so he might as well name some products after him, hell,he already has a board game.


----------



## FLMike

Howard said:


> I feel if Trump is elected he might name some things after himself like Trump cereal,Trump cookies and a Trump Subway Sub since he's always referring to how rich he is in his speeches so he might as well name some products after him, hell,he already has a board game.


Maybe he could introduce a line of Trump suits and ties. Do you think that might work?


----------



## gaseousclay

Howard said:


> I feel if Trump is elected he might name some things after himself like Trump cereal,Trump cookies and a Trump Subway Sub since he's always referring to how rich he is in his speeches so he might as well name some products after him, hell,he already has a board game.


He should name a fairy tale after himself and call it Trumpelstiltskin


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> What, hopelessly muddled and confused? What are you suggesting here?


Actually, if you compare what May said about Brexit when she was home secretary, about it being a disaster waiting to happen, with what she has said about it now she is PM, you've got either a very good example of muddled and confused thinking, simple dishonesty, or a person saying anything in order to be in, and maintain themselves in, a position of power. I'll let you decide which it is.


----------



## Howard

FLMike said:


> Maybe he could introduce a line of Trump suits and ties. Do you think that might work?


That's not bad, a Trump clothing line would work for those corporate people.


----------



## Howard

gaseousclay said:


> He should name a fairy tale after himself and call it Trumpelstiltskin


How about Trumpty Dumpty?


----------



## gaseousclay

Howard said:


> How about Trumpty Dumpty?


That's a suitable name since he seems to crack under pressure and is incredibly thin skinned

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## CSG

Great job of turning this site into a political sewer. No wonder so many people have left.


----------



## Chouan

That's rather a sweeping, rather universal, condemnation. Is there a particular reason why you should feel the need to express yourself thus?


----------



## LordSmoke

Howard said:


> How about Trumpty Dumpty?


Very good, Howard.


----------



## FLMike

Wow. I mean, we all knew she was lying all along, but to see the extent of the deceit and crookedness revealed in black and white is just stunning. Guns smoking all over the place. Even the jerkwads at the Justice Department can't stay ahead of this mess of corruption. I am honestly fearful for what the next four years hold for our country, no matter the results on November 8.


----------



## RogerP

gaseousclay said:


> He should name a fairy tale after himself and call it Trumpelstiltskin





Howard said:


> How about Trumpty Dumpty?


Lol! :beer:


----------



## RogerP

Mike Petrik said:


> Isn't it hard to breath with your head so deep in the sand?


Preferable to the where your head is buried, by far. Oh, and Google is your friend, too. Maybe expand your horizons beyond Breitbart for 5 minutes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/...-restrictions-struck-down-as-racist.html?_r=0


----------



## Howard

gaseousclay said:


> That's a suitable name since he seems to crack under pressure and is incredibly thin skinned
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


LOL +1


----------



## Howard

LordSmoke said:


> Very good, Howard.


Thanks, it's something I came up with.


----------



## blue suede shoes

FLMike said:


> Wow. I mean, we all knew she was lying all along, but to see the extent of the deceit and crookedness revealed in black and white is just stunning. Guns smoking all over the place. Even the jerkwads at the Justice Department can't stay ahead of this mess of corruption. I am honestly fearful for what the next four years hold for our country, no matter the results on November 8.


I am fearful for what the next four years hold for our country and the world only if Hillary Clinton is elected. She has a hatred for Putin, and wants a war with Russia. She could easily get us involved in a war which could go nuclear very quickly.


----------



## FLMike

blue suede shoes said:


> I am fearful for what the next four years hold for our country and the world only if Hillary Clinton is elected. She has a hatred for Putin, and wants a war with Russia. She could easily get us involved in a war which could go nuclear very quickly.


I don't know about that, but I think she has a hatred for anyone and anything that poses a threat to her insatiable hunger for accumulating power and wealth.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
I find myself reminded of that old saw, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" The Hill/Billy team have been getting away with far to much for far too long.


----------



## blue suede shoes

Originally Posted by *Kingstonian* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1806060#post1806060
^ Buchanan is free of politically correct bs that has infected political debate over the decades.

America was better for the average voter in the 1950s and 1960s. There was plenty of work and it was reasonably paid. Similar story in most of the .

Politicians did not waste time discussing imagined grievances let alone pandering to them.

Trump will be routinely attacked in the media while Bill Clintons philandering does not seem to bother them. It certainly does not rub off on Billary. Tapes of her laughing about child rapists certainly do not give them cause for concern. Then again Clinton did what his lobby paymasters wanted and Mrs. Clinton offers more of the same.



bernoulli said:


> Better for the average white male heterosexual, for sure. Not true for most of the Western world (Spain, Portugal, Germany, etc and so on and so forth). You are wrong.


No, better for everyone in the 1960s in the Western World and in the Jim Crow south. Spain, Portugal and Germany didn't have the unemployment shocks of deindustrialization and the Great Recession back then like they do now. East Germany had almost 100% employment. As for your Jim Crow south, African-Americans were working, and had a lower unemployment rate than today, their families were still intact, and their neighborhoods were not the drug ridden war zones that they are today.


----------



## Howard

So What happens if it becomes a tie?


----------



## vpkozel

Howard said:


> So What happens if it becomes a tie?


It goes to the House.


----------



## FLMike

Howard said:


> So What happens if it becomes a tie?


Rock paper scissors. Two out of three.


----------



## Chouan

blue suede shoes said:


> I am fearful for what the next four years hold for our country and the world only if Hillary Clinton is elected. *She *has a hatred for Putin, and *wants a war with Russia*. She could easily get us involved in a war which could go nuclear very quickly.


Really? You know this for a fact? You know absolutely that she wants a war with Russia? You've got Trump talking about using nuclear weapons yet you assert that Hilary is the one keen on nuclear war! Really?


----------



## Chouan

blue suede shoes said:


> As for your Jim Crow south, African-Americans were working, and had a lower unemployment rate than today, their families were still intact, and their neighborhoods were not the drug ridden war zones that they are today.


That's alright then.


----------



## drlivingston

Any questions?


----------



## Chouan

Quite. No doubt it is a Democrat plot to discredit the Donald.......


----------



## Chouan

Strange reversal of attitude to the FBI. Last week the FBI were, apparently, doing a really good job. 
Today, however, the FBI have become a tool of the Democrats..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37892348


----------



## FLMike

Chouan said:


> *Strange reversal* of attitude to the FBI. Last week the FBI were, apparently, doing a really good job.
> Today, however, the FBI have become a tool of the Democrats..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37892348


It's only strange to someone who doesn't understand human nature and biases. Both camps have done a 180 on their attitudes toward the FBI since two Fridays ago. That is strange to you?


----------



## culverwood

FLMike said:


> It's only strange to someone who doesn't understand human nature and biases. Both camps have done a 180 on their attitudes toward the FBI since two Fridays ago. That is strange to you?


Shouldn't that be a 360º since two Fridays ago, a 180º since yesterday.


----------



## Howard

FLMike said:


> Rock paper scissors. Two out of three.


Donald wouldn't go for that.


----------



## FLMike

Howard said:


> Donald wouldn't go for that.


That's because everyone knows that Roshambo is a rigged game.


----------



## drlivingston

FLMike said:


> That's because everyone knows that Roshambo is a rigged game.


:winner: Nice!


----------



## Shaver

With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.

And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


----------



## Chouan




----------



## Chouan




----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Another, from another GOP hack:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-insist-on-voting-for-hillary-clinton/506723/


Sadly, the evidence, from this thread as well as elsewhere, shows that Trump supporters, at best, don't care that he is dishonest (as well as a corrupt misogynist racist); they don't support him *despite* what he stands for, they support him *because *of what he stands for.


----------



## SG_67

^ at least we know what he stands for. His opponent is slippery and elusive. Much could be said of her as well.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^* at least we know what he stands for*. His opponent is slippery and elusive. Much could be said of her as well.


Indeed.


----------



## SG_67

Well if the polling is accurate and I tend to believe the empirical evidence, HRC will be the next POTUS. 

The Canadians and Brits who have been championing her, of course, won't have to live with the consequences of that, we will. 

This will mean 4 years of court intrigue not seen since the days of the Romanovs and countless more leaks coming out about how the Clinton cash machine disguised as a charity did little more than to enrich its founders. 

But then, all of you can bask in the glory of a woman president.


----------



## drlivingston

It really doesn't matter who wins today. Our country is royally screwed. The fact that our choice is basically limited to these two buffoons is evidence of a flawed system. Americans have become conceited and enamored of the tabloid mentality. There was a time when the people who graced the pages of Time magazine were more important than the people found in People magazine. Now, the people found in Time magazine are the SAME people found in People magazine. I blame the advent of social media for turning political candidates into instant celebrities. More is said about natural hair and pant suits than about foreign policy. America was once a world leader in many categories. Now, according to a recent study, we rank a dismal 14th in the world in terms of "cognitive skills and education attainment." People love to mention the intent of the founding fathers. Let me tell you, they would be appalled at what we have become. And given our current decision, the road ahead is treacherous.


----------



## vpkozel

As I stand in line to vote, I am having this thought. 

It is quite amazing - and supremely sad - that our elections went from being a contest of ideas and ideals to a name calling contest using out of context fragments of statements or outright lies to attack. 

It doesn't leave me hopeful that the body charged with protecting the truth and accuracy gave up its role and blatantly campaigned for one candidate.


----------



## drlivingston

tocqueville said:


> You'd rather bask in the glory of a demagogue. That's enlightening.
> 
> Which of his dog whistles was music to your ears? We know which tune Tempest dances to.
> 
> Believing Trump to be more trustworthy is like saying, "I dunno, this boa constrictor is too much for me to handle. You know what, I think I'll go for an Anaconda. Because that's different."


 Conversely, believing that Clinton is more trustworthy is tantamount to entering a business relationship with Satan himself. They are both consummate con artists. Neither candidate is _more_ trustworthy. They are equally horrible human beings that only look after their own interests. The American people mean NOTHING to them. We are pawns in their little game of life.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Well if the polling is accurate and I tend to believe the empirical evidence, HRC will be the next POTUS.
> 
> The Canadians and Brits who have been championing her, of course, won't have to live with the consequences of that, we will.
> 
> This will mean 4 years of court intrigue not seen since the days of the Romanovs and countless more leaks coming out about how the Clinton cash machine disguised as a charity did little more than to enrich its founders.
> 
> But then, all of you can bask in the glory of a woman president.


I can't speak for Canadians, or say what their media says, but Hilary has certainly not been championed in any UK news media, certainly none that I pay any attention to. The BBC has sought to be scrupulously balanced in its reporting of the two candidates, for example. Mind you, one can't blame the BBC for broadcasting many of Trump's egregious speeches! 
As I've pointed out so many times, finding Trump odious does not mean that one supports Hilary. Reporting on trump's lies, misogyny and racism does not mean that one supports Hilary.
Finally, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the President of the US is the single most important political role in the World. We will _*all *_have to live with the consequences of the choice of the US electorate.


----------



## FLMike

vpkozel said:


> As I stand in line to vote, I am having this thought.
> 
> It is quite amazing - and supremely sad - that our elections went from being a contest of ideas and ideals to a name calling contest using out of context fragments of statements or outright lies to attack.
> 
> *It doesn't leave me hopeful that the body charged with protecting the truth and accuracy gave up its role and blatantly campaigned for one candidate*.


That was one notable aspect of this election.....the media finally decided to openly embrace its liberalism, whereas in the past it at least tried to appear somewhat unbiased.


----------



## FLMike

I just wish Chouan could learn to spell Hillary.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I can't speak for Canadians, or say what their media says, but Hilary has certainly not been championed in any UK news media, certainly none that I pay any attention to. The BBC has sought to be scrupulously balanced in its reporting of the two candidates, for example. Mind you, one can't blame the BBC for broadcasting many of Trump's egregious speeches!
> As I've pointed out so many times, finding Trump odious does not mean that one supports Hilary. Reporting on trump's lies, misogyny and racism does not mean that one supports Hilary.
> Finally, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the President of the US is the single most important political role in the World. We will _*all *_have to live with the consequences of the choice of the US electorate.


No. you're wrong. Regardless of who is chosen, we will. Not you.


----------



## SG_67

FLMike said:


> That was one notable aspect of this election.....the media finally decided to openly embrace its liberalism, whereas in the past it at least tried to appear somewhat unbiased.


They've always been. Nothing is different except this time, thanks to Wikileaks, they've been caught red handed.

"From time to time, I get the questions in advance..."


----------



## drlivingston

SG_67 said:


> They've always been. Nothing is different except this time, thanks to Wikileaks, they've been caught red handed.


^^^ This!


----------



## drlivingston

Chouan said:


> We will _*all *_have to live with the consequences of the choice of the US electorate.


 Then please allow me to apologize in advance.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> No. you're wrong. Regardless of who is chosen, we will. Not you.


You believe that the rest of the world would not be affected by the outcome of this election?

.
.
.

.
.


----------



## eagle2250

In earlier posts to this thread, Ive characterized Trump as a village idiot and Hillary as a yet to be indicted felon and I continue to hold those respective impressions. Yet, the two candidates do have one thing fully in common. Regardless of which of these fools is elected today and we present our newly elected President to the world on the morrow, the winner will stand before the world community as a perfect example of The Ugly American. What a sad statement that makes about America!


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> Sadly, the evidence, from this thread as well as elsewhere, shows that Trump supporters, at best, don't care that he is dishonest (as well as a corrupt misogynist racist); they don't support him *despite* what he stands for, they support him *because *of what he stands for.


Indeed.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> No. you're wrong. Regardless of who is chosen, we will. Not you.


You honestly think that the rest of the world won't be effected by this election? Really?


----------



## FLMike

tocqueville said:


> I swore to stay away from this thread, but what the heck. Bashing Trump is patriotic.....


Well, for a "responsible" site moderator who swore to stay away from this thread, you sure have gone whole hog on this thing.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> You believe that the rest of the world would not be affected by the outcome of this election?
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> .
> .


For the most part, what happens in the US election has very, very little direct effect on the day to day lives for the vast majority of the world.

There will, of course, be impacts of varying degrees to anything America does, but that has nothing to do with the election.


----------



## tocqueville

FLMike said:


> Well, for a "responsible" site moderator who swore to stay away from this thread, you sure have gone whole hog on this thing.


FLMIke, I deleted that one post and solemnly swear to limit my invective to Trump and not point the rhetorical barrel at fellow forum members.

As it is, I need to shut down my internet for a bit so that I can do some work. What's my work, you ask?

I've been working in national security for the past 12 years, serving in the USG for half of that, and now for an organization that serves the DOD. I do research on European security, security and politics in West Africa, and I work with the Army to help it think through force structure. I've done my bit in Afghanistan; I consult on CT in the Sahel. I meet regularly with British, Canadian, Dutch, French, and German militaries. And I'll say this: the people I work with are really afraid of electing an ignoramus with the temperament of a 7-year old (I happen to have one of those, the comparison is apt) and who says he wants to overturn the international order the US established in 1945. They'll take their chances with Clinton, or if they can't stomach that, McMullin or Johnson.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> For the most part, what happens in the US election has very, very little direct effect on the day to day lives for the vast majority of the world.
> 
> There will, of course, be impacts of varying degrees to anything America does, but that has nothing to do with the election.


I see, or at least I believe that I do. Are you suggesting that no matter who is elected the outcome will be indistinguishable?


----------



## FLMike

I didn't ask


----------



## Dmontez

Well as I stand in line to vote, I find myself much more excited to vote against a prop for a community college with low registration numbers to build a 3rd campus in an already congested part of town, and for a sheriff that's a great man, than either of the two presidential candidates.


----------



## drlivingston

According to the news, my recently deceased father will probably be voting democrat.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> I see, or at least I believe that I do. Are you suggesting that no matter who is elected the outcome will be indistinguishable?


Nothing is indistinguishable. Even putting a rubber duck in the ocean would cause some sort of effect to the overall level if you go down to enough zeroes, correct?


----------



## SG_67

There was a ballot measure to amend the constitution of Illinois so that funds appropriated for transportation projects actually be used for that. That says a lot for how efficient and reliable government can be. 

To Dmontez's lament about the community college, we have the same issue with Chicago State University. The graduation rate is atrocious and its long been a dumping ground for patronage jobs.


----------



## RogerP

tocqueville said:


> FLMIke, I deleted that one post and solemnly swear to limit my invective to Trump and not point the rhetorical barrel at fellow forum members.
> 
> As it is, I need to shut down my internet for a bit so that I can do some work. What's my work, you ask?
> 
> I've been working in national security for the past 12 years, serving in the USG for half of that, and now for an organization that serves the DOD. I do research on European security, security and politics in West Africa, and I work with the Army to help it think through force structure. I've done my bit in Afghanistan; I consult on CT in the Sahel. I meet regularly with British, Canadian, Dutch, French, and German militaries. *And I'll say this: the people I work with are really afraid of electing an ignoramus with the temperament of a 7-year old (I happen to have one of those, the comparison is apt) and who says he wants to overturn the international order the US established in 1945.* They'll take their chances with Clinton, or if they can't stomach that, McMullin or Johnson.


They are right to be very afraid.


----------



## vpkozel

OK, this is just plain funny.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/m...ilyn-mosby-ballot-picture-20161108-story.html


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> OK, this is just plain funny.
> 
> https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/m...ilyn-mosby-ballot-picture-20161108-story.html


This is the quality of intellect of our elected officials. I challenge anyone to argue how the Donald would somehow be worse.


----------



## irish95

I must agree with Tocqueville in that I did my best to stay away from this thread I love how the internet allows a range of opinions which in theory should open up our minds to new thoughts and ideas. I've read all the comments as they have been posted and it comes as no surprise the country is so divided. The anger in some posts is mind boggling. I assume its the nature of the Internet that allows "haymaker punches" with a keyboard. 

Regardless who wins, I hope there is an effort to unite, but I'm afraid the far left won't give up if it's Trump, nor will the far right if it's Hillary. I'm at a loss that the loudest mouths seem to be able to form public opinion or are allowed to try. I hope Tocqueville is wrong, but I respect that opinion/observation far greater than someone screaming from their keyboard. This election will carry global implications. To think anything less is pure folly. Everyone should realize that the biggest outcome of this election will be the appointments for the Supreme Court. I would just like to see the morning election coverage to stop reading like a tabloid at the supermarket. 

Whoever wins, good luck and some of you take a deep breath before typing.


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> They are right to be very afraid.


I know, right? God help us if HRC is elected.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> There was a ballot measure to amend the constitution of Illinois so that funds appropriated for transportation projects actually be used for that. That says a lot for how efficient and reliable government can be.
> 
> To Dmontez's lament about the community college, we have the same issue with Chicago State University. The graduation rate is atrocious and its long been a dumping ground for patronage jobs.


Illinois government is a mess. It's a good example of what happens when one party has too much power. I suspect I'd vote GOP in state/local elections if I lived in Illinois.


----------



## tocqueville

It's the endorsements by conservative stalwarts that bear reading. Like this one from the Arizona Republic, which chose to back a Dem for the very first time in its history:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/

"Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.
That's beneath our national dignity.
When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet."


----------



## tocqueville

And of course, there's this, all the GOP security officials who have come out against Trump, citing the security risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Illinois government is a mess. It's a good example of what happens when one party has too much power. I suspect I'd vote GOP in state/local elections if I lived in Illinois.


Yet we see the disaster that Obamacare has become, predictably so, when the Dems controlled the congress and the executive branch. But you're in favor of that?


----------



## tocqueville

Here's Bill Kristol. Bill Kristol! The man who brought us Sarah Palin:

Let us, as conservatives, seek guidance from those we admire. The Federalist (No. 39) speaks of "that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." Hasn't Donald Trump been a votary merely of wealth rather than of freedom? Hasn't he been animated by the art of the deal rather than by the art of self-government? William F. Buckley Jr. proclaimed, in the founding statement of this journal, that conservatism "stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." Hasn't Donald Trump always been a man inclined to go along - indeed, impatient to get along - with history? In a letter to National Review, Leo Strauss wrote that "a conservative, I take it, is a man who despises vulgarity; but the argument which is concerned exclusively with calculations of success, and is based on blindness to the nobility of the effort, is vulgar." Isn't Donald Trump the very epitome of vulgarity? In sum: Isn't Trumpism a two-bit Caesarism of a kind that American conservatives have always disdained? Isn't the task of conservatives today to stand athwart Trumpism, yelling Stop? - William Kristol is the editor of The Weekly Standard. 

Read more at: https://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

More Kristol:
https://www.weeklystandard.com/kristol-trump-is-discrediting-conservatism/article/2003815


----------



## tocqueville

I dig McMullin. Skip to about 2:30. He is "inhuman." "He doesn't care about anyone but himself."


----------



## Andy

A program note: This thread will be closed around mid-day tomorrow (NOV. 9) and we would appreciate no further discussion of the election.

Just trying to be unbiased, but with an opinion :biggrin:, if Clinton wins I don't seen any world leader being afraid of her. Russia will take over the Ukraine and the Middle East (might be a good thing! ?), and if Trump wins other countries will be very afraid of us - and on the positive side, wouldn't Nuclear Winter counteract Global Warming?:great:

Good luck to all!


----------



## tocqueville

Word is that the line in Rochester to put "I voted" stickers on Susan B. Anthony's grave is a quarter of a mile long.

Dems have been making great strides in inclusiveness, while Trump's been focusing on divisiveness, and the state-level GOP apparatus appears intent on establishing a soft Jim Crow on the grave of the Voting Rights Act. The Party of Lincoln is at risk of becoming the Party of George Wallace. Truly something to be proud of.


----------



## SG_67

So HRC calling Trump supporters racists and homophobes is inclusive? 

Trump wants to curb illegal, mind you illegal, immigration and wants to put a curb on people fleeing into this country from countries whose views on civil rights and women is scarecely different from the Middle Ages. And this is divisive?


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> I dig McMullin.


Me too. If he had been on the ballot here I would have voted for him.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> It's the endorsements by conservative stalwarts that bear reading. Like this one from the Arizona Republic, which chose to back a Dem for the very first time in its history:
> 
> https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/
> 
> "Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.
> That's beneath our national dignity.
> When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet."


Oh, cry me a river.

WJC - with his wife's full knowledge and backing - used his office and connections at multiple stops to ruin the lives of any woman who had the audacity to question his sexual advances - unwanted as they may have been.

He lost a USSC case trying to use the Presidency as a shield.

His wife was in charge of bimbo erruptions.

Drag a $20 bill through a trailer park and you never know what you might find.

If you question me, you are part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

Any of those ring a bell?

I am no Trump fan, but spare me the diatribes about personal invectives, petulance, devisiveness, etc.


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> Oh, cry me a river.
> 
> WJC - with his wife's full knowledge and backing - used his office and connections at multiple stops to ruin the lives of any woman who had the audacity to question his sexual advances - unwanted as they may have been.
> 
> He lost a USSC case trying to use the Presidency as a shield.
> 
> His wife was in charge of bimbo erruptions.
> 
> Drag a $20 bill through a trailer park and you never know what you might find.
> 
> If you question me, you are part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
> 
> Any of those ring a bell?
> 
> I am no Trump fan, but spare me the diatribes about personal invectives, petulance, devisiveness, etc.


Indeed. I love how everyone has all of a sudden found religion on this.


----------



## SG_67

Malcolm Gladwell, very likely the most useless intellectual in the world, has summed it up for us:

Malcolm Gladwell: Clinton's problem is that Americans dislike ambitious women https://www.cnbc.com/id/104090301
https://www.cnbc.com/id/104090301

So the problem is with me. I believe Malcolm should stick to making a fortune on the TED talk circuit selling his useless observations to the throngs of hipsters taking a break from beard groomings to listen to him yelp.


----------



## Dmontez

tocqueville said:


> Word is that the line in Rochester to put "I voted" stickers on Susan B. Anthony's grave is a quarter of a mile long.
> 
> *Dems have been making great strides in inclusiveness, while Trump's been focusing on divisiveness*, and the state-level GOP apparatus appears intent on establishing a soft Jim Crow on the grave of the Voting Rights Act. The Party of Lincoln is at risk of becoming the Party of George Wallace. Truly something to be proud of.


this is a joke right?

Dems are inclusive so long as you agree with them, you don't agree with them and your are a terrible "ist" as we have seen blatantly on this thread.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> So HRC calling Trump supporters racists and homophobes is inclusive?


In a very great many instances, it is merely accurate.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> In a very great many instances, it is merely accurate.


So, if a statement is accurate in a great many instances, it is acceptable to use it to apply to the whole?

Interesting.


----------



## SG_67

It's quite easy to dismiss one's political views and concerns by calling them racists. 

Again, I ask for examples of this racism. As well as the homophobia. And please spare me the KKK bit.


----------



## Acct2000

RogerP said:


> In a very great many instances, it is merely accurate.


It is also slurring the intentions of a lot of people you just agree with politically. To call everyone who disagrees with you racist or homophobic when you can't possibly know them individually and have no life experience living with them (which media elites do not have)leads to the type of stereotyping that would (deservedly) be a huge problem if applied to minority groups. Why is OK to stereotype others just because they disagree with you?


----------



## Dmontez

SG_67 said:


> It's quite easy to dismiss one's political views and concerns by calling them racists.
> 
> Again, I ask for examples of this racism. As well as the homophobia. And please spare me the KKK bit.


he cant, and wont, or they will just say "it's obvious and youre dumb if you cant see it"


----------



## blue suede shoes

tocqueville said:


> FLMIke, I deleted that one post and solemnly swear to limit my invective to Trump and not point the rhetorical barrel at fellow forum members.
> 
> As it is, I need to shut down my internet for a bit so that I can do some work. What's my work, you ask?
> 
> I've been working in national security for the past 12 years, serving in the USG for half of that, and now for an organization that serves the DOD. I do research on European security, security and politics in West Africa, and I work with the Army to help it think through force structure. I've done my bit in Afghanistan; I consult on CT in the Sahel. I meet regularly with British, Canadian, Dutch, French, and German militaries. And I'll say this: the people I work with are really afraid of electing an ignoramus with the temperament of a 7-year old (I happen to have one of those, the comparison is apt) and who says he wants to overturn the international order the US established in 1945. They'll take their chances with Clinton, or if they can't stomach that, McMullin or Johnson.


So they are afraid he might overturn the international order we established in 1945. They should be afraid. We won the big war and few if any have ever said thank you. We rebuilt Western Europe and gave them everything we could to insure their prosperity. We built and paid for the United Nations, and have since have paid for the defense of Western Europe and countless other countries. In doing all of this we ran up a debt of about twenty trillion dollars, with no foreseeable way to pay it off. In doing all of this we ignored the needs of our own citizens (health care, pensions, veteran's health, jobs, minorities in the inner cities, etc.), while those countries provided for their citizens with the help of boatloads of our tax dollars. For the first time in modern history we have a businessman who is not a politician who sees reality as I have outlined it above and wants to right the wrongs. And your pastime is bashing him.


----------



## Howard




----------



## drlivingston




----------



## SG_67

^ good for you Howard! Don't ever take it for granted.


----------



## blue suede shoes

Originally Posted by *SG_67* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1809186#post1809186
So HRC calling Trump supporters racists and homophobes is inclusive?



RogerP said:


> In a very great many instances, it is merely accurate.


If he is so racist, why has he talked so much about wanting to rebuild America's inner cities and give jobs to African Americans? As for the democrats, who the blacks have been indoctrinated to vote for like sheep, I heard barely a word about what they are going to do for African American neighborhoods in our cities. Oh yeah, Hillary called them "super predators", and Bernie Sanders after a tour of Baltimore said he couldn't believe the blight; he had seen nothing like it. And he has served in DC how many years? Couldn't he make the 50 mile trek to Baltimore to visit sometime? He remains in his own fantasy world.

I know quite a few blacks who are actively supporting Trump for this very reason.


----------



## FLMike

Howard said:


>


I would never ask someone who they voted for, so please don't tell me. But....does it rhyme with hump?


----------



## Dmontez

The tolerant, and inclusive left, are actually pretty racist themselves, by their own definition.


----------



## RogerP

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It is also slurring the intentions of a lot of people you just agree with politically. To call everyone who disagrees with you racist or homophobic when you can't possibly know them individually and have no life experience living with them (which media elites do not have)leads to the type of stereotyping that would (deservedly) be a huge problem if applied to minority groups. Why is OK to stereotype others just because they disagree with you?


No. It is beyond meaningful debate that many Trump supporters are quite appropriately labeled as racists - even beyond the obvious categories of the KKK and neo-Nazis, whose unqualified support of this candidate is hardly coincidental. They adore him for a reason. He has taken their fringe brand of hate mainstream, which is the only way it can really take hold.

It's not a matter of branding people with whom I disagree as racist. Trump is racist. Trump blames all of America's problems on non-whites. Rapist Mexicans, terrorist Muslims and lawless blacks. Unsurprisingly, he also advocates racist policies. And one doesn't have to look far among his followers to find overt examples of racism. We don't even have to look beyond this thread for examples - like wistfully pining for the good old days of Jim Crow. Are all Trump supporters racist? No. But they are hardly an outlier. And however non-racist Trump supporters may wish to justify it, they are in fact supporting a racist candidate.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> And please spare me the KKK bit.


No, I won't, because it's a fact. The Klan is fully behind Trump.

So are the Nazis.

It's not a coincidence.

And there is little to be gained in pointing to examples, as you will no doubt simply dismiss any source other than Breitbart or Fox as "liberal media". But it is pretty obvious.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> No. It is beyond meaningful debate that many Trump supporters are quite appropriately labeled as racists - even beyond the obvious categories of the KKK and neo-Nazis, whose unqualified support of this candidate is hardly coincidental. They adore him for a reason. He has taken their fringe brand of hate mainstream, which is the only way it can really take hold.
> 
> It's not a matter of branding people with whom I disagree as racist. Trump is racist. Trump blames all of America's problems on non-whites. Rapist Mexicans, terrorist Muslims and lawless blacks. Unsurprisingly, he also advocates racist policies. And one doesn't have to look far among his followers to find overt examples of racism. We don't even have to look beyond this thread for examples - like wistfully pining for the good old days of Jim Crow. Are all Trump supporters racist? No. But they are hardly an outlier. And however non-racist Trump supporters may wish to justify it, they are in fact supporting a racist candidate.


you continue to call Trump a racist, and yet you refuse to give any proof.(there is none) This is beyond tiresome, please learn a new play, from that liberal playbook.

HRC praising KKK leader Robert Byrd, this doesn't make her racist, just like the KKK endorsing Trump doesn't make Trump racist.


----------



## Acct2000

A frequent tactic of the right and the left is to tar anyone who disagrees with epithets like "racist", "socialist", etc. 

You haven't convinced me that you aren't doing the same. I voted for Trump; I just hired a black person for my accounting department; I've played music with plenty of black people and have blacks in my social circle. I don't think I'm racist unless and until you stretch the meaning of it to the point that any discussion that you disagree with is racist. 

I deplore the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads, etc.


----------



## SG_67

^ and what does that have to do with the candidate?


----------



## drlivingston

Dmontez said:


> The tolerant, and inclusive left, are actually pretty racist themselves, by their own definition.


This is what white people are taught from the time that they are old enough to listen.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> So HRC calling Trump supporters racists and homophobes is inclusive?


You mean, because she's excluding racists and homophobes?

I'm not really bothered by curbing immigration. I'm bothered by attacking Latinos, Muslims, Jews, and women, advocating torture, calling for gutting NATO, having no clue what he's talking about re: foreign affairs, and lying about EVERYTHING.


----------



## RogerP

blue suede shoes said:


> As for the democrats, who the blacks have been indoctrinated to vote for like sheep...
> .


Anything racist about describing black voters as mindless sheep? Nah, what could be objectionable about that?


----------



## RogerP

tocqueville said:


> You mean, because she's excluding racists and homophobes?


LOL!



tocqueville said:


> I'm not really bothered by curbing immigration. I'm bothered by attacking Latinos, Muslims, Jews, and women, advocating torture, calling for gutting NATO, having no clue what he's talking about re: foreign affairs, and lying about EVERYTHING.


Exactly correct.


----------



## tocqueville

forsbergacct2000 said:


> A frequent tactic of the right and the left is to tar anyone who disagrees with epithets like "racist", "socialist", etc.
> 
> You haven't convinced me that you aren't doing the same. I voted for Trump; I just hired a black person for my accounting department; I've played music with plenty of black people and have blacks in my social circle. I don't think I'm racist unless and until you stretch the meaning of it to the point that any discussion that you disagree with is racist.
> 
> I deplore the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads, etc.


Not all Trump supporters are racists. Only a fool would claim that. However, you did just vote for someone who encourages racism, if only for perceived electoral advantage. You also voted for a man who wants to torture people.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Malcolm Gladwell, very likely the most useless intellectual in the world, has summed it up for us:
> 
> Malcolm Gladwell: Clinton's problem is that Americans dislike ambitious women https://www.cnbc.com/id/104090301
> https://www.cnbc.com/id/104090301
> 
> So the problem is with me. I believe Malcolm should stick to making a fortune on the TED talk circuit selling his useless observations to the throngs of hipsters taking a break from beard groomings to listen to him yelp.


SG, I'm pleased to say that I share your view of Malcolm Gladwell.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> You mean, because she's excluding racists and homophobes?
> 
> I'm not really bothered by curbing immigration. I'm bothered by attacking Latinos, Muslims, Jews, and women, advocating torture, calling for gutting NATO, having no clue what he's talking about re: foreign affairs, and lying about EVERYTHING.


He's attacking latinos? By wanting to stop illegal immigration? When did he attack Jews?


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> SG, I'm pleased to say that I share your view of Malcolm Gladwell.


Right on brotha!!!


----------



## tocqueville

Byrd came clean re: the KKK. He lived a long life and his views evolved quite a lot.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Not all Trump supporters are racists. Only a fool would claim that. However, you did just vote for someone who encourages racism, if only for perceived electoral advantage. You also voted for a man who wants to torture people.


How does he encourage racism? By calling Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists? That's racist?

Let me ask you something, you're the CIA director and your agents have just captured Ahmed. You know there's a dirty bomb planted somewhere in Manhattan and Ahmed knows where. You also know that the bomb will likely go off in 2 hours or less time.

As CIA director, what would you do?


----------



## RogerP

forsbergacct2000 said:


> A frequent tactic of the right and the left is to tar anyone who disagrees with epithets like "racist", "socialist", etc. You haven't convinced me that you aren't doing the same.




I'm not expecting to convince you of anything. But the fact is, I'm not branding Trump a racist because I "disagree" with him. I brand him a racist because of his racist acts, racist statements and racist policies. If you choose to simply ignore all such examples, that's your call. But just to be clear - I'm not trying to convince you of something you steadfastly refuse to believe on principle. That would be a pointless waste of time. Like you, I am expressing my views on the subject at hand.




forsbergacct2000 said:


> I voted for Trump; I just hired a black person for my accounting department; I've played music with plenty of black people and have blacks in my social circle. I don't think I'm racist unless and until you stretch the meaning of it to the point that any discussion that you disagree with is racist.
> 
> I deplore the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads, etc.


Well you may not be racist, but you unquestionably voted for one. And in doing so you are in the company of the Klan / neo-Nazis / skinheads / white nationalists whom you despise.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> How does he encourage racism? By calling Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists? That's racist?


No - calling Muslims terrorists is racist and idiotic. Just as calling Christians racist because of the Klan would be.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> No - calling Muslims terrorists is racist and idiotic. Just as calling Christians racist because of the Klan would be.


So muslims are a race? Did he imply all muslims were terrorists?

Do you deny that the bulk of terrorist activity carried out in the past 10 years has been perpetrated by muslims? A rash of terrorist acts in Europe and the USA in the past 3-4 years were perpetrated by random individuals. They coincidentally happened to be muslims?

Like you, I'm not trying to convince you of my point of view, but for God's sake, stop spewing bile such as voting in common with Nazis and the Klan.

Carl Schmitt was one of the architects of the "nazification" of Germany during the third Reich. He was a lawyer. Aren't you ashamed to be a member of the same profession as he?


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> So muslims are a race? Did he imply all muslims were terrorists?


Oh for heaven's sake. And yes, he did.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> Like you, I'm not trying to convince you of my point of view, but for God's sake, stop spewing bile such as voting in common with Nazis and the Klan.


We don't yet live in a world where you get to tell me what to do as a matter of course. Sorry to disappoint. I find your posts quite odious for the most part, but I don't presume to tell you to stop posting.


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> Oh for heaven's sake. And yes, he did.


Cite your source..


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> Cite your source..


What for? You don't accept any source that lies outside your own right wing echo chamber, and I won't be citing Breitbart.


----------



## Dmontez

I accept truth, and you can't cite a source, because he never said all muslims are terrorists. 

He said he wanted to suspend muslims traveling to the US, until we can find an answer to the terrorism problem.


----------



## tocqueville

It took place in the teeth of all forecasts; it happened in Europe; incredibly, it happened that an entire civilized people, just issued from the fervid cultural flowering of Weimar, followed a buffoon whose figure today inspires laughter, and yet Adolph Hitler was obeyed and his praises were sung right up to the catastrophe. It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say.

Primo Levi.


----------



## RogerP

^^^ Indeed. Wow.


----------



## blue suede shoes

A great victory for the Donald!!!! It is wonderful to see that good has prevailed over evil.


----------



## Shaver

Andy said:


> A program note: This thread will be closed around mid-day tomorrow (NOV. 9) and we would appreciate no further discussion of the election.
> 
> Just trying to be unbiased, but with an opinion :biggrin:, if Clinton wins I don't seen any world leader being afraid of her. Russia will take over the Ukraine and the Middle East (might be a good thing! ?), and if Trump wins other countries will be very afraid of us - and *on the positive side, wouldn't Nuclear Winter counteract Global Warming?*:great:
> 
> Good luck to all!


:beer:


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> It took place in the teeth of all forecasts; it happened in Europe; incredibly, it happened that an entire civilized people, just issued from the fervid cultural flowering of Weimar, followed a buffoon whose figure today inspires laughter, and yet Adolph Hitler was obeyed and his praises were sung right up to the catastrophe. It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say.
> 
> Primo Levi.


Primo Levi is an eminently readable writer and I should not presume that he would endorse his words being put to this trivial end, distorted as they are to support such a feeble comparison.


----------



## Gurdon

*The True Believer*

I recognize the racism entwined in the occupation and conquest of the Western Hemisphere by Europeans; the genocide that lasted into the 20th century, and the central role of slavery in the founding and development of the settler nations of the Americas. I recognize the continuing pertinence of these subjects. I do not understand the unwillingness, if not inability, of people to acknowledge these seemingly obvious facts, and come to terms with their relevance to contemporary affairs.

It may be time to reread Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.

<https://www.google.com/client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=The+True+Believer>

Published in 1951, it seems particularly pertinent to this discussion, and to the circumstances which gave rise to it. That is to say, Hoffer's book may shed light on how we in the US have managed to elect a racist, fascist demagogue as our next president.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver

.................
..................... .*KEEP ON
**...................**ROCKIN'
**.....................**IN THE
**......................**FREE
**....................**WORLD!

*......................




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


----------



## 16412

It's tiresome listening to the racist liberals accusing the republicans of being racist.


----------



## Odradek




----------



## culverwood

Congratulations to the new President.


----------



## Odradek

culverwood said:


> Congratulations to the new President.


----------



## Chouan

It will be interesting in the days to come to see whether US politics will continue to be as divisive. Will Trump be a magnanimous victor and seek to unify the US, or will his divisive rhetoric be translated into divisive policies?
An American commentator on BBC Radio 4 this morning suggested that almost any Democrat candidate, except for Hillary, would have beaten Trump.


----------



## Chouan

WA said:


> It's tiresome listening to the racist liberals accusing the republicans of being racist.


It would be if they were, only they're not, that is even if one accepts that your sweeping generalisation of liberals were true. After all, even if some "liberals" (whatever you mean by that) are racist, it no more means that all "liberals" are racist than all Republicans are racist.
What has been repeatedly said is that Trump used racist (and misogynist and islamaphobic) rhetoric and that many of his supporters embraced the rhetoric and supported him because of it. Some Republicans, in their endorsements of Trump have endorsed Trump's, apparent, or at least expressed, views. Whether they are anything but a rhetorical device on his part to gain the support of racists is, of course, a different matter. On the other hand, if a person acts as a racist, associates with racists and speaks as a racist, then they're likely to be a racist.


----------



## SG_67

It's over guys. Let's go back to our day jobs.


----------



## vpkozel

Democrats sure are bad losers


----------



## RogerP

Gurdon said:


> I recognize the racism entwined in the occupation and conquest of the Western Hemisphere by Europeans; the genocide that lasted into the 20th century, and the central role of slavery in the founding and development of the settler nations of the Americas. I recognize the continuing pertinence of these subjects. I do not understand the unwillingness, if not inability, of people to acknowledge these seemingly obvious facts, and come to terms with their relevance to contemporary affairs.
> 
> It may be time to reread Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.
> 
> <https://www.google.com/client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=The+True+Believer>
> 
> Published in 1951, it seems particularly pertinent to this discussion, and to the circumstances which gave rise to it. That is to say, Hoffer's book may shed light on how we in the US have managed to elect a racist, fascist demagogue as our next president.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


This. Sad to see the ascendancy of the politics of hatred and bigotry.


----------



## FLMike

vpkozel said:


> Democrats sure are bad losers


Trump's address to his supporters and non-supporters alike: gracious and inclusive

Hillary's address: still waiting


----------



## eagle2250

^^Indeed!
The campaign bluster is over and our President elect has stepped off on a good foot with his acceptance speech. It is time for us, nay...for all Americans, depending on our individual inclinations to either hope or pray for the ever-so-necessary healing to begin, throughout this broken republic of ours.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> This. Sad to see the ascendancy of the politics of hatred and bigotry.


Well Roger, this then is your chance to join Alec Baldwin and Miley Cyrus and head north to Canada.

Oh wait....you're already there. Please leave the door open and he lights on. 

By the way, the only thing contemptible, odious and vulgar in this thread has been the verbal abuse you've heaped in fellow members who have expressed an opinion different from yours. For myself, I can't think of a single insult I've hurled your way yet you've, with great facility, have allowed verbal insults to roll off your tongue. I only hope that conversations with you regarding clothing and shoes aren't affected by this. But then, that choice will be yours.

I'll shut up now.


----------



## Chouan

RogerP said:


> This. Sad to see the ascendancy of the politics of hatred and bigotry.


indeed. The same pattern of racist and populist demagoguery are being peddled throughout Europe. The xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment that resulted in the victory of the Brexiteers, despite the obvious dishonesty of the campaign, has been mirrored in the US, and is similarly mirrored in France, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.....


----------



## Acct2000

tocqueville said:


> It took place in the teeth of all forecasts; it happened in Europe; incredibly, it happened that an entire civilized people, just issued from the fervid cultural flowering of Weimar, followed a buffoon whose figure today inspires laughter, and yet Adolph Hitler was obeyed and his praises were sung right up to the catastrophe. It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say.
> 
> Primo Levi.


Germany in the 1930s was a lot less diverse than America today is.

Lefties and righties both need to clean their rhetoric up a lot. One reason the man you deplore so much won the election is that average people are getting tired of the left using political correctness to stifle any real discussion about what is needed to improve education of poor and especially poor minority people in our country. Calling just about anyone a leftie disagrees with "racist" and "misogynist" and "homophobic" when people are just trying to address specific things a leftie disagrees with has gotten tiresome.

Lefties may want to read "The Boy who cried "Wolf."

That said, righties do use some veiled racist appeals and also have an unrealistic view of the challenges facing poor people.

(P.S. one hint to both sides - - improving education has little to do with paying teachers more and has everything to do with providing people with schools that are safe and trying to unlock the key that motivates children to learn. The teachers union and the public education establishment as currently constructed are concerned only with using tax dollars to provide jobs for adults - - as many as possible. This is one thing that needs to change. There are many others.)

Without improving education and motivating kids to learn, people trapped in poverty will have a nearly impossible time escaping it.

Honestly, to me, that's our society's biggest challenge. Alienating possible allies by throwing self-righteous, nasty epithets at them will do nothing to help. Both lefties and righties do way to much epithet throwing.

P.S. Righties may want to encourage one percenters to start sharing for society's sake. People who feel they have no reason to support the current system won't do much about a possible future nasty upheaval.


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> indeed. The same pattern of racist and populist demagoguery are being peddled throughout Europe. The xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment that resulted in the victory of the Brexiteers, despite the obvious dishonesty of the campaign, has been mirrored in the US, and is similarly mirrored in France, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.....


Oh yes - it's been a rising tide in Europe for some time. Just stunning to see it take over the US so completely.


----------



## Acct2000

Why shouldn't people be able to control who moves into their country?


----------



## vpkozel

Yep, everybody who disagrees with you is racist, xenophobic, mysogoist, this ist, that ist. 

Good Lord.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> On the other hand, if a person acts as a racist, associates with racists and speaks as a racist, then they're likely to be a racist.


Thank you for that impeccable logic, Senator McCarthy.


----------



## Andy

Thank you everyone who participated in this thread! Especially the interest in the election from the non-Americans.

The American people have spoken and have decisively elected Donald Trump the next president. There will be lots of examination and books about this election. Trump won without nearly as much money as the other candidate, with no support from his own party and thus no "boots on the ground" organization (all things that have been absolutely required in every USA election). Trump had no political experience but won over a life long politician with a life long history of corruption scandals!

Trust me, all Americans will accept this decision, be friends with those who had different opinions and get on with just being Americans!

*Last Post for this Thread.*


----------

