2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: terapined

Quote: RonC

[ Hillary Clinton and her family are sleazy; they will likely win because the other candidate is sleazy, too-.

Too sleazy
how about more sleazy
How about more stupid
Benghazi Mom went after Hillary hard at the Republican convention. No response from Hill is the smart move
Gold star Khan goes after Trump at the debates. Dumb and stupid Trump takes the bait

Foxnews is all over this. If there is any anti Clinton info out there, fox is on it.
As to the traditional media, very little influence.
Millennials are not scheduling their day around the 630pm news.
Very few are
They are not watching CNN either (unless major story breaking)
These days, its the internet
Its kind of funny Trump complaining about the media. Its the internet
If you want to listen to Trumps latest gaffs in a speech, you go to youtube, no media filter needed
Trump should be complaining about youtube and the internet crashing his campaign.

The only reason Trump has a campaign is social media and the Internet. Trump has no complaint coming about his statements being easily reviewed and trashed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: terapined

Quote: RonC

[ Hillary Clinton and her family are sleazy; they will likely win because the other candidate is sleazy, too-.

Too sleazy
how about more sleazy
How about more stupid
Benghazi Mom went after Hillary hard at the Republican convention. No response from Hill is the smart move
Gold star Khan goes after Trump at the debates. Dumb and stupid Trump takes the bait

Foxnews is all over this. If there is any anti Clinton info out there, fox is on it.
As to the traditional media, very little influence.
Millennials are not scheduling their day around the 630pm news.
Very few are
They are not watching CNN either (unless major story breaking)
These days, its the internet
Its kind of funny Trump complaining about the media. Its the internet
If you want to listen to Trumps latest gaffs in a speech, you go to youtube, no media filter needed
Trump should be complaining about youtube and the internet crashing his campaign.

The only reason Trump has a campaign is social media and the Internet. Trump has no complaint coming about his statements being easily reviewed and trashed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Trump has nothing to complain about; most of his wounds are self-inflicted.

That fact does not make Hillary any less of a sleazebag. Y'all may be right about Trump being worse, but we are about to get a POS as President no matter how you slice it.

Quote: RonC

[
. Y'all may be right about Trump being worse, but we are about to get a POS as President no matter how you slice it.

HMM
The way I slice it is that I am sure my life wont change once Hill is elected. Obama part 3, cool :-)
How will your life change Ronc?
Has your life gone down the tubes the last 8 years due to Obama?
My reality, my live has not changed much the last 10 years except that friends are happier
I am not gay but I look at life as improving because friends that are gay are happier
Now if you are gay, live has definitely improved from Republican President to Dem

Michael Moore is claiming to know for a fact what several people (including me) have suspected for a while: Trump was never in this race to actually win it and it was always about publicity and brand-building.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/trump-self-sabotage_b_11545026.html?

Ironically, if Moore is correct about Trump's motivations, Trump failed not once but twice. The first failure was in getting fired by NBC instead of getting a sweeter TV deal (and in ruining his brand), the second failure was in being forced to spend far more time on this charade than he originally planned to.

But objectively, it's pretty clear that he's not trying to win. He has very little campaign staff and his campaign has -- shockingly -- spent exactly zero dollars on TV advertisements:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290834-analysis-trump-campaign-has-spent-0-on-television

But he had $20M on hand in June, raised $80M in July, and had $37M on hand in early August. So he spent $63M last month. It wasn't on advertising, and it doesn't appear to have been on campaign staff either. So, um, he may have simply pocketed the money...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-spent-63-million-in-july.-where-did-all-that-money-go/article/2003833

In other words, this campaign might not just be a con job, it might be an outright swindle.

Quote: MathExtremist

In other words, this campaign might not just be a con job, it might be an outright swindle.

Interesting and plausible theory. It makes some sense that Trump doesn't feel the necessity to conduct a traditional campaign. He's polarized the electorate to the extent that the undecided, moderate voters--who traditionally have been the target of all Presidential campaigns--are barely there. I would guess there are maybe five voters in the entire country who neither love nor hate Trump. (As an example of an extreme at one end of the spectrum, RonC has made SEVEN posts in the last 24 hours showing his Trump love! I didn't read those posts--I've blocked him--but I don't need to do that to know what they're about. When that type of impassioned fanaticism exists in some people, why would Trump need to spend any money energizing the faithful? He could kill a baby on live TV and he wouldn't lose a single follower.)

So any $3 million TV ads touting the concept that The Donald is our savior from the dark forces that threaten our country's existence, that Hillary has been responsible for the deaths of billions, etc. aren't going to convert anyone, making them a waste of money--and we all KNOW how frugal the OO is. He's frugal to the point of never repaying his debts if he can avoid it, and that apparently includes his federal taxes.

The best hope for the country is that he stays at the helm of the Titanic all the way to the election. That way, we can pry the control of the Senate out of the hands of the do-nothing obstructionist Republicans, as every Republican senatorial incumbent and candidate will be asked, "Do you support Donald Trump's candidacy?" Morton's Fork applies: say yes, and you alienate many of those who would have voted for you, and you lose; say no, and the Party cuts off your support, and you lose.

Quote: MathExtremist

Michael Moore is claiming to know for a fact what several people (including me) have suspected for a while: Trump was never in this race to actually win....

Nothing new about that strategy, throughout history. Imagine McGovern visiting the arch-murderer of the world's history, Mao Tse-Tung. It wouldn't have happened. But Nixon did it. "Anti-communist" Nixon did it.

Bull Moose Partier Teddy Roosevelt assured globalist Woodrow Wilson's victory. It's nothing new. There's a power behind the throne that either calls the shots, or at least manipulates the results. Probably since the beginning of governments. And it's seldom about money.

Quote: bobbartop

Nothing new about that strategy, throughout history. Imagine McGovern visiting the arch-murderer of the world's history, Mao Tse-Tung. It wouldn't have happened. But Nixon did it. "Anti-communist" Nixon did it.

Bull Moose Partier Teddy Roosevelt assured globalist Woodrow Wilson's victory. It's nothing new. There's a power behind the throne that either calls the shots, or at least manipulates the results. Probably since the beginning of governments. And it's seldom about money.

I don't think your examples are apropos. For starters, Nixon won, and he had been polling ahead of McGovern by at least 16% the whole time after he visited Mao:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1972

And Teddy Roosevelt's 3rd-party run wasn't like Trump's either. Trump isn't a 3rd party, he's the chosen candidate of one of the two major parties -- though apparently they now regret that choice. There were over 120 GOP signatories to an open letter urging the RNC to disown Trump today:
https://www.scribd.com/document/321380562/RNC-Open-Letter

Quote: Open Letter to RNC

Since the GOP convention, less than a month ago, he has alienated millions of voters of all parties by:
- Attacking Gold Star families of soldiers who died serving their country;
- Urging a hostile foreign government to intervene in a U.S. election;
- Suggesting that gun owners take action against his opponent if she is elected;
- Repudiating our NATO treaty obligations to protect our allies;
- Reportedly expressing interest in the preemptive use of nuclear weapons;
- Exposing his total ignorance of basic foreign policy matters;
- Stating his admiration for violent foreign autocrats;
- Refusing to disclose any of his past taxes, including those not under audit; and
- Deliberately and repeatedly lying about scores of issues, large and small.

Those are not the actions of a man trying to win a presidential election. In any event, Hillary is currently polling 7% ahead of Trump. Do you think the power behind Trump's throne is the same power behind Hillary's?

"- Suggesting that gun owners take action against his opponent if she is elected;"

With all of the other, much more direct, threats and musings about possible assassinations by politicians, this is a lame addition to the list of reasons to disown Trump.

Does ANYONE reasonably think that people won't stand up for the 2nd Amendment if it comes down to it? That doesn't imply assassination. Just a huge fight if it comes down to it.

Other things on the list trouble me; this one does not. It isn't the best thing he has ever said, but both candidates have said worse.

Quote: MathExtremist

Michael Moore is claiming to know for a fact what several people (including me) have suspected for a while: Trump was never in this race to actually win it and it was always about publicity and brand-building.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/trump-self-sabotage_b_11545026.html?

Ironically, if Moore is correct about Trump's motivations, Trump failed not once but twice. The first failure was in getting fired by NBC instead of getting a sweeter TV deal (and in ruining his brand), the second failure was in being forced to spend far more time on this charade than he originally planned to.

But objectively, it's pretty clear that he's not trying to win. He has very little campaign staff and his campaign has -- shockingly -- spent exactly zero dollars on TV advertisements:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290834-analysis-trump-campaign-has-spent-0-on-television

But he had $20M on hand in June, raised $80M in July, and had $37M on hand in early August. So he spent $63M last month. It wasn't on advertising, and it doesn't appear to have been on campaign staff either. So, um, he may have simply pocketed the money...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-spent-63-million-in-july.-where-did-all-that-money-go/article/2003833

In other words, this campaign might not just be a con job, it might be an outright swindle.

Michael Moore is a moron. Anyone that invokes the Nazis in the conversation about this election is either an idiot themselves (if they are not a member of this board) or is writing something that is absurd (if they are a member of this board). You'd think that Liberals would be more worried about Hillary's close ties to the big banks than some pie in the sky bullshit...even if they vote for her, which I understand they will as Liberals, how are they going to fight her on that kind of issue?

Yeah, it'll peachy with President Clinton. Trump made some ridiculous statements about foreign policy; Clinton has accepted money from many of them and is bought and paid for with that money. The bankers have her on their side.

Someone asked will my life be impacted by this. Who knows. Thing is...will a President Clinton do much to help the people Liberals and Democrats always say they want to help? Y'all may get what you want. I hope at the end of her term, you still feel like you wanted what you got.

Do I want a President Trump? No. Do I want another President Clinton? No. One of them will prevail but it isn't as over right now as everyone in the MSM is trying to say it is...it isn't even September...

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't think your examples are apropos. For starters, Nixon won, and he had been polling ahead of McGovern by at least 16% the whole time after he visited Mao:

I am entirely wrong about the dates. You are right, I got that totally mixed up. I'm going by memory, not looking anything up. But my point that I was so feebly try to make is that "they" ran McGovern on purpose. McGovern had no chance, he ran to lose. Nixon, as a republican, was able to do all the things that McGovern never could have accomplished. The scope of federal government mushroomed under Nixon. And, his deficit was a record at the time (teeny tiny compared to today), McGovern would have been impeached for failing at the same things that Nixon succeeded in doing.

Quote: MathExtremist

And Teddy Roosevelt's 3rd-party run wasn't like Trump's either. Trump isn't a 3rd party,

No, but I just meant that running without intending to win is common. Roosevelt ran to draw votes from Taft and assure Wilson's victory.

You very well could be right about Trump. That's why to date I don't think I've said much or anything about him. He's still an unknown factor to me. But my gut feeling, as usual, is that we are screwed no matter which "side" wins.

On ABC's national news tonight, there was a shot of Trump shaking hands with a fan wearing this shirt. I lol-ed.

Quote: MathExtremist

Do you think the power behind Trump's throne is the same power behind Hillary's?

So far I am not seeing it. But if that were not the case, it would be the first time in my life.

Fwiw, Gingrich answers to that "power", so if Trump wins and you see him put Gingrich in a position of power, that's bad news. I know earlier Trump was looking at Richard N. Haass. That would be extra bad news.

That's why this is such an unusual election, and I'm so confused. If Trump is truly an "outsider" I cannot possibly see the "real power" allowing him to win. By whatever means necessary.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, we WILL get fooled again.

Quote: RonC

Michael Moore is a moron.

I don't like him. But there is NO way he is a moron. He is a brilliant person, that I don't like. It's unfortunate, that he is not a moron. It's not morons that you have to worry about.

Quote: zippyboy

On ABC's national news tonight, there was a shot of Trump shaking hands with a fan wearing this shirt. I lol-ed.

Pretty stupid shirt, considering that Clinton has never been found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, though Trumpers may bleat BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS endlessly. In reality, Trump is the criminal--and I'm not referring to his jerkassery. It was just revealed that he bribed a Florida official $25K to make a criminal prosecution against him go away. A LOT more stuff like that is slowly surfacing. That may be the reason why he's backpedaling from his own candidacy. Like a cockroach, he doesn't like being in the light.

And y'know what? Hillary may be a mass murderer, a thief, an evil witch, the most horrible horrible horrible person in the history of humanity, a crook, a liar, a child rapist, a killer of innocent kittens, and a lousy cook, but how does all that make Trump any kind of viable candidate for the Presidency? By Trumper logic, I should get as many votes as the Orange Orangutan does, because I'm also not Hillary.

More dirt?

Quote:

By the time Chris Christie became governor of New Jersey, the state’s auditors and lawyers had been battling for several years to collect long-overdue taxes owed by the casinos founded by his friend Donald J. Trump.

The total, with interest, had grown to almost $30 million. The state had doggedly pursued the matter through two of the casinos’ bankruptcy cases and even accused the company led by Mr. Trump of filing false reports with state casino regulators about the amount of taxes it had paid.

But the year after Governor Christie, a Republican, took office, the tone of the litigation shifted. The state entertained settlement offers. And in December 2011, after six years in court, the state agreed to accept just $5 million, roughly 17 cents on the dollar of what auditors said the casinos owed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-casinos%e2%80%99-tax-debt-was-dollar30-million-then-chris-christie-took-office/ar-BBvHIH3?ocid=spartanntp

And there is more at that link, like so.

Quote:

In February 2007, Heather Lynn Anderson, a deputy attorney general who specializes in tax cases, filed papers in court saying auditors had discovered discrepancies that raised “numerous additional questions regarding the accuracy” of the Trump casinos’ tax returns. The company had reported lower revenue figures on its tax returns, for example, than on filings with the State Casino Control Commission. Ms. Anderson also wrote that Mr. Trump’s flagship casino, the Taj Mahal, had reported to the casino commission that it paid $2.2 million in alternative minimum assessment tax in 2003, which was not true. The company had paid only $500 in income taxes.

Quote: zippyboy

On ABC's national news tonight, there was a shot of Trump shaking hands with a fan wearing this shirt. I lol-ed.

Very tame
I've been to Trump Rallies
The shirts being sold outside border on offensive porn
Confederate flags are sold outside Trump Rallies
Trump supporters buy them and display them at the rallies
Trump campaign people demand that the supporters take down the confederate flag. Hmm, I wonder why :-)

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

As much as it makes me want to vomit to say this, Trump sorta kinda has a point. Much in the way that a million chimpanzees on a million typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, there is an occasional grain of truth in Trump's positions. Or perhaps I should modify the analogy to: with a million orangutans pooping over a million years, one of them will eventually poop out Rodin's "The Thinker."

Anyway, Trump's point--babbled incoherently though it may have been--is that if the use of nuclear weapons is indeed unthinkable, then their deterrent function has failed. The other guy has to think you're crazy/murderous/angry enough to use them. Otherwise, you may as well not have them. Whether that would be desirable is open to debate.

I have wondered many times, what would a President--of the US or of Russia--do if the phone rang and he was informed that 500 missiles were inbound and everybody in the targeted cities had about twenty minutes to live? Would the President spend the last twenty minutes of his life ordering the slaughter of hundreds of millions and the likely extinction of humanity? Or would he/she spend those last minutes praying, and NOT push the button? I'd like to think that would actually be the case, but if either leader actually SAID that, well, that would be inviting total destruction. It's actually one of the oldest problems in game theory. Also the subject of a short story by Arthur Clarke (the Russian premier, already dead by the time the recording is heard, orders his forces to stand down rather than retaliate against a massive nuclear attack by the US).

I can certainly envision scenarios where we might be forced to use nukes against a rogue nation if that nation becomes a direct and proximate threat. For example, I actually hope that if Kim Jong Foo Nutcase, or whatever his name is, ever does acquire a nuclear weapon, that we incinerate Pyongyang rather than looking for a diplomatic solution; such solutions are only available when dealing with sane people. The same goes for Tehran, and Las Vegas too for that matter. Teach THEM to cut off my comps!

I actually expect a major Western city to go up in a nuclear fireball within the next 20-30 years, whether as a result of direct military attack by one of the Crazy Nations or by terrorists that they sponsor. Trump's response to that would be to nuke SOMEBODY. Who knows who that would be. Maybe Guam or Winnipeg. But odd as it sounds to say, having a crazy, homicidal psychopath in the White House would actually be a stronger deterrent than having a sane, human, rational person there, for the reasons I implied in the doomsday scenario I painted above.

And isn't THAT a depressing thought.

I see the tough talk has some value in deterrence, and if skillfully applied, it is a good asset in psychological warfare. Since Trump doesn’t know what a nuclear triad is and had asked his foreign policy advisor that if we had nuclear weapon why can't we use them is a clear indication that Trump doesn’t know the concept of nuclear deterrence and MAD (mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction) military doctrine.

The problem with Trump is that he is a mad man with bad temper, who either ignores or does not understand the concept of deterrence, and his tough talk would only diminish the value of deterrence in nuclear warfare and therefore; more likely encourage a pre-emptive nuclear strike order by either by himself if he were a POTUS, or by or an adversary nation.

Quote: MathExtremist

Michael Moore is claiming to know for a fact what several people (including me) have suspected for a while: Trump was never in this race to actually win it and it was always about publicity and brand-building.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/trump-self-sabotage_b_11545026.html?

Ironically, if Moore is correct about Trump's motivations, Trump failed not once but twice. The first failure was in getting fired by NBC instead of getting a sweeter TV deal (and in ruining his brand), the second failure was in being forced to spend far more time on this charade than he originally planned to.

But objectively, it's pretty clear that he's not trying to win. He has very little campaign staff and his campaign has -- shockingly -- spent exactly zero dollars on TV advertisements:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290834-analysis-trump-campaign-has-spent-0-on-television

But he had $20M on hand in June, raised $80M in July, and had $37M on hand in early August. So he spent $63M last month. It wasn't on advertising, and it doesn't appear to have been on campaign staff either. So, um, he may have simply pocketed the money...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-spent-63-million-in-july.-where-did-all-that-money-go/article/2003833

In other words, this campaign might not just be a con job, it might be an outright swindle.

Trump’s demagogue and bigotry clearly wins the hearts of RonC and AZD, and the like; but the ironic thing is Trump’s brand had been diminished by his demagogue and bigotry.

I believe Trumps badly wants to quit, but by quitting he will become irrelevant and be ridiculed similar to what Ross Perot did in the 1992 presidential race. History will look at Trump in this 2016 race as either a loser or a quitter. And Trump doesn’t want a stigma of a quitter, and by not quitting, Trump can remain relevant and can shape the GOP political landscape for many years to come.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Possibly the greatest benefit of the Trump campaign is that we can identify those who support him and maybe in some way exclude them from human society. Ideally, we put them all together in the same place. Perhaps we can build a thousand-foot high electrified fence around, say, west Kansas and Nebraska, and ship all Trumpers there. They'd love being in each others' company anyway. To feed them, all we'd have to do is heave some raw steaks over the fence every so often. (Or maybe entire cows.)

And such place should be a re-education camp instead of a prison.

I volunteer to transport RonC and AZD to the electrified fence camp, but without the enticing offer of an entire cow, I don’t think RonC and AZD will voluntarily surrender…

Quote: 777

I volunteer to transport RonC and AZD to the electrified fence camp, but without the enticing offer of an entire cow, I don’t think RonC and AZD will voluntarily surrender…

Once I carve out my utopia, I'll take them both off your hands. Appreciate the fence; I'll do the maintenance since you were kind enough to do the installation =)

What I'm really here for is to backtrack...

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

While that may be an extreme example, the conservative memes of "MY America" and "I want America back" (which I'm surprised, frankly, to hear you adopt) are thoughts along the same lines. There is no "my America"--if anyone owns the place, it is the body politic, not any one individual. And if you say you want America back, that implies that what exists now isn't America. These are flawed concepts at best, and just plain dumb at worst. In any event, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The changes to America are irreversible.

This has been bothering me ever since it was posted. It's my fault; I again simplified and used a meme that has a meaning different than what I meant. When I say things like "My America", I do not in any way relate to that tired meme, which is oft used directly or twisted into representing bigotry and oppression. Just so we're perfectly clear, I do not want my America back from those dirty Mexicans, or uppity negros, or savage Muslims. Feels funny that I have to be so clear and I actual lol'ed typing it, but I want to be clear here =p

No, when I say "My America", there's a very clear picture in my head. And I have to thank Jo for his comment, as I've done many hours worth of thinking about this. And I suppose I'm here to run that thinking by y'all, because I'm not sure that I don't have the whole thing f#$%ed right up.

See, I was taught (perhaps indoctrinated) into a certain way of viewing our country. When I think of America, I don't think of the bulls#$% we're seeing seemingly every day now. I don't think of the two idiots pining for the White House, not the banker's wars on brown folks half a world away, not the total bastardization of justice we see with BLM. No. When I think of America, I think of the gods who came before us. I think of Franklin's quote I offered earlier about Gadsden's flag. I think of his quote on security and liberty, how it warns, how it inspires to not be such a f#$%ing pussy about every little thing. I think of Lazarus' quote at the base of Lady Liberty, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses". I think of Washington and how he warns against separation, both physical in the sense of secession, and ideological as our politics have become.

THAT is MY AMERICA. The America that welcomed ALL. Not just people from a certain region, or of a certain status, or of a certain color. Any goddamned person vying for freedom and with a will to work. My America is one that is not scared of every f#$%ing boogeyman so much so that it closes itself to the world, spies on its citizens, and militarizes its police. My America is bold, brave, willing to put itself in between the world and the evil which threatens it. My America stood up to the monarch, stood up to the despotic tyrants, stood for what is RIGHT! F#$% the danger, f#$% the cost, f#$% anyone who doesn't like it. She was righteous and just and did what needed to be done.

THAT was My America. And many intellectual lightweights would chime in now and say "Yeah, back when women were in the kitchen and blacks were in the fields! Yay!" No, not what I mean at all. And some, like you, will say that the genie's out of the bottle, there's no going back. To that I say "Horse s#$%". It is never too late to change, never to late to meet your potential. It's not that hard to be brave. It's not that hard to be just. It's not that hard to be objective and do what's right. And I am sick and f#$%ing tired of hearing "Whelp, that's just the way it is!", or, worse, "Well, it was fine until xxxxx..." were xxxxx is some biased bulls#$% that matters not a lick. I'm tired of our entire national focus being placed on something as absurd as whether two men who let their pee-pees touch should be legally recognized, and whether we should keep denying them basic rights enjoyed by damn near every other American. I'm tired of "recognizing our troops fighting for our freedom" when our freedom ain't been fought for since before any of us were born (yes, even before EvenBob). I'm tired of waging a war on mental illness, denying our people needed medical attendance, and jailing them because their head is sick. And I am tired right the f#$% to death of this home team rah-rah horse flop called our election process that serves to divide us and make enemies of your goddamned neighbor. TIRED OF IT!

We the people. By the people. For the people. That is My America.

But, after pondering your response for so many days, I'm wondering if it ever was. I'm wondering if it's not just an effect of rose colored glasses polished with nostalgia. I want to believe, I have believed my entire life. But could it be that I went and made myself my very own religion? Is being a c#$% the actual American way, and all that I've come to love nothing but a Potemkin village?

I've got a couple hundred years of history that tells me I'm right. But I've got 30some years of life and I'm still waiting to see it. Scratch that, 9/11 showed me it. It's still there. Somewhere. Under all the scrub and bulls#$%. Seems to me, it just needs burned away =p

Quote: Face

Once I carve out my utopia, I'll take them both off your hands. Appreciate the fence; I'll do the maintenance since you were kind enough to do the installation =)

What I'm really here for is to backtrack...



This has been bothering me ever since it was posted. It's my fault; I again simplified and used a meme that has a meaning different than what I meant. When I say things like "My America", I do not in any way relate to that tired meme, which is oft used directly or twisted into representing bigotry and oppression. Just so we're perfectly clear, I do not want my America back from those dirty Mexicans, or uppity negros, or savage Muslims. Feels funny that I have to be so clear and I actual lol'ed typing it, but I want to be clear here =p

No, when I say "My America", there's a very clear picture in my head. And I have to thank Jo for his comment, as I've done many hours worth of thinking about this. And I suppose I'm here to run that thinking by y'all, because I'm not sure that I don't have the whole thing f#$%ed right up.

See, I was taught (perhaps indoctrinated) into a certain way of viewing our country. When I think of America, I don't think of the bulls#$% we're seeing seemingly every day now. I don't think of the two idiots pining for the White House, not the banker's wars on brown folks half a world away, not the total bastardization of justice we see with BLM. No. When I think of America, I think of the gods who came before us. I think of Franklin's quote I offered earlier about Gadsden's flag. I think of his quote on security and liberty, how it warns, how it inspires to not be such a f#$%ing pussy about every little thing. I think of Lazarus' quote at the base of Lady Liberty, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses". I think of Washington and how he warns against separation, both physical in the sense of secession, and ideological as our politics have become.

THAT is MY AMERICA. The America that welcomed ALL. Not just people from a certain region, or of a certain status, or of a certain color. Any goddamned person vying for freedom and with a will to work. My America is one that is not scared of every f#$%ing boogeyman so much so that it closes itself to the world, spies on its citizens, and militarizes its police. My America is bold, brave, willing to put itself in between the world and the evil which threatens it. My America stood up to the monarch, stood up to the despotic tyrants, stood for what is RIGHT! F#$% the danger, f#$% the cost, f#$% anyone who doesn't like it. She was righteous and just and did what needed to be done.

THAT was My America. And many intellectual lightweights would chime in now and say "Yeah, back when women were in the kitchen and blacks were in the fields! Yay!" No, not what I mean at all. And some, like you, will say that the genie's out of the bottle, there's no going back. To that I say "Horse s#$%". It is never too late to change, never to late to meet your potential. It's not that hard to be brave. It's not that hard to be just. It's not that hard to be objective and do what's right. And I am sick and f#$%ing tired of hearing "Whelp, that's just the way it is!", or, worse, "Well, it was fine until xxxxx..." were xxxxx is some biased bulls#$% that matters not a lick. I'm tired of our entire national focus being placed on something as absurd as whether two men who let their pee-pees touch should be legally recognized, and whether we should keep denying them basic rights enjoyed by damn near every other American. I'm tired of "recognizing our troops fighting for our freedom" when our freedom ain't been fought for since before any of us were born (yes, even before EvenBob). I'm tired of waging a war on mental illness, denying our people needed medical attendance, and jailing them because their head is sick. And I am tired right the f#$% to death of this home team rah-rah horse flop called our election process that serves to divide us and make enemies of your goddamned neighbor. TIRED OF IT!

We the people. By the people. For the people. That is My America.

But, after pondering your response for so many days, I'm wondering if it ever was. I'm wondering if it's not just an effect of rose colored glasses polished with nostalgia. I want to believe, I have believed my entire life. But could it be that I went and made myself my very own religion? Is being a c#$% the actual American way, and all that I've come to love nothing but a Potemkin village?

I've got a couple hundred years of history that tells me I'm right. But I've got 30some years of life and I'm still waiting to see it. Scratch that, 9/11 showed me it. It's still there. Somewhere. Under all the scrub and bulls#$%. Seems to me, it just needs burned away =p

Your America (and mine) is still there. It's not rose colored glasses. If anything, it's Mazlov. We are so rich in the basics, we think we can afford to quibble about the superficial. We are.so entrenched in our freedoms, we are genuinely surprised to find there's a law, an attitude, a custom that restricts others from their full exercise of the same. Btw, as a NA, you're pretty generous in sharing the Dream; yours are the most forgotten people in this country by far.

Women pioneers, from which I'm decended, did not stay in the kitchen and otherwise barefoot. They worked right alongside the men, plowing, building, whatever. So I think we've earned our place in America as equals. I think blacks, gays, immigrants, whichever demographic, have as well.

The problem is with those who think that someone receiving equal rights infringes on their own. Freedom is not a pie. It's not a finite thing. People who want to marry each other don't affect someone else's marriage in the least, as one example. There are many more.

So it's a bit messy as we sort the rights from the backlash. But America the Dream underlies it all.

I've stayed out of this for the most part lately, mostly because I believe it's a lost cause for Trump at this point. And probably was all along. Barring any charges against her, Hillary was going to win because of the way the country is going demographically. It will take a bad economy and a new type Republican to win the POTUS in my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm a realist.

But, Trump had the best speech of either candidate last night. Liberals don't want to hear it and sadly many minorities don't either, but he was spot on about our poor communities. Liberals have thrown money at the problem for years with little results and the GOP has basically ignored them.

Yet 99% of the voters in those communities will still vote Dem. I want to understand, but can't. I guess the promise of the status quo is better than that thought of losing the crumbs you currently get for the chance at a better life of law and order. Just keep your head down and stay in after 6. And regardless of the circumstances, blame the police.

Quote: 777

Trump’s demagogue and bigotry clearly wins the hearts of RonC and AZD, and the like; but the ironic thing is Trump’s brand had been diminished by his demagogue and bigotry.

I believe Trumps badly wants to quit, but by quitting he will become irrelevant and be ridiculed similar to what Ross Perot did in the 1992 presidential race. History will look at Trump in this 2016 race as either a loser or a quitter. And Trump doesn’t want a stigma of a quitter, and by not quitting, Trump can remain relevant and can shape the GOP political landscape for many years to come.

If Moore is right, and I've no way of knowing that, then Trump lost his biggest deal last year when NBC fired him. I don't think Trump wants to quit the race, but I think he wants to lose the election even less. Maybe I'm wrong, though -- he did say something recently about "if I lose, the election must have been rigged" so maybe that's the angle of the day.

Quote: Boz

But, Trump had the best speech of either candidate last night. Liberals don't want to hear it and sadly many minorities don't either, but he was spot on about our poor communities. Liberals have thrown money at the problem for years with little results and the GOP has basically ignored them.

Yet 99% of the voters in those communities will still vote Dem. I want to understand, but can't. I guess the promise of the status quo is better than that thought of losing the crumbs you currently get for the chance at a better life of law and order. Just keep your head down and stay in after 6. And regardless of the circumstances, blame the police.

I admit to not watching Trump's speech, but why are you surprised that the bottom 20% vote Dem? Typically Dem is the party of greater wealth redistribution. What about the typical GOP platform do you think would sway the poor or underperforming?

Quote: MathExtremist

I admit to not watching Trump's speech, but why are you surprised that the bottom 20% vote Dem? Typically Dem is the party of greater wealth redistribution. What about the typical GOP platform do you think would sway the poor or underperforming?

I believe that was Trumps point. Demi's have been promising to make things better for the poor for 60 years, yet the bottom 20% keeps falling further behind. Is the choice accept more of the same or go for the overall program Trump is pushing? I'm not in their situation, so it's hard to be able to make that decision but Trump did push dealing with criminals in these areas and along with bringing jobs back to America, there is the possibility that everyone would benefit IF it worked. If you believe like I do that many of the poor want a better life and are willing to work for it, Trump might make sense to some of these groups. Maybe not 50%, but certainly more than the numbers he is pulling today.

Quote: Boz

IIf you believe like I do that many of the poor want a better life and are willing to work for it, Trump might make sense to some of these groups. .

I don't know how the Republican's are going to get votes from the poor until they go into those neighborhoods and convince the people there that tax breaks for the wealthy are going to benefit those people and bring them jobs.

Because that's the thing they will be doing when they get elected, but if they aren't willing to sell it they shouldn't expect anything.

They also have to convince them that cutting back on welfare programs and other aid programs will actually help them not hurt them. Because they will do that too when they get elected.

If they aren't willing to go and sell it to the people directly -- well.... too bad, I guess.

(I'm not saying what I believe works or not, but you get nowhere if you won't try to sell your ideas to the people you want to believe it)

Quote: Boz

I've stayed out of this for the most part lately, mostly because I believe it's a lost cause for Trump at this point. And probably was all along. Barring any charges against her, Hillary was going to win because of the way the country is going demographically. It will take a bad economy and a new type Republican to win the POTUS in my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm a realist.

But, Trump had the best speech of either candidate last night. Liberals don't want to hear it and sadly many minorities don't either, but he was spot on about our poor communities. Liberals have thrown money at the problem for years with little results and the GOP has basically ignored them.

Yet 99% of the voters in those communities will still vote Dem. I want to understand, but can't. I guess the promise of the status quo is better than that thought of losing the crumbs you currently get for the chance at a better life of law and order. Just keep your head down and stay in after 6. And regardless of the circumstances, blame the police.

You didn't really hear Trump last night. You heard Trump on teleprompter, written by Roger Ailes. In a Milwaukee suburb with a 1% black population, 20 miles from a black downtown where riots had occurred the previous 2 nights because of police shooting a black suspect fleeing. Why didn't he make that speech to the black community?

Ailes wrote Law-and-Order speeches for Nixon, and for GHWB, especially around the Willie Horton tanking of Dukakis. The one last night was a return to that strategy, and you're right, parts of it were good, though it was intertwined with some falsehoods around who to blame. However, with Trump losing the black vote 86% to 1% in the most recent poll, I'd say he's got nowhere to go but up.

Quote: Face

My America....

The reality is America has evolved throughout centuries and you cannot and will not have your “my America” back.

You have your vision of “my America.” I have my vision of “my America” too, and so do other 323,000,000 Americans.

Do you realize that there are about 323 million of “my Americas”, and you cannot have “my America” exclusively to yourself? Obstructionism or “my way or the high way” attitude by the GOP and its populous cannot and will not bring your “my America” back.

Your “my America” will never be a utopia, so you must adapt or adjust to my “my America”, and conversely I will also have to adapt or adjust to your “my America”.

There will never be a utopia in anyone’s my America, but we can co-exist peacefully. The GOP’s obstructionism makes it very difficult for 323,000,000 Americans to co-exist peacefully. And in order for us to co-exist peacefully, we all need to make necessary sacrifice, cooperation, and compromise.

Quote: MathExtremist

If Moore is right, and I've no way of knowing that, then Trump lost his biggest deal last year when NBC fired him. I don't think Trump wants to quit the race, but I think he wants to lose the election even less. Maybe I'm wrong, though -- he did say something recently about "if I lose, the election must have been rigged" so maybe that's the angle of the day.

I wasn't communicate clearly.

My point was Trump doesn't want the POTUS title and badly wants to quit the race, but he also wants to remain relevant in American politic. But in order to remain relevant, Trump's only alternate solution is deliberately loosing the election ....

Trump University students say they were scammed. They may also have been advised to commit potentially illegal actions by the now-defunct real estate investment course. A detailed review by CNBC and legal experts of the Trump University curriculum shows written advice to students, who paid upward of $36,000 to attend, could have placed students in violation of several state and national real estate and investment laws.

Read more here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-university-curriculum-pushed-students-123859506.html

Quote: Boz

I believe that was Trumps point. Demi's have been promising to make things better for the poor for 60 years, yet the bottom 20% keeps falling further behind. Is the choice accept more of the same or go for the overall program Trump is pushing? I'm not in their situation, so it's hard to be able to make that decision but Trump did push dealing with criminals in these areas and along with bringing jobs back to America, there is the possibility that everyone would benefit IF it worked. If you believe like I do that many of the poor want a better life and are willing to work for it, Trump might make sense to some of these groups. Maybe not 50%, but certainly more than the numbers he is pulling today.

Well, you walked right into that one. Things ARE much, much better for the poor than they were 60 or even 10 years ago. Now, they get tax rebates, food stamps, free medical care, etc. etc. And yes, that's largely because of Democrat-sponsored programs. The Republican response to EVERY SINGLE social reform proposal in the last eighty years is that it would destroy the economy. Of course, that's code for "I would have to pay a little more taxes, and that's unacceptable."

Your comment about the "bottom 20%" is meaningless with a standard of comparison. Behind what or whom, and according to what metric? It's not great to be poor, but in how many other countries do the poor have places to live, cars, cable TV and internet, etc.?

Trump's off-the-cuff bullcrap about "dealing with criminals" was the same old Trump spew--broad, sweeping statements without any details given. I think that very, very few of America's urban poor would feel encouraged by Trump's promises. As as far as the "bringing jobs back to America" blather goes, stifling trade, which is part of Trump's platform, would destroy existing jobs.

People don't understand the law of comparative advantage. We SHOULD trade as much is as feasible. The poor may think that if we impose tariffs and abrogate trading relationships with the rest of the world, that will magically re-create millions of jobs that were lost because someone else can do something better and cheaper than we can. Trade means that we can buy/trade for those cheaper goods rather than making them ourselves. We, in turn, make and sell the things we make best and least expensively. Everybody wins, and that's how jobs are created-- by expanding markets.

Eric Bolling of Foxnews is having a meltdown over the polls
His claim is that polls are meaningless
What's more important is the Trump rallies drawing thousands.
To Bolling that's the indicator that Trump is ahead
WTF
Trump is totally tanking and Foxnews personalities are in total denial
It really amazes me that a news channel has personalities that cannot deal with reality

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/eric-bolling-polls_us_57b539d3e4b0fd5a2f414857?section=&

Quote: terapined

Eric Bolling of Foxnews is having a meltdown over the polls
His claim is that polls are meaningless
What's more important is the Trump rallies drawing thousands.
To Bolling that's the indicator that Trump is ahead

OMG. I've heard that exact same thing before on these boards....

Eric Bolling ...

... EB ...

..... EvenBob

...could it be?!?!?!?

Quote: ams288

OMG. I've heard that exact same thing before on these boards....

Eric Bolling ...

... EB ...

..... EvenBob

...could it be?!?!?!?

It is obvious that Trump is behind in the polls; I also believe that many are trying to use the current gap to say that the race is over. I think that more than 60 days out is way too early to put too much stock in the "over" talk. The worst thing HRC could do is think that herself. It isn't over until the votes are in.

Rasmussen has the general at Clinton +2 today; of course, that poll does not matter as much as the individual states since the Electoral College vote is the one that counts.

There is a long way to go and no one should be too excited about the polls to date...

As to the member who suggested interment camps for people who may vote for Trump (I am not voting for HRC and it is possible, but by no means certain, that I could vote for him or another candidate...or not vote...in spite of the constant refrain that someone actually "knows" who I am voting for), I find that pretty funny coming from people who supposedly support freedom of speech. Freedom of speech...well...yes, as long as you say what they want to hear!

Cheers!!

Quote: 777

I wasn't communicate clearly.

My point was Trump doesn't want the POTUS title and badly wants to quit the race, but he also wants to remain relevant in American politic. But in order to remain relevant, Trump's only alternate solution is deliberately loosing the election ....

Except it's the height of hypocrisy to run a campaign that promises "we will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning" (that's an actual Trump quote from last September), yet then try to redefine "winning" to include "losing intentionally." I don't think anyone will let him get away with that and believe he's still relevant, I think that ship has sailed. I don't think he gets out of the next 90 days without a cone of shame, I just don't know exactly how it shakes out.

Maybe he'll claim he was mugged in Rio and get detained by a Brazilian judge, who knows. I still think it's more likely that there will be some "unavoidable circumstance" that precludes him from finishing the race rather than him making it to election day and losing in a landslide. He controls the narrative in the former scenario, not so much in the latter.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Your comment about the "bottom 20%" is meaningless with a standard of comparison. Behind what or whom, and according to what metric? It's not great to be poor, but in how many other countries do the poor have places to live, cars, cable TV and internet, etc.?

You're right, but there are valid comparisons that make the scenario look both better and worse. It is absolutely true that the standard of living for the lowest quintile is higher now than it was 50 years ago, but it is just as true that the gap between the lowest quintile and the highest quintile is also higher than it was 50 years ago. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 1967, the average income in the lowest 20% was $1600 and the average for the highest 20% was $17,820, roughly 11x greater. In 2014, the figures were $11,676 and $194,053, respectively, over 16x greater. That wealth gap in relative terms has grown significantly, almost exactly 50%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles

We know that severe income inequality causes many bad things in an economy (resentment, hopelessness, lack of productivity/motivation, etc.) and, historically, has lead to revolutions. The irony here is that here, the attempted revolutionary is the wealthy beneficiary of the same policies that led to income inequality in the first place. I just don't understand how anyone in the lower income brackets can fall for Trump's "I represent you poor, downtrodden souls" pitch when the social and taxation policies he's pitching are so clearly designed to line his own pockets. His policies basically boil down to two things: (a) cut taxes for everybody, but most of all the rich, and (b) leave the government bankrupt. Both of those things help his financial interests -- broke governments can't do as much governing and therefore can't meddle in his shady business deals -- but on balance, the situation for the lower income quintiles will get much worse if the government runs on austerity. Current events demonstrate that elsewhere in the world. The job of a politician is to improve situations like that, not exacerbate them.

If Trump loses, his relevance to the Republican Party will be less than that of Romney or McCain. I just don't think he'll be able to equal his high water mark of this election year, wherever that ends up being. HRC maintained relevance by being SoS and other things...the losing party gets none of that kind of stuff.

Quote: RonC

Rasmussen has the general at Clinton +2 today; of course, that poll does not matter as much as the individual states since the Electoral College vote is the one that counts.

Also, that poll does not matter much because Rasmussen sucks as a pollster.

That is not a partisan statement. They always have a Republican lean in their polls.

In 2012, their polls averaged a +3.7 tilt towards the Republicans vs. the actual election results.

Quote: ams288

Also, that poll does not matter much because Rasmussen sucks as a pollster.

That is not a partisan statement. They always have a Republican lean in their polls.

In 2012, their polls averaged a +3.7 tilt towards the Republicans vs. the actual election results.

From that chart, the vast majority of polls are GOP tilted to a degree. That would indicate the bias-adjusted mean favors Clinton even more than the raw polls do.

There's a good article on 538 about why Hillary doesn't have this locked up yet, but give it a month. If Trump doesn't make any headway by the time your Q3 estimated tax payments are due, then I think Hillary will have it locked up.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-clinton-doesnt-have-this-race-locked-up

But I'm thinking he may not even make it that far. And besides, how's Evan McMullin doing?

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: ams288

Also, that poll does not matter much because Rasmussen sucks as a pollster.

That is not a partisan statement. They always have a Republican lean in their polls.

In 2012, their polls averaged a +3.7 tilt towards the Republicans vs. the actual election results.

From that chart, the vast majority of polls are GOP tilted to a degree. That would indicate the bias-adjusted mean favors Clinton even more than the raw polls do.

There's a good article on 538 about why Hillary doesn't have this locked up yet, but give it a month. If Trump doesn't make any headway by the time your Q3 estimated tax payments are due, then I think Hillary will have it locked up.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-clinton-doesnt-have-this-race-locked-up

But I'm thinking he may not even make it that far. And besides, how's Evan McMullin doing?

Trump gave a teleprompter speech last night and had a completely different tone. He even said he "regrets" choosing the wrong words!

So naturally - this morning the media is pretending like this is a game changer and we have a real race now!

Quote: RonC

I don't think that there is much of a chance of the race being close in Texas. There were 2.8 million Republican votes in the primary; the Democrat party had a little over 1.4 million votes. Even with a huge Cruz victory, Trump only was behind the landslide Democrat winner by less than 200,000 votes. The 1.2 million Cruz voters may not vote, but the ones that vote won't do so in large numbers for Hillary.

I do see Texas heading towards a possible change in direction in the future; I just don't think this is the year or Hillary is the candidate. Outside of Austin and some other liberal enclaves, Democrats on the national level seem to only come here for money. There would have to be a lot of money spent to have a chance at changing Texas: I just don't see a campaign doing that this year.

A Texas upset is within reach in this election cycle.

The race is getting tighter in Texas. Hillary Clinton has come within single digits (minus 6) in public poll of Texas. Clinton is closer to win Texas.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_TX_81616.pdf

For better or worse, America has evolved over centuries & generations, and sooner than later your "My Texas" or your "My America" will be very different. Be prepare to adjust/adapt, or move to planet Mars if you cannot co-exist peacefully with the new generations ...

Comrade Manafort has resigned from the Trump campaign.

Now the Breitbart guy is running the show.

Should be an interested and ugly final few months of the campaign...

Quote: 777

A Texas upset is within reach in this election cycle.

The race is getting tighter in Texas. Hillary Clinton has come within single digits (minus 6) in public poll of Texas. Clinton is closer to win Texas.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_TX_81616.pdf

For better or worse, America has evolved over centuries & generations, and sooner than later your "My Texas" or your "My America" will be very different. Be prepare to adjust/adapt, or move to planet Mars if you cannot co-exist peacefully with the new generations ...

I think Tejas will be solidly Democratic in eight years. At that point, the chances of a Republican Presidency becomes almost nil. Unless somehow the POG becomes the party of choice for Latinos and voters under thirty.
As they are currently attracting about a quarter of those voters, at best, they have a long way to go.

Quote: billryan

Quote: 777

A Texas upset is within reach in this election cycle.

The race is getting tighter in Texas. Hillary Clinton has come within single digits (minus 6) in public poll of Texas. Clinton is closer to win Texas.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_TX_81616.pdf

For better or worse, America has evolved over centuries & generations, and sooner than later your "My Texas" or your "My America" will be very different. Be prepare to adjust/adapt, or move to planet Mars if you cannot co-exist peacefully with the new generations ...

I think Tejas will be solidly Democratic in eight years. At that point, the chances of a Republican Presidency becomes almost nil. Unless somehow the POG becomes the party of choice for Latinos and voters under thirty.
As they are currently attracting about a quarter of those voters, at best, they have a long way to go.

Didn't GWB recently say he legitimately fears he is going to be the last Republican President?

When a Democratic candidate starts off having California, Texas , NY and the North East n the win column, will top tier Republican politicians even want to try?

You can help Louisiana flood victims.

I just got off the phone with Governor John Bel Edwards in Louisiana.

The flooding there is bigger than anyone expected—more than 40,000 homes have been damaged and more than 100,000 people have been affected.

My heart breaks for Louisiana, and right now, the relief effort can't afford any distractions. The very best way this team can help is to make sure Louisianans have the resources they need.

There are two organizations the Governor asked that we help. Chip in right now to the Red Cross at rdcrss.org/2aYiT5W, who are doing critical work to provide medical assistance and supplies to the victims of this natural disaster. You can also donate right now to the Baton Rouge Area Foundation at http://www.braf.org/louisiana-flood-relief, a local organization that’s directing money to community non-profits that need it.

These are our friends, our family members, our community—and they’re counting on us to reach out with open arms right now. This team has done so much for me. Now I’m asking you to show that same support to the victims in Louisiana, so that we can begin to rebuild together.

Hillary Clinton, 8/19/2016


https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton/posts/1219575471432313

http://www.redcross.org/what-we-do/disaster-relief/flood-relief

http://www.braf.org/louisiana-flood-relief

Quote: beachbumbabs

Your America (and mine) is still there. It's not rose colored glasses. If anything, it's Mazlov. We are so rich in the basics, we think we can afford to quibble about the superficial. We are.so entrenched in our freedoms, we are genuinely surprised to find there's a law, an attitude, a custom that restricts others from their full exercise of the same. Btw, as a NA, you're pretty generous in sharing the Dream; yours are the most forgotten people in this country by far.

I hope you're right. For a long time I felt I was just too naive, too inexperienced, and was just experiencing info overload. I felt (or perhaps better said, 'thought') that what you said was exactly it. That it's just 24/7 news making things seem worse than they are, or it's just that we have it so good that little things now seem huge.

But... see, we do quibble about little things. A lot of the stuff that catches our attention is just so very superficial. The problem here is that (IMO) these quibbles over bulls#$% turn into actual action. And by action, I mean legislation, and legislation is anti-freedom. Perhaps worse (as if there is something worse than anti-freedom) is that people actually believe it helps, which brings me right back to one of my base points that everyone has gone way too soft.

I'll drop my go-to's of guns and weed for this one. Let's take a look at our privacy. This is something 100% of Americans deal with, and something most hold dear. We take one good kick in the ass and suddenly we can't throw it away fast enough. We let .gov spy on our calls, our emails, just about any and all correspondence. We let them gaze at our meat and two veg or outright juggle them around with no probable cause. The list of freedoms we threw away is legion. Does anyone even know how many Americans die each year due to terrorism? Does anyone dare hazard a guess? Here's a clue, we lost... let's just round up to 3,000 from 9/11. So there's 3,000 at least. Since the year 2000, how many you reckon we've lost? Gotta be a lot, huh? I mean, to throw away our base freedoms like that, it's gotta be a legit f#$%-ton, no?

The answer is about 3,300. Even with the catastrophe of 9/11, it's about 200 a year. TWO HUNDRED! You cannot even find a list where this would rank, yet we throw our most precious resource in the garbage, and for what? Where's the return on this mightiest of investments? Didn't stop Newtown. Didn't stop Boston. Didn't stop Aurora and it ain't gonna stop what's coming down the pipe. Yet still there's a much too large group of folks who would continue to toss our freedoms right in the garbage for yet another handful of perceived safety. So while I want to believe your impression, I can't shake what I'm seeing with mine own eyes. So I stand here, now and forevermore, and I say "enough".

Quote: 777

The reality is America has evolved throughout centuries and you cannot and will not have your “my America” back.

Mmhmm. So an America that is just and fair, noble and brave, one that does what's right and in her people's best interest, that's gone, "evolved away", and I can't have it back? 'Fraid not, hoss.

Men still exist. I see it in AZDuffman, who, when faced with limited or nonexistent employment, chose to make employment, rather than take the much easier and much more profitable route of going on the dole. I see it in rxwine when we debated guns. Here's a man who had his convictions and would not sway. His stance was reasonable and well thought out, which made him a target not only of the gunners, but of the rabid antis on "his side". Yet there he stood, unshaken in his resolve, and debated like an intelligent human being which resulted in real change. I see it in BBBabs, who broke into at least two male dominated endeavors and found success. I see it in RonC, I see it in MathE, there's plenty of people in this very forum were I see the American spirit, and I damn sure see it within my peers and those who I surround myself with.

My America is not gone, it's just obscured by bulls#$%. Bulls#$% which must be burned away. When Clinton engages in anti-1st speech, she needs to be met with wholesale opposition. Not just by the right, not just by those who hate her, but all Americans who enjoy the American way. When Trump says, well, just about anything, his nonsense needs to be met with staunch opposition by America at large. When any single one of these bastards defy honor, justice, integrity, there should be a unanimous call for their heads (figuratively (to start with =p)).

That's how I roll, and all I will accept. Sometimes I fight for myself. Sometimes .gov slams through some bulls#$% legislation at 0200hrs with none of the typical deliberation, examination, or even a full consumption of the bill in question, a bill so nefarious it not only made 7+mm NY'ers criminals overnight, but also criminalized police officers, in uniform, on active duty engaging in their responsibilities. No. I do not stand for that. That is not democracy, that's not your bulls#$% "evolution". That's a fiefdom, and I bow to no king. Not now, not ever, and it is that reason alone that I own a fully automatic rifle. Not because I need it (I don't), not because it's most effective (it's a pile of s#$%), but because f#$% your authoritarian regime. Free man, right here. Sometimes I fight myself for others. I have no love for gay sex. Even the thought of holding another man's hand makes me uncomfortable. And I am DAMN sure against ALL marriage. But when that group fought for their cause, I did not one thing to obstruct and even lightly supported them. Why? Because freedom. Because, as Babs said, giving it to them takes absolutely none from me. And if any gay happened to be in my neck o' the woods and found themselves drawing the ire of local bigots, I'd be right in front of them defending them with my own health and fitness, same as I've done since I was old enough to make a fist. All these scars on my face; only one did I deserve. The rest were doing for others who could not do for themselves. See? I'm a bit of a socialist, too.

I stand and I say "enough". Enough of the partisan BS, enough thinking that "someone else" needs to do something. I want My America back, and who we need to take it back from is ourselves. "Power to the people" is false. It cannot go "to" the people. Power IS the people. I'm just trying to inspire someone into realizing it. Maybe it'll even be you.

Quote: 777

You can help Louisiana flood victims.

There was an interesting story on aid for relief. People send stuff like perishable food which goes bad before it gets distributed. Or they just get too much of one item. After the Sandy Hook shooting, people sent like 20,000 teddy bears.

You should check with the relief agencies on what they need or don't need.

Quote: Face

The problem here is that (IMO) these quibbles over bulls#$% turn into actual action. And by action, I mean legislation, and legislation is anti-freedom.

Of course it is. But if I read your underlying assumption correctly, you think that's a bad thing.

It's not. The goal of government, or of society, is not absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is antithetical to society, and it should be obvious why. (What do you mean I have to pay to get into the movie? Screw you, I'm going in. Hey! Don't touch me, you're impeding my freedom!)

Even the libertarian (little-L) notion of anarcho-capitalist freedom is antithetical to a functional society, but that's already been rehashed several times. Point is, absolute freedom is not -- and should not be -- the primary goal of society. There are higher goals to strive for.

Once you get past the primacy of freedom, you can look at society in a way that is somewhat equivalent to the way a card counter looks at a shoe. You don't win every hand, and often when the cards are dealt you realize you have the worst of it. Still, overall you're better off playing the game than if you just sat in the corner by yourself, even though you have to play by the rules and you can't just do whatever the heck you want. Breaking the rules means you don't get to play at all.