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
I'm not an anarchist. I may lean that way, but I've argued plenty against rudeboyoi. It's a silly idea in practice that I would not engage in if given the chance.
What I want is common sense legislation. A good start would be the purging of those that become harmful. Asset seizure was a great idea in its time. When you had crime syndicates whose sole income came from crime, where people's entire lives were supported by crime, it makes sense that they should not benefit from it by allowing them to keep it. Total sense, a good, maybe even great, idea. But this is no longer the case. Asset seizure has come to be abused and to strip innocent folks from their hard earned money, money which was earned by the expenditure of non-refundable time. That is not right, and not something we should have to wait 40+ years to rectify. The War on Drugs might have been a good idea once upon a time. But we've had more than enough time to see that it is wholly unproductive and severely damaging to the American people. That doesn't mean anarchy, all drugs are free and legal. It means scrap the bulls#$% and adjust, maybe even start over, but under no circumstances allow the farce to continue.
That's not so unreasonable, is it?
Quote: FaceDamn it, MathE. I was hoping I could get away from having to explain myself so in depth ><
I'm not an anarchist. I may lean that way, but I've argued plenty against rudeboyoi. It's a silly idea in practice that I would not engage in if given the chance.
What I want is common sense legislation. A good start would be the purging of those that become harmful. Asset seizure was a great idea in its time. When you had crime syndicates whose sole income came from crime, where people's entire lives were supported by crime, it makes sense that they should not benefit from it by allowing them to keep it. Total sense, a good, maybe even great, idea. But this is no longer the case. Asset seizure has come to be abused and to strip innocent folks from their hard earned money, money which was earned by the expenditure of non-refundable time. That is not right, and not something we should have to wait 40+ years to rectify. The War on Drugs might have been a good idea once upon a time. But we've had more than enough time to see that it is wholly unproductive and severely damaging to the American people. That doesn't mean anarchy, all drugs are free and legal. It means scrap the bulls#$% and adjust, maybe even start over, but under no circumstances allow the farce to continue.
That's not so unreasonable, is it?
The first idea of legislative bodies and executives in our government--at all levels--seems to be to START with a new rule or law, not to figure out is there is already a law that applies OR that can be changed slightly to cover the issue at hand. An example is "inattentive driving"--I bet that many jurisdictions required people to pay full time and attention to driving. Instead of enacting a bunch of extra rules, why not simply enforce the existing one against ALL types of inattentive driving...putting make-up on, eating a Big Mac, lighting a cigarette, texting, etc.
We need some rules/laws...we don't need as many as we have...we need to get rid of as many old ones as we get new ones most likely...but we shouldn't get rid of them or add them just for the sake of doing so...
Pretty horrid thought...
Quote: RonC
We need some rules/laws...we don't need as many as we have...we need to get rid of as many old ones as we get new ones most likely...but we shouldn't get rid of them or add them just for the sake of doing so...
We need the 10th Amendment.
Quote: Face
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.
I think that this statement of yours epitomizes why you're having trouble getting your point across. The person you were talking to never said that. Nor did anyone else. Putting words in someone's mouth is a, well, Trumpish rhetorical tactic.
The truth is that American never has been, and probably never will be, completely just and fair, noble and brave, etc. That's an ideal, one that we will never be able to meet, only approach. But you know what? We're closer to that than we ever have been. That's why I loathe conservatives and their core argument that the past was better than the present. The truth is that in that past, we were a far less "just and fair, noble and brave" nation. For one thing, discrimination against anyone who wasn't white, Christian, and male was not only the societal norm but actually enshrined in law. That, despite the clearly delineated laws, rules, and ideas in the Constitution (aside from those validating slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, of course).
What I find disturbing in your rhetoric is views such as someone being "a man" as if that in and of itself were high praise. That's the pinnacle of human nature--being masculine? That and other things you've mentioned--such as gun love--give me the impression that like many conservatives (whether or not you consider yourself to be one), you view the pinnacle of human existence as when white males roamed the land like the Marlboro Man, not takin' no guff from nobody and if anyone riled them, pullin' out the ol' shootin' iron and pluggin' the varmint right between the eyes. Or maybe it's simply a longing for anarchy, even though you might not realize that anarchy is actually the antithesis of freedom in any society with a population greater than one.
In short, you have nothing to complain about. Life is better for EVERYONE than it used to be. The fact that it's only gotten a little better for white males and gotten a LOT better for everyone else shouldn't cause you grief. When the playing field is leveled, some of those on that field will go downward, not upward. I for one am willing to sacrifice whatever privileged standing I may have had as great-grandson of the Marlboro Man in order to bring that about.
I think you're misunderstanding the way the legislative process works. When Congress wants to amend an existing statute, they need to write a new law to enact that amendment. Read any of the pending legislation on the floor of Congress right now:Quote: RonCThe first idea of legislative bodies and executives in our government--at all levels--seems to be to START with a new rule or law, not to figure out is there is already a law that applies OR that can be changed slightly to cover the issue at hand.
https://www.congress.gov/bills-with-chamber-action/114th-congress/browse-by-date
Most of them do exactly what you suggest -- offer a bill that amends some section of existing federal law to have different language. From the recent bill on H-1B visas:
Quote: H.R. 5657SEC. 102. NEW APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
Section 212(n)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as amended by section 101, is further amended by inserting after subparagraph (G)(ii) the following
...
Quote: MathExtremistI think you're misunderstanding the way the legislative process works. When Congress wants to amend an existing statute, they need to write a new law to enact that amendment. Read any of the pending legislation on the floor of Congress right now:
https://www.congress.gov/bills-with-chamber-action/114th-congress/browse-by-date
Most of them do exactly what you suggest -- offer a bill that amends some section of existing federal law to have different language. From the recent bill on H-1B visas:
No misunderstanding; I know how it works. I also know how many more pages of laws we end up without getting rid of much. The laws become more and more confusing for all.
Not at all. And I'm in favor of some sort of ongoing legislative audit to purge the system of outmoded or irrelevant language, sort of like how software languages like Java do garbage collection. But you can't just do that automatically or without reflecting on the relevance of a given law to existing society. Take sodomy laws, for example, which historically included oral sex. It may have been societally correct 100 years ago to write a law forbidding that, but the prevailing wisdom today is "the government has no business in the bedroom where consenting adults are engaged in sexual activity." I realize there is a fervent and vocal minority who believes that some (if not most) of that sexual activity is sinful -- and therefore should be outlawed -- but the point is they're now a minority whereas before they were not. As such, they don't call the shots in legislation the way they used to. The same is true for homosexual marriage or gay rights in general. 100 years ago, much of the social change we've seen in the past decade would have been utterly unthinkable, yet here we are.Quote: FaceDamn it, MathE. I was hoping I could get away from having to explain myself so in depth ><
I'm not an anarchist. I may lean that way, but I've argued plenty against rudeboyoi. It's a silly idea in practice that I would not engage in if given the chance.
What I want is common sense legislation. A good start would be the purging of those that become harmful. Asset seizure was a great idea in its time. When you had crime syndicates whose sole income came from crime, where people's entire lives were supported by crime, it makes sense that they should not benefit from it by allowing them to keep it. Total sense, a good, maybe even great, idea. But this is no longer the case. Asset seizure has come to be abused and to strip innocent folks from their hard earned money, money which was earned by the expenditure of non-refundable time. That is not right, and not something we should have to wait 40+ years to rectify. The War on Drugs might have been a good idea once upon a time. But we've had more than enough time to see that it is wholly unproductive and severely damaging to the American people. That doesn't mean anarchy, all drugs are free and legal. It means scrap the bulls#$% and adjust, maybe even start over, but under no circumstances allow the farce to continue.
That's not so unreasonable, is it?
The point is that what constitutes "harmful" can only be evaluated within a given society. The problem is not that it's hard to do the evaluation, it's that the folks who we elected to do that evaluation aren't. You can examine the stats yourself, but the past few Congresses have been the least productive in decades. Partisan bickering has gotten in the way of doing the work. It doesn't really matter who's in charge, the work still needs to get done. That hasn't happened nearly as much as it has in the past, and the conventional wisdom is that the Tea Party faction of the GOP is responsible for the obstructionism. Whether that's uniformly true or not (it certainly is not 100% the GOP's fault), you can't deny the statistics. It's hard to write laws based on compromise when you have a subset of elected officials who have sworn to never compromise. In any well-run corporation that'd be grounds for termination, but lawmakers aren't so vulnerable.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI think that this statement of yours epitomizes why you're having trouble getting your point across. The person you were talking to never said that. Nor did anyone else. Putting words in someone's mouth is a, well, Trumpish rhetorical tactic.
This is a perfect example of a really big problem we have. We don't speak the same language.
Quote:Quote: Face
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... (snip) ... 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.Quote: 777The reality is America has evolved throughout centuries and you cannot and will not have your “my America” back.
Quote: Face
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.
I see that I defined what I meant, using words and examples that highlighted bravery, boldness, honor, compassion, righteousness. I then see 7's saying that America has evolved and I cannot and with not have that America back. Unless my comprehensive skills are shot (not that much of a leap, sad to say) that means I can't have bravery back, not boldness, honor, compassion, or righteousness. What words or ideas would you say have I added?
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
What I find disturbing in your rhetoric is views such as someone being "a man" as if that in and of itself were high praise. That's the pinnacle of human nature--being masculine? That and other things you've mentioned--such as gun love--give me the impression that like many conservatives (whether or not you consider yourself to be one), you view the pinnacle of human existence as when white males roamed the land like the Marlboro Man, not takin' no guff from nobody and if anyone riled them, pullin' out the ol' shootin' iron and pluggin' the varmint right between the eyes. Or maybe it's simply a longing for anarchy, even though you might not realize that anarchy is actually the antithesis of freedom in any society with a population greater than one.
Again with the language. Or is it just the reflex of giving no quarter to an opponent?
I can't write it or explain it any other way because the rootin', tootin', iron shootin' paladin way is all I know. I'm not a MathE who can swoop in and solve some algorithm that gets a new inventor's game off the ground. I can't TheCessPit my way into a corporation and fix some nasty computer SNAFU. I can't SOOPOO someone to sleep so they can get their needed surgery. I was blessed with physical prowess. Being a meat shield is my only skill. But just because it's my way does not mean I believe that it is the only way
Being a man does not equal being a dudebro. One of my best friends is super effeminate. Many of my earliest meat shield punishments came by way of protecting him from dudebros who liked to "punch fags". He's not athletic, not strong, doesn't camp or fish or hunt or chop wood. I've never seen him eat a piece of bacon. He spends all day in an office tending servers. For fun, he golfs and plays video games. But he works his ass off. He supports his wife. He tends his home, pays his taxes, and shops in his community. He sacrifices for his two girls and makes time to see and care for his sister, his mama, his pops. He's a yes sir, no sir, thank you kindly type of guy, despite his girl like mannerisms. He means what he says, he helps when he can, he takes care of his, and he never stops fighting. That's a man.
See a pattern? Honest. Integrous. Noble. Trustworthy. Brave. This is being a man. Is this something in which people should not aspire to be? Something we should not expect, nay, demand from our leaders? Maybe it's just me. I see it in those I surround myself in, I see it in folks here, and I am attracted to it. I like it, I desire more of it. When I see someone engage in being a man, it inspires me to do the same. Am I alone in feeling that?
Call it what you want. Call it "being botnik" for all I care. I was taught that this is what it was to be a man, and so that's the term I use. But man, I can't see where anyone can find room to debate it. Or debate the fact that the amount we have, while arguably sufficient in the populous, is nowhere near our potential, and all but nonexistent in our politicians.
Quote: FaceSee a pattern? Honest. Integrous. Noble. Trustworthy. Brave. This is being a man.
And it isn't also being a woman? Or a human being? You say it's (merely) a matter of language; I say that language carries connotations. If you equate positive qualities with masculinity, or vice versa, then you are implying that femininity is not associated with those qualities. Women are as honest, have as much integrity, are as noble, trustworthy, and brave as men. I admit that they're less hairy.
If everyone felt the same way, we wouldn't have the kind of problems we do. There is a large swath of the American citizenry that thinks people like your friend -- and like me, for that matter -- aren't manly enough because we don't have calloused hands, bulging forearms, and a Harley. Several are on this forum. And that tends to translate into distrust, hatred, and probably jealousy because while being "manly" used to cut it, being a geek like me is what pays the bills these days. I can't bench press 200 pounds, smelt iron, or rebuild a carburetor, but I can sit at a computer all day typing words (and numbers) that people want to pay lots of money for. In today's economy, that turns out to be far more valuable than "manly" work.Quote: FaceHe means what he says, he helps when he can, he takes care of his, and he never stops fighting. That's a man.
See a pattern? Honest. Integrous. Noble. Trustworthy. Brave. This is being a man. Is this something in which people should not aspire to be? Something we should not expect, nay, demand from our leaders? Maybe it's just me. I see it in those I surround myself in, I see it in folks here, and I am attracted to it. I like it, I desire more of it. When I see someone engage in being a man, it inspires me to do the same. Am I alone in feeling that?
And that's the crux of the Trump movement in a nutshell. You have a bunch of economically left-behind workers whose industries have disappeared (or at least shrunk) and who feel hopeless about their prospects. If you're in that situation, there are really only two ways to get back to parity. One is switch careers, educate yourself, and bring yourself up to speed. That's hard work but it's the right thing to do. The other way is to burn down everyone else's world and bring them down to your level. That's no good for anyone, but that's what Trump is promising.
In my ideal society, we'd have programs in place to help retrain and educate the non-entrepreneurial workers in businesses whose industries are declining. The option of letting them fail economically -- and the despair, hopelessness, and crime that often come with that failure -- is not really a good alternative. Have you ever been unemployed and/or worried about being able to support your family? I have. Not now, but after 9/11 when the dot-com bubble burst, I was a laid-off tech employee in San Francisco. I know what that felt like and I wasn't anywhere close to as hopeless as someone whose whole industry has disappeared. Like coal miners, newspaper editors, or VCR technicians.
So I'm willing to support restrictions on my freedoms (and yours) through taxation to reduce that hopelessness and help lift up the underemployed workers whose hard work in now-shrinking industries was what built the country that's now leaving them behind. It seems eminently just that we find a way to not actually leave them behind. And besides, I maintain that such "social security" policies are better for the economy even when the taxes are factored in. Trickle-down be damned: it's not just the mean that matters, it's the distribution.
There's no reason our society needs to turn into the scorpion and the turtle, but that's the way it's been lately.
Quote: MathExtremistIf everyone felt the same way, we wouldn't have the kind of problems we do. There is a large swath of the American citizenry that thinks people like your friend -- and like me, for that matter -- aren't manly enough because we don't have calloused hands, bulging forearms, and a Harley.
A man's word is his bond. A man honors his debts. A man does not hit a woman. A man supports his children.
A man can be a man, even if he has girlie hands. Even if he drives a Prius.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWomen are as honest, have as much integrity, are as noble, trustworthy, and brave as men. I admit that they're less hairy.
I really didn't need to Google the image feature for "hairy women".
But that's what I did.
Quote: MathExtremist<snip>And that's the crux of the Trump movement in a nutshell. You have a bunch of economically left-behind workers whose industries have disappeared (or at least shrunk) and who feel hopeless about their prospects. If you're in that situation, there are really only two ways to get back to parity. One is switch careers, educate yourself, and bring yourself up to speed. That's hard work but it's the right thing to do. The other way is to burn down everyone else's world and bring them down to your level. That's no good for anyone, but that's what Trump is promising.
<snip>
If you have the time, could you please elaborate on this? Is this your interpretation of 'make America great again'? I ask because I'm pretty sure that's not what DT was getting at with 'make America great again'. (More along the lines of 'America First' in my interpretation of his slogan.)
Edit: Or please address how you came to your conclusion of what is the 'crux' of the Trump movement.
Quote: MoosetonIf you have the time, could you please elaborate on this? Is this your interpretation of 'make America great again'? I ask because I'm pretty sure that's not what DT was getting at with 'make America great again'. (More along the lines of 'America First' in my interpretation of his slogan.)
Edit: Or please address how you came to your conclusion of what is the 'crux' of the Trump movement.
I'm sure that ME will have a more eloquent answer than mine, but I thought I'd weigh in.
Virtually everyone in the world isn't satisfied with some aspect of his/her life. A lot of people who work blue-collar jobs and/or live in economically depressed areas certainly fit into that category. Now, what you can do is a) figure out what is wrong and do something about it, or b) blame something/someone for your troubles, and whine. B IS FAR MORE APPEALING TO MOST PEOPLE.
A lot of the jobs that people have lost have disappeared because of technological innovation; some because global markets have changed; some because of foreign competition. Over the course of a person's lifetime, it's likely that his/her chosen profession will fluctuate in demand. One has to be prepared to adapt. Or, one can sit on the couch, drinking beer, and whine about how all those (insert name of reviled group) are TAKIN' AWAY ALL OUR JOBS!!!
This is what Trump means by "make America great again." America is not great because I no longer make $39 an hour down at the steel mill. It's the fault of all those (Martians, or whatever). Bring back an earlier time when I was younger, in better shape, had a new car, got laid more than once a year, and America will be great again!
That this is claptrap matters not at all. Trump pretends that he is at the controls of a time machine. Joe Sixpack believes his promises because facing the truth is too difficult. The "all our jobs have been shipped overseas" falsehood is so appealing, and the supposed antidote, "choke off all trade," seems like such an easy fix, that Joe doesn't stop to think or to question it. If Joe knew anything about economics, he would understand that it is actually impossible to "ship jobs overseas." He would also understand the law of comparative advantage and why it suggests that we shouldn't be manufacturing in the US--we should let others do it more cheaply and then buy their products. But Joe Sixpack isn't that smart and/or his focus is too narrow.
So the crux of the Trump movement is that economic and technological progress has rendered Joe Sixpack obsolete, and he's mad about that, and Trump feeds into that anger. He proposes vague solutions that appeal to Joe even though they have no merit. Pittsburgh will never be turned back into Steeltown, but Joe will listen to any fantasy that promises it can be. And of course, there's the hatred, racism, and xenophobia that places the blame for Joe's troubles on THEM, meaning that all we have to do is get rid of THEM, and everything will be OK.
Also: "America first" is code for nationalism, a point of view that pretty much started both world wars. My country is better than yours, so we deserve preferential treatment. For Trump, this means that we can freely abrogate treaties, cancel trade agreements, and only treat or trade with other nations if we gain a clear advantage over them by doing so. OF COURSE this appeals to Joe Sixpack. We're special. We're not being treated the way we should (i.e., specially) because we haven't been TOUGH ENOUGH. Grrrrrr!! Various peoples seduced by various demagogues throughout history have been told, and have willingly believed, that they were better than everyone else. The Reaganesque Republican doctrine for the last 30+ years has been "American exceptionalism," the idea that because we are just so much better than everyone else, we should be running the world. Understandably, the rest of the world is getting a little bit tired of hearing about American wonderfulness. And trade and treaties, in the absence of coercion, aren't supposed to put either party first. If Trump was negotiating agreements from the "America first" mindset, no one would deal with him.
I'm sure the first retort will be "well, Trump won't release his tax returns"...that doesn't work for me...first, I am not "supporting" Trump, and second, I think Trump should release his tax records. All of them. If there is some good legal reason that something is in dispute (the IRS is not always right), that should be explained and only those issues subject to being withheld.
There is possibly as much truth to Trump being worth less than he says that he is as there is to the Clinton Foundation being sleazy in spite of the "good" things it does. Simply put, both seem to be true.
Quote: RonC
There is possibly as much truth to Trump being worth less than he says that he is as there is to the Clinton Foundation being sleazy in spite of the "good" things it does. Simply put, both seem to be true.
I can release my tax returns and you would have no idea about my net worth. I keep very little money in instruments that pay interest that I have to report to the government. Growth stocks that do not pay dividends that I have bought and still have never appear on my tax return. Neither do art collections, coin collections, etc... until you liquidate them.
If people want Trump to release a net worth statement, well that is different from his tax returns. It would actually be much more informative. Anyone who has ever gotten a divorce knows what that is....
Quote: SOOPOOI can release my tax returns and you would have no idea about my net worth. I keep very little money in instruments that pay interest that I have to report to the government. Growth stocks that do not pay dividends that I have bought and still have never appear on my tax return. Neither do art collections, coin collections, etc... until you liquidate them.
If people want Trump to release a net worth statement, well that is different from his tax returns. It would actually be much more informative. Anyone who has ever gotten a divorce knows what that is....
True enough; I think that has been said before but no one is asking for a "net worth statement"--the dispute is the tax returns. I guess people think that they can figure it out from there, but you point out correctly that will not be able to do that with much accuracy.
Here are two articles that set it out pretty clearly, I think.Quote: MoosetonIf you have the time, could you please elaborate on this? Is this your interpretation of 'make America great again'? I ask because I'm pretty sure that's not what DT was getting at with 'make America great again'. (More along the lines of 'America First' in my interpretation of his slogan.)
Edit: Or please address how you came to your conclusion of what is the 'crux' of the Trump movement.
The first demonstrates the problem:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trump-manufacturing-jobs-hope/496541/
And the second demonstrates the Trump campaign's solution:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/donald-trump-s-new-chief-steve-bannon-called-republican-leaders-c-ts.html
I don't think net worth is the concern. Whether he's richer or poorer than he's said publicly isn't the real issue. The real issue is what income is he reporting, where is it coming from, and where do his outflows go? He's made many claims of huge charitable contributions. Those being absent from his tax returns, as I expect they are, would be far more damning than his misstatement of net worth. Also, you'd be able to get a sense of the litigation settlements he's paid over the years -- those are business expenses. If there's a public lawsuit filed claiming $1M in back payments due, and a private, confidential settlement for $100,000, the tax returns would list that. So then the world would know the kind of business Trump does, and that the reason he's rich is because he doesn't pay his debts. That's why he won't release his tax returns, though he won't say so. The audit thing is just a transparent ruse.Quote: RonCTrue enough; I think that has been said before but no one is asking for a "net worth statement"--the dispute is the tax returns. I guess people think that they can figure it out from there, but you point out correctly that will not be able to do that with much accuracy.
"Look at how much African American communities are suffering from Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump? What do you have to lose? You live in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?"
???
So this is going to convince blacks? Especially since this speech was in front of a mostly white crowd
Your average black in America is not living in Poverty.
Yea unemployment is high among black youth but you only get to 58% if you include high school
If you look at white youth and include high school, over 50% unemployed
Quote: RonCI am not sure what to make of the concerns about Hillary's health. She won't release her medical records as McCain did. I don't believe all the stories about her health on the far right sites, but I do have concerns about her health--neither candidate is a spring chicken--and her VP candidate.
I'm sure the first retort will be "well, Trump won't release his tax returns"...that doesn't work for me...first, I am not "supporting" Trump, and second, I think Trump should release his tax records. All of them. If there is some good legal reason that something is in dispute (the IRS is not always right), that should be explained and only those issues subject to being withheld.
There is possibly as much truth to Trump being worth less than he says that he is as there is to the Clinton Foundation being sleazy in spite of the "good" things it does. Simply put, both seem to be true.
She was medically cleared 3 weeks ago when her physician described her medical condition and described her medical history http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-medical-records . It isn't her official medical records but there is no reason to doubt it unless you just like subscribing to paranoid conspiricy theories.
Quote: TwirdmanShe was medically cleared 3 weeks ago when her physician described her medical condition and described her medical history http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-medical-records . It isn't her official medical records but there is no reason to doubt it unless you just like subscribing to paranoid conspiricy theories.
Oh, sorry...that's right...one can't wonder anything about dear Hillary unless you are a conspiracy theorist.
She's been so unfairly treated...now one cannot even have a thought about her potential medical issues...
Quote: RonCOh, sorry...that's right...one can't wonder anything about dear Hillary unless you are a conspiracy theorist.
She's been so unfairly treated...now one cannot even have a thought about her potential medical issues...
What concerns do you have? That a 70 year old needs help getting up icey steps in upstate NY in February?
What issues do you have?
Quote: billryanWhat concerns do you have? That a 70 year old needs help getting up dicey steps in upstate NY in February?
What issues do you have?
None at all. None at all.
I am just going to toe the HRC line. Sorry I "wondered" anything at all.
I actually wonder about both of them in many ways.
Quote: billryanIf you have no concerns, why bring it up. Since you brought it up, why pretend you don't have any? Leave the drive by innuendos to others. You should be better than that.
I have tried to be better than that all along, but I guess I am a little tired of getting called things I am not for even asking questions. Not in this case, but it is the general tone around here of late.
I respectfully withdraw the question about Hillary's health. I also wonder about Trump's health; they are both older than I would prefer candidates to be...being President is a tough job that seems to age one a lot more quickly than the normal process.
I "wonder" because things have been brought up but many are blown out of proportion. Just because that happens, it does not mean one should have no concerns.
Quote: RonCOh, sorry...that's right...one can't wonder anything about dear Hillary unless you are a conspiracy theorist.
She's been so unfairly treated...now one cannot even have a thought about her potential medical issues...
Wondering things is fine. Buying into discredited conspiracies makes you a conspiracy theorist. Her doctor medically cleared her and mentioned all medically problems she had which are relatively consistent with a healthy woman of her age. The only way the idea that she is medically unfit makes sense is if her doctor is lying and unless you have some proof believing that makes you a conspiracy theorist.
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. .
They're just screwed either way. If they are poor and on benefits, and vote democrat to get slightly better benefits, then the worst thing that could ever happen to the Democratic party is for them to get out of poverty. And the Dems really represent elites anyway, a million times more so under the Clintons, who've worked hard to make more people poor.
But the Republicans don't care about them at all, and in many instances hate them.
So you've got one party that wants you in a state of dependent poverty so you'll vote for them, so they can do favors for elites and maybe occasionally toss you some crumbs, and one party that wouldn't mind too much if you just starved to death.
Appealing to Italians at a St Patricks day speech?
In a state with multiple minority cities, giving such a speech to an almost white audience in a city with few minorities undercuts the message. Then ,making ludicrous statements like he will capture 95%of the black vote in four years , he simply exposes himself as a clown. Again.
Quote: billryanCan you imagine a candidate making a campaign speech aimed towards women to an all male audience?
Appealing to Italians at a St Patricks day speech?
In a state with multiple minority cities, giving such a speech to an almost white audience in a city with few minorities undercuts the message. Then ,making ludicrous statements like he will capture 95%of the black vote in four years , he simply exposes himself as a clown. Again.
I am not sure exactly what you would want him to do to address the issue in a timely manner when so few minorities have an open mind at this point. If it is just the speech and no attempt is made at outreach, then it may be a waste of time. He should also attempt to address minority groups...but don't expect much cooperation from those who make their money on keeping the poor that way--poor and Democrat. For example, do you think Al Sharpton would ask his followers to even give Trump a listen?
Either way, he may not sway anyone but at least he is showing that he has concerns about them. He can't win with most members of this board anyway--if he ignores any group, he doesn't care about them and if he attempts to speak to them in any way, he did it the wrong way.
Democrats have shown all kinds of concern for the poor at election time and have taken some actions. Republicans have, too, but everyone forgets any of that. Some things have worked; some have not. There is not as much willingness to actual "do" anything as there is to self-congratulate on what has been "done"...on either side. Our poor, in general, are better off than they were 50 years ago...but they are still poor and reliant, in too many cases, on the government. That works especially well for the Democrats and the people who make money off of them staying poor...
Yes, Trump says a lot of things I don't like and can't support. He makes ludicrous statements. The idea of this speech, if not all the words in it, was something he needed to do. It needs to be more than the speech; we will see what happens with that.
Quote: billryanCan you imagine a candidate making a campaign speech aimed towards women to an all male audience?
Appealing to Italians at a St Patricks day speech?
In a state with multiple minority cities, giving such a speech to an almost white audience in a city with few minorities undercuts the message. Then ,making ludicrous statements like he will capture 95%of the black vote in four years , he simply exposes himself as a clown. Again.
HE WAS NOT AIMING THAT SPEECH TOWARDS AFRICAN-AMERICANS.
He was aiming it towards white suburban voters who (correctly) think he is running a racist campaign and have reservations about supporting him because of it.
He wants them to think: "Oh look! He's reaching out to African Americans. Maybe he isn't that racist after all...."
Donald Trump doesn't care about black people.
Quote: ams288HE WAS NOT AIMING THAT SPEECH TOWARDS AFRICAN-AMERICANS.
He was aiming it towards white suburban voters who (correctly) think he is running a racist campaign and have reservations about supporting him because of it.
He wants them to think: "Oh look! He's reaching out to African Americans. Maybe he isn't that racist after all...."
Donald Trump doesn't care about black people.
Ultimately, who cares where that evil, stupid douchebag is aiming anything he says. It's obvious that he's (for a change) just repeating what he's been fed. I can imagine his handlers holding their breaths while he delivers his "reasonable Donald" speech, waiting for him to insult, oh, I don't know, Canadians or soccer players or Eskimos. Or maybe strangle a kitten onstage.
I do think that the American public, with the collective attention span of a gnat, will, in fact, do what Trump's handlers hope they will: largely forget about all the awful things he's said, well before election time. It's Clinton's job to keep reminding voters of what an incompetent jerkass the OO really is, but attacking is not her style. She's into substance, detail, and concrete proposals--and all that stuff just bores most Americans. They want STUFF from the government and they want EVERYBODY who isn't like them DEPORTED or KILLED and they don't want to hear any boring ol' DETAILS.
I really expect--and hope--that Trump will go off the rails again. He probably can't win no matter what at this point, but I want to see him drag other Republican candidates down with him. Our society has to utterly repudiate conservatism, the way we did slavery (mostly, anyway), if we want to progress. The only way we can do that is to hustle the Republicans out of the House, the Senate, governorships, state legislatures, city councils, and dogcatcher positions. I think we should still allow them to drive garbage trucks, though (under close supervision).
There, I fixed that for you :o)Quote:Donald Trump doesn't care about black people.
Quote: OnceDearThere, I fixed that for you :o)Quote:Donald Trump doesn't care about black people.
But he does care.... (about himself)
Quote: ams288Quote: OnceDearThere, I fixed that for you :o)Quote:Donald Trump doesn't care about black people.
But he does care.... (about himself)
Does he? Which aspect? His wealth? His fame? His place in history?
Does he care what ANYONE thinks of him? Only that they/we see he exists.
Classic narcissism. and that's the best thing I can find to say about him.
Here's what I think is a commonly held NON-US perspective of what's going down...
You guys and gals in the US took it upon yourselves to elect the second most powerful and dangerous human being in the world*.
Your short-list came down to Krusty the Clown and the Wicked Witch Of The West.
I know that some of you from both sides of the party lines share the distress that your remarkable democracy achieved there. But how will the system ever get repaired or rebuilt better?
*I reckon that because Putin doesn't really answer to anyone, that he holds number one slot.
Quote: OnceDear
Does he? Which aspect? His wealth? His fame? His place in history?
Does he care what ANYONE thinks of him? Only that they/we see he exists.
Classic narcissism. and that's the best thing I can find to say about him.
Here's what I think is a commonly held NON-US perspective of what's going down...
You guys and gals in the US took it upon yourselves to elect the second most powerful and dangerous human being in the world*.
Your short-list came down to Krusty the Clown and the Wicked Witch Of The West.
I know that some of you from both sides of the party lines share the distress that your remarkable democracy achieved there. But how will the system ever get repaired or rebuilt better?
*I reckon that because Putin doesn't really answer to anyone, that he holds number one slot.
The most dangerous person in the world is actually Kim Kardashian.
I have to disagree with your implied equivalence of Trump and Hillary Clinton. Clinton would (will) make a good president. A great one? No. Great presidents inspire passion, which she does not and cannot do. However, some of the qualities that make her disliked by The Great Mass of Dorks (aka the American electorate) are precisely those qualities that make her good for the job. She's a career politician, and though many people, certainly Trumpers, equate that with "bunny-killing mass murderer," it's actually a vital prerequisite for the job (imagine how well the OO would be doing if he was a semblance of a politician!). She advocates, and works for, boring ol' stuff like equal pay for women and affordable medical care, not blowing up countries we don't like or tearing up the Bill of Rights out of fear.
A telling factor is that Clinton is actually liked outside of the US. Our allies (and even some of our enemies) respect the work she's done in the last couple of decades. She gave a speech in Beijing in 1995 that is widely regarded as one of the most eloquent pleas for women's rights ever made. And her foreign policy experience would mean that she knows how to do more than bump uglies with Putin.
How will the system ever get repaired or rebuilt? Easy. Remove Republicans from all political offices, except perhaps the Head Poobah of the Department of Killing Mexicans in Arizona. Oh, and Nuclear Waste Taster in Nevada--an ideal job for a Republican.
:o)Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe most dangerous person in the world is actually Kim Kardashian.
Well, You said it. If you are an American, then maybe you are just acknowledging the collective ignorance of your countrymen out of despair. The UK is also pretty full of Dorks as evidenced by our recent Brexit referendum.Quote:The Great Mass of Dorks (aka the American electorate)
What Trump could do through bungling incompetence is frightening. Now he seems to have got a few advisors helping him to NOT speak is idiotic mind makes for an even more terrifying scenario: That he will fail to fail to get elected!Quote:Clinton would (will) make a good president.. . .She's a career politician, and though many people, certainly Trumpers, equate that with "bunny-killing mass murderer," it's actually a vital prerequisite for the job (imagine how well the OO would be doing if he was a semblance of a politician!).
Personally, I suspect that HC's neither the most honest nor intelligent candidate we could hope for, but she is the more qualified, experienced and professional one. I can respect her strengths while despising her weaknesses. For all his faults, Obama at least comes over has an intelligent, committed and thoughtful statesman. What he has achieved, whether you like it or not, was done through hard and impassioned work, mostly struggling against obstinate senate opposition for its own sake
Quote:She advocates, and works for, boring ol' stuff like equal pay for women and affordable medical care, not blowing up countries we don't like or tearing up the Bill of Rights out of fear.
A telling factor is that Clinton is actually liked outside of the US. Our allies (and even come of our enemies) respect the work she's done in the last couple of decades. She gave a speech in Beijing in 1995 that is widely regarded as one of the most eloquent pleas for women's rights ever made. And her foreign policy experience would mean that she knows how to do more than bump uglies with Putin.
How will the system ever get repaired or rebuilt? Easy. Remove Republicans from all political offices, except perhaps the Head Poobah of the Department of Killing Mexicans in Arizona. Oh, and Nuclear Waste Taster in Nevada--an ideal job for a Republican.
Quote: OnceDear:o)Well, You said it. If you are an American, then maybe you are just acknowledging the collective ignorance of your countrymen out of despair. The UK is also pretty full of Dorks as evidenced by our recent Brexit referendum.
I'm an American, and I can only imagine the consternation that has swept through Europe over the possibility that The Dumbald will actually become President. It's not in the bag for Hillary, not yet. For one thing, Trump could use the money that he's been withholding from his campaign to finance a nice, huge, bloody domestic terrorism incident. Or he could get lucky and that could happen without his efforts.
The Brexit vote kind of appalled us over here as well. We see the EU as an intrinsically good thing, or at least those of us with functioning brain cells do. But there is a growing anti-trade sentiment in this country, which is based on fear and like all such beliefs, is irrational. I believe that fear of the "other"--the outsider, the one who's (shiver) NOT LIKE US is what fuels the Trump movement AND drove the Brexit vote. Tellingly, the less educated support Trump over here, and supported Brexit over there.
Perhaps the best way to repair the system would be to deprive stupid people of the vote. But they keep making more and more of them! I have no problem with, for example, requiring that people pass a basic civics test before being allowed to vote. In my point of view, that you're breathing isn't sufficient qualification for you being allowed to determine (as in, f*** up) my future.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI have no problem with, for example, requiring that people pass a basic civics test before being allowed to vote. In my point of view, that you're breathing isn't sufficient qualification for you being allowed to determine (as in, f*** up) my future.
If you got your wish there would never be a Democrat elected to anything anywhere..... And you know it!
What were the odds on Brexit the day before it passed?Quote: WizardIn case anyone is interested, the Betfair odds suggest Trump has a 20.2% chance of winning.
Quote: JimRockfordWhat were the odds on Brexit the day before it passed?
Brexit didn't need 270 electoral votes.
Quote: JimRockfordWhat were the odds on Brexit the day before it passed?
About even money, depending on exactly when you asked. The polls just before the vote (unlike those recent ones re the US election) showed a statistical dead heat. Unlike the election of Trump, the passing of Brexit didn't require mass insanity--just mass stupidity.
I have a feeling you're trying to imply that odds mean nothing. That's true, so I certainly hope all true believing Trumpers will empty out their bank accounts and jump on those juicy 4-1 odds (or whatever is actually offered).
Quote: SOOPOOIf you got your wish there would never be a Democrat elected to anything anywhere..... And you know it!
I don't know that--and neither do you. The sun isn't yellow, it's hot pink--and you know it!!!! Siamese cats have nine legs and come from Jupiter--and you know it!!!
Actually, I've found that the vast majority of people all across the political and social spectrum wouldn't be able to pass such a test. That said, of the ones who COULD pass it, most of them would be Democrats. Two reasons: 1) Democrats tend to be better educated, especially since most college-educated folks are them stinkin' liberals; 2) Republican doctrine says that all government is bad; Democratic doctrine says that it can be a force for good. It stands to reason that a person who cares about something will learn more about it than a person who rejects it completely.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI don't know that--and neither do you.
2) Republican doctrine says that all government is bad;
You do know that, you just don't want to admit it.
And Republican doctrine does not say all government is bad. It just is against the Robin Hood like, over reaching, intrusive, deficit building, 'PC' government that Democrat leaders give us.
I wish the Republicans had nominated a normal candidate like Rubio, Kasich, or Bush. It would be so easy to argue for any of them over "The Flawed One", as I will refer to Hillary from now on. Seems more polite than disparaging her due to skin color or looks like you do for Mr. Trump.
Quote: OnceDear[Your short-list came down to Krusty the Clown and the Wicked Witch Of The West.
I don't think it's fair to compare a mediocre candidate at worse(Hillary), to possibly the worst presidential Republican candidate in its history.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI don't know that--and neither do you. The sun isn't yellow, it's hot pink--and you know it!!!! Siamese cats have nine legs and come from Jupiter--and you know it!!!
Actually, I've found that the vast majority of people all across the political and social spectrum wouldn't be able to pass such a test. That said, of the ones who COULD pass it, most of them would be Democrats. Two reasons: 1) Democrats tend to be better educated, especially since most college-educated folks are them stinkin' liberals; 2) Republican doctrine says that all government is bad; Democratic doctrine says that it can be a force for good. It stands to reason that a person who cares about something will learn more about it than a person who rejects it completely.
So we would throw out a very good majority of voters. I actually like that idea. I would bet not too many people could name the SC Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, and Majority Leader of the Senate, let alone Senate Pro Tem, what maybe 10%? If they had to name the statewide office holders of their own state plus Speaker of General Assembly and President of Senate? It would maybe be 2 to 5%?
If you added a constitutional test to determine if you could vote we would be lucky to have 5% of the population voting.
But maybe we wouldnt be in the mess we are. I know me and JS aren't on the same political side but he's a smart person. This is actually a great idea, force people to be knowledgeable.
Literally this last election was a collection of the worst possible candidates during the primary.
Walker, woof, what a divisive figure.
Fiorina, a rich candidate that ran a company into the ground.
Christie, see Walker, plus scandals.
Cruz, probably the worst candidate ever and totally unlikeable.
Carson, no experience, and terrible stump skills.
Jeb, boring as all get out and we don't need another bush.
Rubio, what happened to him, he was likeable
Huckabee, Santorum, et al, just also ran with nothing and plenty of baggage.
Kasich probably the most sane choice.
Trump, full of air and divisive rhetoric.
Sanders, a socialist but tells it like it is (I actually respect him for standing up for what he believes, but totally against my beliefs)
O'Malley, don't know much about him, but doesn't seem like he would be a terrible president. Not sure why he ran though.
Hillary, an ex senator from a state she never really wanted to be a part of until it benefited her. Plus everything else.
If someone told me I had to take a Democrat for president, I could think of a ton before I would take hillary. My first choice would be John Kerry. I respect Tim Kaine, and Tom Vilsack as I think they wouldn't be terrible. Out of the dems that ran the order would have been O'Malley, then Sanders. I just don't see why the dems want to go with Hillary,.
Everyone always says bernie would have crushed trump. No one ever mention's the fact Kasich would have destroyed hillary.
What has happened to statesmen in our country?
All of the ones that have been always been country first get shoved to the rear.
