2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Just like he was kidding about building a wall, or expelling immigrants, or denying Muslims entry, or shooting someone in New York, or how Judge Curiel can't do his job, or how disgusting it is when women urinate, or...Quote: ams288Guess that's the track the righties have to take and RonC is falling in line... "Ohhhh just ignore his treasonous comment, he was just kidding!"
Yeah, he's a barrel of laughs. Trump voters may have a bitterly-acerbic sense of humor (they'd have to) but somehow I don't think foreign adversaries would have the same sensibilities. What happens when one of Trump's poorly-considered "jokes" starts an international incident? Who'll be laughing then?
Google Donald Trump politifact file and come back and tell me how anybody could vote for such a human being.
I've got an idea, lefties...beat Trump on your policies and proposals with your fine candidate and you'll be just fine.
(BTW, in case whoever that was that was betting I have already made my mind up on Trump is listening, I was just sitting here talking about that very issue. I am nowhere near convinced that he will make a good President and I may vote only down ticket this election.)
Quote: MathExtremistJust like he was kidding about building a wall, or expelling immigrants, or denying Muslims entry, or shooting someone in New York, or how Judge Curiel can't do his job, or how disgusting it is when women urinate, or...
Yeah, he's a barrel of laughs. Trump voters may have a bitterly-acerbic sense of humor (they'd have to) but somehow I don't think foreign adversaries would have the same sensibilities. What happens when one of Trump's poorly-considered "jokes" starts an international incident? Who'll be laughing then?
So the Russians could somehow be upset that Trump said what he did but they would have no concern at all about the unproven allegation of the DNC that the Russians hacked them?
Yikes.
Quote: SteverinosWow, Trump is going off the rails. But it will do absolutely nothing to his base of supporters. They will continue to support him. It's mind boggling.
Google Donald Trump politifact file and come back and tell me how anybody could vote for such a human being.
Come on. He's going to eradicate crime, lower taxes, rebuild our military, and build a big beautiful wall. Anyone who doesn't vote for him must be allergic to winning.
Quote: SteverinosWow, Trump is going off the rails. But it will do absolutely nothing to his base of supporters. They will continue to support him. It's mind boggling.
Google Donald Trump politifact file and come back and tell me how anybody could vote for such a human being.
Again, maybe it is time to stop obsessing with every word of Trump and actually run a solid campaign. Neither side needs to worry about their "solid" voters, the election is in the hands of the undecided folks. Go after them. Attacking Trump at every turn is not going to work--don't try to out-Trump Trump. He's very good at being Trump; sixteen opponents fell to him on the campaign trail. Some of them were even solid opponents. The field is narrowed; don't let him get all the attention by just talking about the things he says.
Quote: RonCWhatever. Of all the things Trump has said, some of which I have found to be inappropriate, I see absolutely no issue with this. It is obviously tongue-in-cheek and to think of it as "treason" in any way is about the most ridiculous thing that I have ever read here.
It is not "obviously tongue-in-cheek" when hardcore right wingers are the only ones who see it that way.
Also, this follow up to his "tongue-in-cheek" comment:
Quote:Asked if he was concerned that he was apparently encouraging Russia to spy on an American political party, he added: “It gives me no pause. If Russia or China or any of those country gets those emails, I’ve got to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.”
Oh! The sarcasm! So "tongue-in-cheek!" How obvious!!
Donald Trump 'accused of treason' after urging Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's email
Quote: RonCAgain, maybe it is time to stop obsessing with every word of Trump and actually run a solid campaign.
No.
This is a huge deal.
If the tables were turned and Hillary suggested a foreign adversary should hack and release Trump's personal emails, there would already be a congressional hearing scheduled (<-----not even an exaggeration and you know it).
That's not the DNC's allegation, and it's hardly unproven. On what basis do you dispute the actual cybersecurity researchers at Fidelis, Mandiant, and Crowdstrike?Quote: RonCSo the Russians could somehow be upset that Trump said what he did but they would have no concern at all about the unproven allegation of the DNC that the Russians hacked them?
Yikes.
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/
Calling Russia's involvement here "unproven" is like calling climate change "unproven". You have to willfully ignore the evidence to reach that conclusion, thereby rendering it invalid.
Quote: ams288It is not "obviously tongue-in-cheek" when hardcore right wingers are the only ones who see it that way.
Also, this follow up to his "tongue-in-cheek" comment:
Oh! The sarcasm! So "tongue-in-cheek!" How obvious!!
Donald Trump 'accused of treason' after urging Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's email
Damn...I didn't think I was hardcore. I just called it like I saw it. It was obvious, though.
I like how the Democrats spin it as "treason" when he actually said something and did nothing, but it is just peachy when their candidate actually did things wrong with classified information that COULD (I did not say that it did and we cannot know the final answer...if the Russians got any real information, they won't exactly call us and tell us...even if Trump asked them to do so!!).
Quote: RonCI like how the Democrats spin it as "treason" when he actually said something and did nothing, but it is just peachy when their candidate actually did things wrong with classified information that COULD (I did not say that it did and we cannot know the final answer...if the Russians got any real information, they won't exactly call us and tell us...even if Trump asked them to do so!!).
Speaking of "spinning," try to once respond to any criticism of Trump without trying to spin it back to Hillary's emails.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's not the DNC's allegation, and it's hardly unproven. On what basis do you dispute the actual cybersecurity researchers at Fidelis, Mandiant, and Crowdstrike?
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/
Calling Russia's involvement here "unproven" is like calling climate change "unproven". You have to willfully ignore the evidence to reach that conclusion, thereby rendering it invalid.
I'll call your "proof" and raise you one "proof"...
"“Just because you find an AK-47 at a crime scene doesn’t mean a Russian pulled the trigger,” said J.J. Thompson, chief executive of Rook Security, an Indianapolis-based firm."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/07/25/experts-hard-prove-russians-behind-dnc-hack/87529230/
"Since very few of us are cybersecurity experts, and the Iraq debacle is a reminder of how dangerous it can be to put blind faith in experts whose claims might reinforce our own political positions, there is also the question of who we can trust to provide reliable evidence."
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says/
Quote: ams288Speaking of "spinning," try to once respond to any criticism of Trump without trying to spin it back to Hillary's emails.
Not when the actual security breach happened (classified, even highly classified material on an unsecured server) and it is still possible that bad actors got her emails because of her failure to follow the process for handling official emails simply to avoid potential FOIA requests and such.
She has done, and it has been proven, things potentially harmful and definitely wrong with classified information. Her main defense is "hey, look, the folks before me did it, too"...even though she doubled down on dumb with server...
Did you even read your own cite?Quote: RonChttps://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says/
Quote: articleConvinced by the available evidence that the leak was orchestrated by Russian intelligence, Thomas Rid, the security analyst who writes for Motherboard, went so far as to suggest that by publishing these documents, WikiLeaks had become “a legitimate target” for counterintelligence ...
There are only two possibilities, either it was Russia or it wasn't. Don't commit the logical fallacy of thinking that the probability of each case is 50%.
Quote: RonCNot when the actual security breach happened (classified, even highly classified material on an unsecured server) and it is still possible that bad actors got her emails because of her failure to follow the process for handling official emails simply to avoid potential FOIA requests and such.
She has done, and it has been proven, things potentially harmful and definitely wrong with classified information. Her main defense is "hey, look, the folks before me did it, too"...even though she doubled down on dumb with server...
Cool story.
Has nothing to do with Trump.
So my original statement stands, when you try to spin every criticism of Trump back to Hillary's email, it will quickly become another dead horse a la Benghazi.
Quote: MathExtremistDid you even read your own cite?
There are only two possibilities, either it was Russia or it wasn't. Don't commit the logical fallacy of thinking that the probability of each case is 50%.
All I am saying is that it has not actually been "proven"...it may yet be "proven" but it has not yet been.
You are jumping all over it like is 100% proven, which is at this point incorrect.
Quote: ams288Cool story.
Has nothing to do with Trump.
So my original statement stands, when you try to spin every criticism of Trump back to Hillary's email, it will quickly become another dead horse a la Benghazi.
I'll go slow...the DNC was most definitely hacked. They may have been hacked by Russia, but it is unproven. Her opponent made a tongue-in-cheek statement about the Russians and emails that has totally been blown out of proportion. There is one person in the race who HAS mishandled classified information, there is another who has, at worst, made a statement.
It is fair to compare the two situations. I said nothing about that other place, where I believe the candidate said "what difference at this point does it make?" in regard to the circumstances surrounding the incident. A very inappropriate answer just because she was aggravated.
Quote: billryanI don't think what he did was treasonous, but it is another example of trump not being ready for prime time. Not that any of this matters to his know nothing supporters.
Again...the idea is not for Trump to gain Hillary supporters or Hillary to gain Trump supporters. Really, they don't matter either way. They will vote how they vote.
The race is about those undecided folks and attacking the supporters of either candidate will not win the day.
Besides, your comment might be considered an insult to people here who actually know something but disagree with you and who are planning on voting for Trump.
Quote: billryanThen they wouldn't be know nothing's, would they? Saying a lot of dumb people support someone doesn't mean everyone who supports him is dumb. Trump has a lot of white supporters. Does that mean all his supporters are white?
Oh, heck, you are right....how come no one talks about Hillary's dumb supporters...just Trump's....
Hmmm....
Quote: RonCOh, heck, you are right....how come no one talks about Hillary's dumb supporters...just Trump's....
Hmmm....
Hmmm is right
Because Trump went there and Clinton did not
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
What Trump is saying is probably true concerning his base
Clinton on the other hand, if she did the same, she would lose a lot of her base
Well, if the kettle is black :-)
Quote: terapinedHmmm is right
Because Trump went there and Clinton did not
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
What Trump is saying is probably true concerning his base
Clinton on the other hand, if she did the same, she would lose a lot of her base
Well, if the kettle is black :-)
No, she wouldn't. The people that think that voting "democrat" means that you are voting for "democracy" aren't going to swing to Trump.
Again, go after the undecideds and leave the committed voters--smart, dumb, whatever--alone. They simply aren't going to change their mind.
......
Go Terps!
Talk about your tinfoil hats!!
(Anyone who disbelieves the above based on the fact that Trump is male and therefore can't have children, well, just hasn't been listening to him these last several months. He can obviously warp the fabric of reality.)
Quote: JoeshlabotnikDonald Trump just announced that he was going to have Vladimir Putin's love child and that it would be born before the election. Trump will give him the title of Vice-Regent and put him in charge of the Kill Everybody Who Isn't White Initiative.
(Anyone who disbelieves the above based on the fact that Trump is male and therefore can't have children, well, just hasn't been listening to him these last several months. He can obviously warp the fabric of reality.)
You could at least stick to the real things that he has said...nah, just keep making wild stuff up.
Quote: AcesAndEightsAlso, Islam is a religion open to all races.
Heck, yeah, the Boston Bombers were a couple of white guys.
Quote: TigerWuHeh, this is pretty funny...
Some Republicans are appalled that Bradley Cooper was at the DNC rally.
I wonder if Kyle's wife has an opinion about this.
She does: she thinks Trump is too offensive to be president and that even her kids know not to act that way.Quote: bobbartopQuote: TigerWuHeh, this is pretty funny...
Some Republicans are appalled that Bradley Cooper was at the DNC rally.
I wonder if Kyle's wife has an opinion about this.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/04/05/american-sniper-wife-trump-is-too-offensive-to-be-president.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/10/taya-kyle-outnumbered-sounds-trumps-insulting-comment-about-fiorina
Quote: MathExtremist
She does: she thinks Trump is too offensive to be president and that even her kids know not to act that way.
Why are you telling me? I didn't say squat about Trump, and I didn't ask what she thought about him either. Had nothing to do with what I said. Your post would be more appropriate standing on its own.
Then consider the post to stand on its own. You asked what Taya Kyle thinks so apparently her thoughts are relevant to you.Quote: bobbartopWhy are you telling me? I didn't say squat about Trump, and I didn't ask what she thought about him either. Had nothing to do with what I said. Your post would be more appropriate standing on its own.
What she thinks is that Trump is too offensive to be president, and he's a weak leader who doesn't understand the issues.
Make of that what you will. I expect that, now that you have learned what she thinks, her thoughts are suddenly no longer relevant to you.
Quote: MathExtremistThen consider the post to stand on its own. You asked what Taya Kyle thinks so apparently her thoughts are relevant to you.
What she thinks is that Trump is too offensive to be president, and he's a weak leader who doesn't understand the issues.
Make of that what you will. I expect that, now that you have learned what she thinks, her thoughts are suddenly no longer relevant to you.
Big "critical thinker'. Look, genius, I haven't said anything about Trump in my postings. My point, was obviously what she would think about that actor who played her husband in the movie going to the Dem's convention. Do you think KYLE was a democrat? I DOUBT THAT! That's all I said. Nothing about Trump. English, do you SPEAK IT?
You have been disingenuous with me, and consistently twist my words. I think I'll block you. You're annoying. Unless you block me first. C'mon, I'll race ya.
Quote: bobbartopBig "critical thinker'. Look, genius, I haven't said anything about Trump in my postings. My point, was obviously what she would think about that actor who played her husband in the movie going to the Dem's convention. Do you think KYLE was a democrat? I DOUBT THAT! That's all I said. Nothing about Trump. English, do you SPEAK IT?
You have been disingenuous with me, and consistently twist my words. I think I'll block you. You're annoying. Unless you block me first. C'mon, I'll race ya.
Instead of blocking one another, you could always just address one another on Gambling-Related subjects, or you can mix gambling and politics as I did in my most recent Article:
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/presidential-betting-update/
“Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him. I think, unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start … I’ve got to say, the top of the speech I found shocking and weird.”
--Rachel Maddow
http://freebeacon.com/politics/maddow-beginning-bill-clintons-speech-shocking-rude/
Actually, I disagree with a lot of what Bill and Barack have said in the many speeches I have heard, but they both usually do a good job with speeches in very different ways. Hillary is no Bill or Barack, and that may be one of the issues that hurts her moving through the cycle...
Quote: RonC...just when I hear a Democrat say something that I thought was fine...boy meets girl...he gets panned by a feminist...
“Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him. I think, unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start … I’ve got to say, the top of the speech I found shocking and weird.”
--Rachel Maddow
http://freebeacon.com/politics/maddow-beginning-bill-clintons-speech-shocking-rude/
Actually, I disagree with a lot of what Bill and Barack have said in the many speeches I have heard, but they both usually do a good job with speeches in very different ways. Hillary is no Bill or Barack, and that may be one of the issues that hurts her moving through the cycle...
Have you ever heard her speak? Or are your impressions based on soundbites off of Fox News? I though she more than held her own iin the debates I've seen and cant recall ever hearing her give an extended speech. Looking forward to tonights speech. Shes got some tough acts to follow. I thought Sen Booker gave a tremendous spech, but might have gone a bit too long. Pres. Clinton and Obama were terrific. Sen Warren didn't cut it for me, and Sen Franken struck out after fouling the ball off his own feet repeatedly.
That's the point -- she's a Texas Republican and she's against the Republican presidential candidate. You have only the candidate to blame for that. If he weren't such an obnoxious troll, if he actually stood for some semblance of conservative values, maybe some of the past GOP presidents or the governor of the host state would have shown up at the GOP convention.Quote: bobbartopDo you think KYLE was a democrat? I DOUBT THAT!
Forget about all the small issues
Why would anyone want bigger government
I heard her say that live and my instant reaction was "Why is it weird? Here's a guy telling the story of falling in love with a girl he thinks is better than him." I didn't perceive anything shocking in the story at all. I quite liked the anecdote about the liner paper.Quote: RonC...just when I hear a Democrat say something that I thought was fine...boy meets girl...he gets panned by a feminist...
“Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him. I think, unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start … I’ve got to say, the top of the speech I found shocking and weird.”
--Rachel Maddow
Quote: billryanHave you ever heard her speak? Or are your impressions based on soundbites off of Fox News? I though she more than held her own iin the debates I've seen and cant recall ever hearing her give an extended speech.
I am so insulted by your comment!!
Okay...not really...
I have seen her make longer speeches, her shrillness and hollering are annoying to me. The best investment she could have made is to get a speech person to help her with her delivery. She is very smart and could do so much better.
Quote: billryanLooking forward to tonights speech. Shes got some tough acts to follow. I thought Sen Booker gave a tremendous spech, but might have gone a bit too long. Pres. Clinton and Obama were terrific. Sen Warren didn't cut it for me, and Sen Franken struck out after fouling the ball off his own feet repeatedly.
I have watched very little of either convention. I watched the end of the roll call for the Dems; none of the Republicans. I was on vacation and it didn't interest me that much...I don't think I watched any entire speech. I have watched more snippets (and not very many soundbites at all on Fox or MSNBC) of the Dems. I liked Booker; he is powerful. Bernie is Bernie. Franken sounded like a jerk; he used too much humor for a serious event--if he was their stand-up comedian opening act, it may have seemed better. Obama was okay but not at his best--he could have lost some words and made it work better. No opinion on Bill; I did not watch him. That is about it for what I have seen.
It's not about big or small, it's about appropriate. We live in an age where large groups of people, acting in concert, can easily manipulate, defraud, and take advantage of individuals. Unless you think that's a good thing (and I would disagree), and because there is no free market solution to prohibiting fraud by manipulative monopolists, we need laws against such acts. Should laws against insider trading or market manipulation be repealed? Of course not. How about consumer protection laws? Same thing. Free market capitalism is great as far as it goes, but it doesn't go all the way to addressing all of society's needs.Quote: WizardofnothingHow can anyone be a democrat is beyond me
Forget about all the small issues
Why would anyone want bigger government
If the libertarians were right, microscopic yet non-tyrannical governments would have evolved naturally over time. The fact that such a state has never stably existed is strong evidence that a micro-government is, in fact, not an optimal solution.
I think he was asked to be funny, but it seemed as though he somewhat forgot how. I thought Silverman was good, though, especially the bit about the Bernie-or-Bust people being ridiculous and this line about Trump's insult politics: "I’m still emotionally four and calling people names from my gold-encrusted sandbox because I was given money instead of human touch or coping tools."Quote: RonCFranken sounded like a jerk; he used too much humor for a serious event--if he was their stand-up comedian opening act, it may have seemed better.
Quote: WizardofnothingHow can anyone be a democrat is beyond me
Forget about all the small issues
Why would anyone want bigger government
Most people Democrats that I've known don't want a bigger government. Fortunately that's not the only defining factor in determining political party affiliation.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's the point -- she's a Texas Republican and she's against the Republican presidential candidate. You have only the candidate to blame for that. If he weren't such an obnoxious troll, if he actually stood for some semblance of conservative values, maybe some of the past GOP presidents or the governor of the host state would have shown up at the GOP convention.
I don't give a rat's butt. Geezus. I was just wondering what she would think of that actor being at the Dem's convention. My post wasn't about Trump or the Republicans, my post was only about that actor. Dammit I can't even remember his name now. The guy that was in the Hangover movie. DUDE! What is UP?
Quote: MathExtremistI think he was asked to be funny, but it seemed as though he somewhat forgot how. I thought Silverman was good, though, especially the bit about the Bernie-or-Bust people being ridiculous and this line about Trump's insult politics: "I’m still emotionally four and calling people names from my gold-encrusted sandbox because I was given money instead of human touch or coping tools."
Its hard to be funny when reading off a teleprompter. I'm not sure whose idea it was to use one, but humor has to set its own cadence. Not only wasn't he funny, but I thought most of his material was inappropriate.
Quote: MathExtremistFree market capitalism is great as far as it goes, but it doesn't go all the way to addressing all of society's needs.
The modern car is a good example of regulation vs. non-regulation. It could go either way much farther.
They could easily be made prohibitively expensive and be safer. Or we could go back to when it was common that people flew into or through their windshields in a wreck and were more seriously injured or killed.
Does anyone think it would be ever be possible to get everyone to agree on what is the right balance? Impossible.
Some here, I'm sure some would like to be free of any and all government and its regulations. Others of you won't appreciate when your neighbor's unregulated car comes smashing into your home one day because he installed a Chinese steering wheel purchased at the Dollar Store which broke off.
Quote: rxwineThe modern car is a good example of regulation vs. non-regulation. It could go either way much farther.
They could easily be made prohibitively expensive and be safer. Or we could go back to when it was common that people flew into or through their windshields in a wreck and were more seriously injured or killed.
Does anyone think it would be ever be possible to get everyone to agree on what is the right balance? Impossible.
I'm not looking forward to the political corruption and grandstanding that's going to take place once self-driving cars become prolific. Holy cow, is THAT going to be a circus...
I thought all steering wheels were made in China. We make steering wheels? Shirley you jest...Quote: rxwine<Snip>
Some here, I'm sure some would like to be free of any and all government and its regulations. Others of you won't appreciate when your neighbor's unregulated car comes smashing into your home one day because he installed a Chinese steering wheel purchased at the Dollar Store which broke off.
Exactly. The answer to how to structure a society isn't "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" where everyone is effectively part of the government and money doesn't have meaning, but neither is the answer a perfectly unregulated free market. A few people believe that outright socialism is the answer, far more believe that outright unrestrained capitalism is the answer, but the vast majority believe that somewhere in the middle is a better answer. The orthodoxy on either side will never be happy, but the rest of us can start to evaluate compromises based on how much good a given solution can do vs. the cost of that solution. And the answer changes over time as society does. That's a point that the more orthodox-leaning thinkers don't seem to get. It didn't make sense to have an SEC in the 1700s but it sure does now. So the scope and role of government needs to change over time as well.Quote: rxwineThe modern car is a good example of regulation vs. non-regulation. It could go either way much farther.
They could easily be made prohibitively expensive and be safer. Or we could go back to when it was common that people flew into or through their windshields in a wreck and were more seriously injured or killed.
Does anyone think it would be ever be possible to get everyone to agree on what is the right balance? Impossible.
Some here, I'm sure some would like to be free of any and all government and its regulations. Others of you won't appreciate when your neighbor's unregulated car comes smashing into your home one day because he installed a Chinese steering wheel purchased at the Dollar Store which broke off.
"In other news, three people were run over today by a Tesla that had been programmed to play Pokemon Go..."Quote: TigerWuI'm not looking forward to the political corruption and grandstanding that's going to take place once self-driving cars become prolific. Holy cow, is THAT going to be a circus...
