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
An astute, well structured and logical post from ME. Thanks goodness (whew). For awhile there when it looked like nothing but bashing Trump with a Chinese sledgehammer, I feared ME was coming off the rails ;-)Quote: MathExtremistExactly. 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.
<edit> What? I'm not even sure what a piss-ant is, or why someone would be tempted to label me as such ;-)
"And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/1996_flashback_bill_clinton_talks_like_trump_on_immigration_we_are_a_nation_of_laws.html
Anyway, one of the real problems with immigration is not the wall, the fence, or whatever...it is that SOME Dems want them in freely with no restraints at all and SOME Repubs want them in to fill low-paying jobs.
If we make it illegal for illegals to work, most "hard working illegals" will leave to find...wait for it...work. Then we can toss the rest out if they freeload on us.
It is simple...effective...and does not fit the will of the career politicians...
Quote: TwoFeathersATLAn astute, well structured and logical post from ME. Thanks goodness (whew). For awhile there when it looked like nothing but bashing Trump with a Chinese sledgehammer, I feared ME was coming off the rails ;-)
<edit> What? I'm not even sure what a piss-ant is, or why someone would be tempted to label me as such ;-)
The only trouble is, the Republiholes have been chanting for eight years that "compromise" is a dirty word and that anyone who fails to steadfastly obstruct everything that "that black bastard in the White House" wants is a traitor to the noble conservative cause--an apostate. Thus, nobody who actually IS a politician on the Republican side has a chance at injecting reason into the discussion.
It is risible that part of Trump's supposed appeal is that he's not a politician--as if "politician" was something terrible. In reality, the holder of any high-level office (even Emperor for Life, as Trump wishes to be) MUST be a politician, or will fail miserably.
ME points out the basic fallacy of conservatism--that government is somehow a bad thing. Yeah, right, just look at paradises-on-earth like Somalia, which has no government, or Mexico, which has a corrupt and ineffectual one. The simple truth is that in human society, government is needed to a) provide services and/or perform functions that the private sector cannot furnish, and b) provide for the common good in ways that are not directly profitable to private individuals (and thus, would not be available in the absence of government).
That aside, the Republiholes are hypocrites when they say that they dislike big government. They just don't like the aspect of it that doesn't follow their agenda. How much bigger would government have to get to form the Immigrant Roundup Police (11+ million targets!), the Pregnancy Registration and Abortion Punishment Division, and the Non-Christian Religion Monitoring Bureau?
Enlightenment.
No, in-light -in the mint. Wrong again, him lights up my life, that's worse. Piss-ant I am, yea... That's it!
2F
Quote: TwoFeathersATLAn astute, well structured and logical post...
Technology continues to change, but political principles are eternal. There is nothing different politically today than there was in ancient Rome. "New" is not new.
Quote: bobbartopTechnology continues to change, but political principles are eternal. There is nothing different politically today than there was in ancient Rome. "New" is not new.
Uh oh. Looks like I chopped up the quote again. I forgot the <snips>.
Just send me a bill.
Enjoy.
(no it's not a rickroll.)
Quote: WizardofnothingI'm so depressed watching the dnc
Why? It's amazing how much better of a production the DNC put on compared to the RNC. That Morgan Freeman video almost made me like Hill Dawg.
Quote: rxwine(link removed) Alternate viewing for haters of Democratic Convention.
Enjoy.
(no it's not a rickroll.)
What an idiotic thing to post.
There is nothing to discuss when someone posts something like that. It is rude and offensive.
Quote: RonCQuote: rxwine(link removed) Alternate viewing for haters of Democratic Convention.
Enjoy.
(no it's not a rickroll.)
What an idiotic thing to post.
There is nothing to discuss when someone posts something like that. It is rude and offensive.
Maybe you could send Trump a note and ask him to clean up his act then.
sat·ire.
[ˈsaˌtī(ə)r]
NOUN
1..the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery · ridicule · derision · scorn · caricature · irony ·
[more]
Quote: rxwineQuote: RonCQuote: rxwine(link removed) Alternate viewing for haters of Democratic Convention.
Enjoy.
(no it's not a rickroll.)
What an idiotic thing to post.
There is nothing to discuss when someone posts something like that. It is rude and offensive.
Maybe you could send Trump a note and ask him to clean up his act then.
sat·ire.
[ˈsaˌtī(ə)r]
NOUN
1..the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery · ridicule · derision · scorn · caricature · irony ·
[more]
I get that you that you think that invoking Hitler is satire; I think it is an idiotic thing to do and adds absolutely nothing to the conversation...it isn't even good satire.
Why the hell are Liberals, who so embrace tolerance, so freaking nasty? They always talk about the horrid right wing conservatives and how bad they are, but they are just as intolerant as anyone they talk about.
Just help your candidate win. You don't need to invoke Hitler or any of that crap; you just need to help put HRC over the top. If HRC is such a great person to be President, it should be easy to defeat someone like Trump.
Quote: RonCI get that you that you think that invoking Hitler is satire; I think it is an idiotic thing to do
FYI, You're not really suppose to watch 10 hours. No wonder you're in a bad mood.
Quote: rxwineFYI, You're not really suppose to watch 10 hours. No wonder you're in a bad mood.
Maybe that is it...
“I mean, the things that were said about me,I was going to hit a number of those speakers so hard their heads would spin, they’d never recover!"
“I was going to hit one guy in particular, a very little guy. I was going to hit this guy so hard his head would spin. He wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”
Hmm, is he going to go to harsh language
lol
Yea everybody is scared
lol
What a clown. So thin skinned
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, "to hit" in the context of political punditry normally means to verbally refute, not physically strike. But the bit about heads spinning and never recovering, that's not congruent, so who knows what he meant.Quote: terapinedJohn Miller is furious regarding the Dem Convention
“I mean, the things that were said about me,I was going to hit a number of those speakers so hard their heads would spin, they’d never recover!"
“I was going to hit one guy in particular, a very little guy. I was going to hit this guy so hard his head would spin. He wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”
Hmm, is he going to go to harsh language
lol
Yea everybody is scared
lol
What a clown. So thin skinned
Also, why did he phrase it "was going to hit"? Why the past tense, not "I will hit" or "I am going to hit"? Did something change between the time he was going to hit someone and the time he gave the press conference?
Quote: Vice-presidential candidate Mike PenceI don’t think name calling has any place in public life.
Quote: RonC
I get that you that you think that invoking Hitler is satire; I think it is an idiotic thing to do and adds absolutely nothing to the conversation...it isn't even good satire.
Why the hell are Liberals, who so embrace tolerance, so freaking nasty? They always talk about the horrid right wing conservatives and how bad they are, but they are just as intolerant as anyone they talk about.
Just help your candidate win. You don't need to invoke Hitler or any of that crap; you just need to help put HRC over the top. If HRC is such a great person to be President, it should be easy to defeat someone like Trump.
In fact, it will be shockingly easy, especially if Trump doesn't install a locking device on his mouth. I mean, isn't encouraging a foreign power to commit espionage against the US a treasonous act? No, of course not. He was just "being sarcastic." While it seems that Trumpers will forgive anything the OO (Orange Orangutan) says, the sane public will not. All this shit he spews has a cumulative negative effect. And yes, many right wing conservatives ARE pretty horrid, especially if they embrace that horrid little man-child, the OO.
The comparisons with Hitler and the events in Germany in 1933 are so often made because they are so very apt. A populist demagogue exploits the worst of human impulses--racism, fear, xenophobia--to seize power and destroy a democracy. I don't think Trump would start a world war--but he might! That said, I don't think it's appropriate to compare Trump to Hitler.
It's not fair to Hitler.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe comparisons with Hitler and the events in Germany in 1933 are so often made because they are so very apt. A populist demagogue exploits the worst of human impulses--racism, fear, xenophobia--to seize power and destroy a democracy. I don't think Trump would start a world war--but he might! That said, I don't think it's appropriate to compare Trump to Hitler.
It's not fair to Hitler.
Obama, Reagan, Carter and many others have been compared to Hitler. It is an over-used and ridiculous comparison.
The real question isn't who is comparable to Hitler using the loose standard applied by those who like to toss out labels with no substance, it is what will the two candidates do if they get in office? Obama's not going to sign an executive order postponing the election, HRC either will or won't be the third Obama term (he said that she would; she and Bill stated other things), and DT will be constrained mightily by the limits on the power of the President.
She starts off saying "here is what I think we know" and then starts to say "we know"....
So...nothing has been proven yet and "we know" everything...she just leaves enough room there to wiggle on out if it turns out to be not proven. She also claims Trump "supports Putin"...his statement was stupid, but it was also not serious. Like I said earlier, it gave the DNC room to blame him for being part of the problem as opposed to having to face the music over the emails. It was a big mistake.
Quote: RonCLike I said earlier, it gave the DNC room to blame him for being part of the problem as opposed to having to face the music over the emails. It was a big mistake.
Maybe what she said was "tongue-in-cheek?"
When Trump makes a huge, treasonous mistake, you give him that benefit of the doubt. Why not Hillary?
Quote: ams288Maybe what she said was "tongue-in-cheek?"
When Trump makes a huge, treasonous mistake, you give him that benefit of the doubt. Why not Hillary?
Probably because Trump was clearly making a joke while Hillary clearly IS a joke.
Quote: ams288Maybe what she said was "tongue-in-cheek?"
I listened several times. It seemed like a serious long-time politician's way to say something while saying nothing.
Quote: ams288When Trump makes a huge, treasonous mistake, you give him that benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't a "huge, treasonous" mistake--that is ridiculous. It was a bad joke and was inappropriate. I don't think anyone really believes that he is in cahoots with the Russians.
Quote: ams288Why not Hillary?
She was reacting to Trump's off the cuff mistake...she had plenty of time to consider what words to use to sound committed to the answer without being so.
Quote: ams288
When Trump makes a huge, treasonous mistake, you give him that benefit of the doubt. Why not Hillary?
Trump is a private citizen. His "treason" is on par with my own. He just WANTS to be in the position.
Hil IS in the position. You certainly don't want someone who states they'll do something bad. Why do you support someone who HAS done something bad?
I'm sorry, there is no way that Trump's statement comes even CLOSE to the actual crime of "Treason"...
""By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do," he continued. "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted." '
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-spoken-vladimir-putin-urges-russian-president/story?id=40922483
It was a STUPID thing to say, but saying it is "Treason" requires one being able to stretch the actual law way beyond what it actual says.
Quote: FaceTrump is a private citizen. His "treason" is on par with my own. He just WANTS to be in the position.
Hil IS in the position. You certainly don't want someone who states they'll do something bad. Why do you support someone who HAS done something bad?
Since we're all fact checking each other into the ground, Hillary IS a private citizen and has been for several years, since she left as SoS. Why the double standard for her on so many things?
Quote: beachbumbabsWhy the double standard for her on so many things?
No double standard for her. All we want is for her to be held to the same standards as even a low-level employee at the State Dept.
BTW: She has been in politics for 16+ years, just taking a beak does not put her back at "private citizen,"
Quote: AZDuffmanNo double standard for her. All we want is for her to be held to the same standards as even a low-level employee at the State Dept.
BTW: She has been in politics for 16+ years, just taking a beak does not put her back at "private citizen,"
Yeah, it does. I'm a retired Fed, with 25+ years. Private citizen now. Big difference, not just in pay. Same for her. Your bias is showing.
Quote: beachbumbabsSince we're all fact checking each other into the ground, Hillary IS a private citizen and has been for several years, since she left as SoS. Why the double standard for her on so many things?
Her transgressions happened while she was a public servant. That makes a difference (imo, and not a huge one, but one nonetheless). Trump's idiocy should certainly give everyone pause. His behavior should cause everyone to SUSPECT he will do something wrong, maybe even almost guarantee it. But hil already DID.
I'm a one and done type of fellow. Some have made a good argument that her slip was a net good cuz "now she knows". Maybe it is. Guess it depends on your stance / beliefs
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, it does. I'm a retired Fed, with 25+ years. Private citizen now. Big difference, not just in pay. Same for her. Your bias is showing.
No more than yours or anyone else here.
Quote: billryanIf Trump was joking, why did he continue making the argument and have his spokesman defending the remarks. It wasn't until twenty four hours later that he changed from defending the remark to saying he was joking.
He wasn't joking. The righties know it. They are in denial about how awful their candidate is.
Rumor has it one of the reasons Trump won't release his taxes is because Putin claims him as a dependent.
(^^^^ THAT was tongue-in-cheek).
Quote: ams288
(^^^^ THAT was tongue-in-cheek).
THAT was my giggle of the day XD
Quote: ams288He wasn't joking. The righties know it. They are in denial about how awful their candidate is.
I think it was tongue-in-cheek and that he shouldn't have said it at all, no matter what the intent was when he said it. He, for whatever reason, totally took the focus off the DNC's misdeeds and put it on himself. He is a horrible candidate. You already know what I think about the other one.
Quote: ams288Rumor has it one of the reasons Trump won't release his taxes is because Putin claims him as a dependent.
(^^^^ THAT was tongue-in-cheek).
I laughed, but I would like to see Trump release some tax returns. I would like a better explanation of why he can't release them due to an audit; some lawyer should be able to make sense of that if it is in some way true.
I think not releasing them and not presenting a logical reason is a bad move.
He makes lots of bad moves. 16 could not overcome how bad he was.
I am concerned about the future with either candidate, but I don't believe that one term of either of them can ruin the country.
The IRS already said that was nonsense. Back in February, I think.Quote: RonCI laughed, but I would like to see Trump release some tax returns. I would like a better explanation of why he can't release them due to an audit; some lawyer should be able to make sense of that if it is in some way true.
Quote: MathExtremistThe IRS already said that was nonsense. Back in February, I think.
I am not sure why the IRS was making a statement about anything...but okay.
What I said was that a Trump lawyer should give a sound reason to not release them; if they can't, he should release them.
Quote: RonCI am not sure why the IRS was making a statement about anything...but okay.
What I said was that a Trump lawyer should give a sound reason to not release them; if they can't, he should release them.
If Trump was saying to 10s of thousands of journalists, supporters, and doubters that the IRS was not allowing a release during an audit of indefinite length, that's 10s of thousands of inquiries and complaints to the IRS. Since it's untrue that the IRS would stand in the way of releasing his tax info, whether under audit or not, I can see the IRS denying what Trump said right from the first time he said it.
I started with "if" because I didn't think he had thrown the blame to the IRS, just repeatedly said he would release them after an audit was complete . But I'm a long way from having heard everything he's said about anything. The IRS generates enough crap on its own without being his scapegoat.
He's hiding the following (speculation) :
He paid no taxes for years.
He paid a very low rate the years he did owe.
He hasn't donated any significant amount to charity though he claims he has.
He doesn't have anywhere near 9 or 10 billion dollars.
He has questionable offshore tax shelters.
He had non-public divorce / alimony / child support agreements with wife 1 and wife 2. Those terms will be reflected in the tax returns.
I'd bet on all of these together. He's going to look like a liar, a cheat, and a bad American if they come out. Which is why he'll never release them.
Quote: beachbumbabsIf Trump was saying to 10s of thousands of journalists, supporters, and doubters that the IRS was not allowing a release during an audit of indefinite length, that's 10s of thousands of inquiries and complaints to the IRS. Since it's untrue that the IRS would stand in the way of releasing his tax info, whether under audit or not, I can see the IRS denying what Trump said right from the first time he said it.
I started with "if" because I didn't think he had thrown the blame to the IRS, just repeatedly said he would release them after an audit was complete . But I'm a long way from having heard everything he's said about anything. The IRS generates enough crap on its own without being his scapegoat.
He's hiding the following (speculation) :
He paid no taxes for years.
He paid a very low rate the years he did owe.
He hasn't donated any significant amount to charity though he claims he has.
He doesn't have anywhere near 9 or 10 billion dollars.
He has questionable offshore tax shelters.
He had non-public divorce / alimony / child support agreements with wife 1 and wife 2. Those terms will be reflected in the tax returns.
I'd bet on all of these together. He's going to look like a liar, a cheat, and a bad American if they come out. Which is why he'll never release them.
So the gist of this is that you don't really think that Trump said that the IRS would not let him release the returns and that it was his decision not to do so while he was being audited. Then came the list of speculations about the "why"...
Nixon released his tax returns while he was under an audit, the IRS has indicated there is no prohibition on doing that, and besides, Trump won't release his tax returns from years that aren't being audited either. So his excuse of an audit is just a ruse. Trump isn't releasing his tax returns because he has decided not to. Audits have nothing to do with it.Quote: RonCSo the gist of this is that you don't really think that Trump said that the IRS would not let him release the returns and that it was his decision not to do so while he was being audited. Then came the list of speculations about the "why"...
Quote: RonCSo the gist of this is that you don't really think that Trump said that the IRS would not let him release the returns and that it was his decision not to do so while he was being audited. Then came the list of speculations about the "why"...
Such speculations, from Babs and others, are the natural result of Trump not telling us "why." The "why" he did offer, that the IRS was auditing him, was clearly pointed out by the IRS as nonsense, in that being audited--a fairly commonplace situation for someone as high-profile and high-income as Trump--doesn't preclude a taxpayer's disclosing the contents of his tax returns to anyone. Trump knows this, or at least has been told so by his accountants.
It's natural to wonder just what Trump could be hiding. I agree with Babs that disclosing the returns would very likely expose him as a hypocritical, lying fraud and make his "Crooked Hillary" smears look pretty pathetic. The lies those returns would uncover would destroy his Presidential campaign, which let's face it, is on life support anyway. So it's no wonder he's resisting any suggestions that he disclose them.
Trump could end all those speculations that you so decry simply by telling the truth. But that would be like an elephant flapping its ears and starting to fly. Trump's entire life has been based on NOT telling the truth. Why should he, then, when the truth would destroy him? (Though Trumpers would still be faithful, following him over a cliff like lemmings.)
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSuch speculations, from Babs and others, are the natural result of Trump not telling us "why." The "why" he did offer, that the IRS was auditing him, was clearly pointed out by the IRS as nonsense, in that being audited--a fairly commonplace situation for someone as high-profile and high-income as Trump--doesn't preclude a taxpayer's disclosing the contents of his tax returns to anyone. Trump knows this, or at least has been told so by his accountants.
It's natural to wonder just what Trump could be hiding. I agree with Babs that disclosing the returns would very likely expose him as a hypocritical, lying fraud and make his "Crooked Hillary" smears look pretty pathetic. The lies those returns would uncover would destroy his Presidential campaign, which let's face it, is on life support anyway. So it's no wonder he's resisting any suggestions that he disclose them.
Trump could end all those speculations that you so decry simply by telling the truth. But that would be like an elephant flapping its ears and starting to fly. Trump's entire life has been based on NOT telling the truth. Why should he, then, when the truth would destroy him? (Though Trumpers would still be faithful, following him over a cliff like lemmings.)
You don't listen. I don't object to BBB's list of possible reasons for not releasing return; he has left himself open to that.
I wrote about the IRS commenting (or not) on the issue.
You actually seem to enjoy bashing people more than conversing...I wonder why?
Quote: MathExtremistNixon released his tax returns while he was under an audit, the IRS has indicated there is no prohibition on doing that, and besides, Trump won't release his tax returns from years that aren't being audited either. So his excuse of an audit is just a ruse. Trump isn't releasing his tax returns because he has decided not to. Audits have nothing to do with it.
...and I would expect him to be criticized for it.
Just because there is "no prohibition" on him releasing the info, that is up to him. If he doesn't explain it any better, he deserves the criticism.
UTAH
(The reddest state in 2012 - because of Mitt Romney's Mormon religion).
Is it possible Mitt Romney endorses Hillary at some point just to really piss Trump off (and to definitely help Hillary win Utah)?
Quote: ams288Is it possible Mitt Romney endorses Hillary at some point just to really piss Trump off (and to definitely help Hillary win Utah)?
Possible, but unlikely. He will likely keep bashing Trump without endorsing Hillary... it may have the same result.
My latest prediction.... it is possible Trump will finally make a buffoonish comment he can't escape from and ends up with ZERO electoral votes. What odds could I get?
There's already a prediction market for that, I think the current odds are 19 to 1.Quote: SOOPOOPossible, but unlikely. He will likely keep bashing Trump without endorsing Hillary... it may have the same result.
My latest prediction.... it is possible Trump will finally make a buffoonish comment he can't escape from and ends up with ZERO electoral votes. What odds could I get?
I'm more interested in the chances that, later on, evidence surfaces that he was trying to get zero votes or otherwise throw the race by continuing to make more and more despicable comments. I'm not convinced that he'll even be in the race by November. He's already started to complain that the election will be rigged. I expect that to form the kernel of the excuse he ultimately uses to drop out.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm more interested in the chances that, later on, evidence surfaces that he was trying to get zero votes or otherwise throw the race by continuing to make more and more despicable comments. I'm not convinced that he'll even be in the race by November. He's already started to complain that the election will be rigged. I expect that to form the kernel of the excuse he ultimately uses to drop out.
They were talking on Morning Joe this morning: It's clear that Trump doesn't want to lose and be labeled a loser for the rest of his life, but it's also very clear he doesn't want to win and have to actually *govern* either... so what does he do to get out of this situation he's got himself into???
“In 1995, Donald Trump went to the American people and he said join me — I’m a winner — and invest in my company: Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts,” Buffett said. “They listed on the New York Stock Exchange and Mr. Trump very modestly made the ticker symbol DJT. Guess what that’s for.”
That business eventually turned out to be the worst part of Trump’s business portfolio.
“The next 10 years, the company loses money every year,” Buffett continued. “Every single year.”
Buffett added that while shareholders saw their investment crumble, Trump took home $44 million in compensation during that period.
For Trump, it wasn’t that he couldn’t deliver above-average returns. It was that he wasn’t even close to delivering an average return.
“In 1995 when he offered this company, if a monkey had thrown a dart at the stock page [of a newspaper], the monkey on average would’ve made a 150%,” Buffett quipped. “But the people who believed in him, who listened to his siren song, came away losing over 90 cents on the dollar. They got back less than a dime.”
Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-trump-monkey-stocks-000000899.html
I'm up for firing it out. What does a face-saving, ego-preserving, spinnable event look like that leads to Trump dropping out of the race? Being offered some think tank position?Quote: ams288They were talking on Morning Joe this morning: It's clear that Trump doesn't want to lose and be labeled a loser for the rest of his life, but it's also very clear he doesn't want to win and have to actually *govern* either... so what does he do to get out of this situation he's got himself into???
