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
Quote: MichaelBluejayLook, your refusal to look at my factual data doesn't mean I didn't supply it. And quoting Pew Research, CBS News, The Telegraph etc. isn't what rational people would describe as "pulling it out of your butt". Here's a longer excerpt of that page of worldwide Muslim opinion polls which I already provided:
Well, I can differentiate your and you're, what does that tell you? Nothing, I'm guessing.
You were talking about AMERICAN Muslims, which only one of those polls dealt with, and that one was from 2007. A single poll. Of younger Muslims. From ten years ago. Yep, that's more than enough evidence to make a blanket statement about 1.5 million Muslims! And should I point out that your original bleat was about them wanting to practice plural marriage and sharia law? Got any polls about that, and once again, from any source other than your butt? Remember, AMERICAN Muslims.
And I was wondering if you might fall into that grammar trap. In the sentence I'm sure you're referring to, I started with "your"--meant to be a POSSESSIVE. As in, "Your quoting irrelevant statistics shows the weakness of your arguments." As I'm sure you're dimly aware, "you're" is only used when it is a contraction. End of grammar lesson. Political/factual lesson postponed indefinitely, due to futility of the effort.
Really, I'm not going to concede that America is being invaded by hordes of slavering Muslims who are seeking to blow us up, so why don't you go back to mining the internet for "facts" and try to convince someone else about your bigoted ideas? God knows, there's fertile enough ground out there for hate. Talk to a Trumper. Email Fox News. Call in to Sean Hannity's show. Why beat your head against a brick wall by trying to argue with me? Aside from the fact that you'll never get me to hate Muslims, you're fighting WAY out of your (not "you're"!) weight.
Quote: RonCThe doctor said that she diagnosed it on Friday. My point has nothing to do with her being deathly ill; leave that to the far right people. My point is that she obviously was not feeling well on Friday; she should have slowed down then, healed, and gotten back on the trail. Her condition should have been revealed because the average person "gets it" and it is not all that serious if handled properly.
It's been part of Trump stump speech for weeks at least that she looks bad, she's ill, she's physically unfit to be president, she needs too much sleep, etc. Plus she was a NY senator during 9/11 and it's 2 days before on Fri with a dozen things scheduled . Not a chance they announce she's sick and taking the weekend off.
The spin is positive if they do it right, anyway. Look at how much you mean to her. She refuses to quit even when she has pneumonia. Soldier on. Etc.
Quote: ams288Is it possible that the Clinton campaign is making lemons out of lemonade and using this whole pneumonia thing as a way to lower expectations for the first debate?
Let's be realistic: Hillary has a much higher bar to overcome than Trump. If Trump stands upright for the full 90 minutes and doesn't drool over himself, his supporters will declare him the winner and say the election is over.
Whereas in order for Hillary to get good reviews, she has to be on point the whole time and can't really afford to say anything super dumb like Trump can, because it's basically expected that Trump will lie and say stupid things and then deny ever saying them shortly after.
I doubt it. Clinton is still fighting against a cloud of misogyny. If Clinton showed up with a raspy voice and a cough, her critics would say, "SEE!!! The bitch is weak and unfit to be President, and she's been hiding the fact that she's dying because she wants to take over the world before she croaks!" If Trump, on the other hand, showed up with the same symptoms, Trump media would crow, "Look at that strong manly man, fighting off a deadly virus so that he can shine on the debate stage and expose Crooked Hillary's lies, deceit, fraud, corruption, ugly hairdo, and the horrible fact that her husband cheated on her twenty years ago!" (And if you think I'm exaggerating the tone you'd hear, well...)
The posters on this forum who have been leaping like demented bunnies all over each fresh conspiracy theory illustrate this perfectly. Aside from being fact-challenged, their language barely conceals the core of their Hillary-hatred: that she's a WOMAN. We can't have the bitches running things--they'd eliminate Monday night football and make us pay for poor people's medical bills!!!!
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's been part of Trump stump speech for weeks at least that she looks bad, she's ill, she's physically unfit to be president, she needs too much sleep, etc. Plus she was a NY senator during 9/11 and it's 2 days before on Fri with a dozen things scheduled . Not a chance they announce she's sick and taking the weekend off.
The spin is positive if they do it right, anyway. Look at how much you mean to her. She refuses to quit even when she has pneumonia. Soldier on. Etc.
...but none of that means a damned thing if she gets sicker; that is a likely outcome when you push too hard when you are already ill.
You Hillarists spend too much time thinking that she needs to steal votes from Trump...no, she needs to win people who are uncommitted at this point. As such, why care whay any Trumpist thinks? Go after the people you can bring to your side.
I'm not trying to defend anything, I'm merely pointing out your ridiculous lack of nuance. Not only is "Islam" not a single "general" thing, as you wrongly believe, but not all Muslims follow all tenets of the faith equally. You're Christian, I assume -- do you go to Church every weekend? Do all Christians go to Church every weekend? Do all Jews keep kosher? Do all Catholic priests bugger little boys? You should have learned by now that generalizations are virtually always incorrect, yet in this case you're seeking to generalize rather than to tease out the facts from the hyperbole. That's your own failing, it has nothing to do with religion or politics or anything. And if you're utterly incapable or unwilling to even comprehend even a basic fact like "not all Christians believe in Satan" or "not all Muslims are suicide bombers" then there's no point trying to get you to comprehend other details of, really, anything. Go ahead and live your life according to your gross generalizations, comfortable in the knowledge that you're wrong most of the time and proud that you don't care.Quote: AZDuffmanAnd explain it in general terms, ... Build a good defense of islam, I'd love to hear one because I never have,
Over half of Americans are women who, according to Trump, "need to be treated like shit." You and your buddies down at the bar can high-five all you want over how macho Trump is for saying that, but anyone who really thinks "women need to be treated like shit" is an asshole. This is from the same guy who publicly contemplated banging his daughter. That's sick. You want to hold up an incestuous lecher as a paragon of leadership and common sense?Quote:I do not see Trump "standing against Americans." ... Trump talks common sense.
And why are you a fan of "common sense"? Common sense leads to common results. Not great ones. The reason common sense is "common" is because it's not any better. Common sense makes you think that red is due after a long streak of black, or that doubling your bet after every loss is a guaranteed winning strategy, or that the guy hitting on the wrong cards is ruining your blackjack game. I know you hold at least one of those beliefs, and it's unequivocally wrong, but that's what "common sense" gets you. In fact, when it comes to most complicated matters, common sense is almost always wrong. Do you want to have a common nation, with common goals and aspirations, or do you want to strive for greatness? Trump's slogan isn't "Make America Common Again," but that's what you'll get if he's in charge.
Quote: RonC...but none of that means a damned thing if she gets sicker; that is a likely outcome when you push too hard when you are already ill.
You Hillarists spend too much time thinking that she needs to steal votes from Trump...no, she needs to win people who are uncommitted at this point. As such, why care whay any Trumpist thinks? Go after the people you can bring to your side.
I don't think she needs to steal votes from Trump. She needs to solidify what she has and get the talking heads to stop their worried self-important over-analysis of her every move. It piles up into conventional wisdom that's not accurate.
People aren't deciding this election. 24/7 news cycles are.
I see a woman who works her ass off and didn't want to miss the 9/11 memorial weekend in the heat of her presidential campaign, especially considering the work she did for 9/11 families. The campaign didn't disclose it because she felt she could push through, adding to her character as a workhorse as opposed to a liar.
Her family foundation has gotten an A rating from all charity watchdog organizations, while Trump uses other people's money to buy portraits of himself.
The choice isn't even close. LOL @ folks who are falling for this con artist's biggest con yet.
And apparently to buy off politicians who are considering investigating him. His charitable foundation made a contribution to the PAC of the Florida AG, which is illegal, and a few weeks later she dropped the investigation into his fraudulent real estate scam.Quote: SteverinosHer family foundation has gotten an A rating from all charity watchdog organizations, while Trump uses other people's money to buy portraits of himself.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/12/trump-foundation-bondi-florida-ag/
Trump is the master of deflection. He calls Hillary "corrupt" just so that later on when his own layers of corruption are exposed, they seem less egregious.
They're not. Setting up a fake school, conning students out of their money, setting up a charitable foundation, and then using other people's charitable donations to buy off the politicians who are investigating that fake school are not the acts of a leader, they're the acts of a crook. Even if Trump didn't have a racist or sexist bone in his body, how could anyone possibly consider voting for someone who is so crooked? Don't point at Hillary and say "she's crooked too" -- even if she is (and I don't think it's even a remotely fair comparison), that only means you should vote for neither of them.
Bill Clinton said, she FREQUENTLY has fainting spells. Realizing his TMI mistake of accidentally telling the truth he quickly tried to backtrack and then cover it up. CBS edited it making it seem as if he said, she rarely had them.Quote: gamerfreakYou're reaching for something that is not there...
I honestly do think she has health issues. I guess people would rather her be elected and sick than admit the truth.
Quote: AxelWolf
I honestly do think she has health issues. .
Everybody has Health issues
That's why we have a ticket and not a single candidate
Quote: MathExtremistDon't point at Hillary and say "she's crooked too" -- even if she is (and I don't think it's even a remotely fair comparison), that only means you should vote for neither of them.
It'd be interesting to know what ratio of things DT actually does that aren't questionable.
If it's not a money skim, bankruptcy, or lawsuit , it usually a chance to be on TV or some other fame whore thing and grease his image.
I did laugh though when someone referred to Hillary as ill-ary.
Quote: AxelWolfBill Clinton said, she FREQUENTLY has fainting spells. Realizing his TMI mistake of accidentally telling the truth he quickly tried to backtrack and then cover it up. CBS edited it making it seem as if he said, she rarely had them.
I honestly do think she has health issues. I guess people would rather her be elected and sick than admit the truth.
Well, maybe in our distant future, 68-year-olds won't have health issues, but for now, I think we can pretty much expect them to have them. It's an improvement over the not-very-distant past, when 68 years old = dead.
Besides, why would Trumpers make an issue out of Hillary's health? If she was elected, then died in office, wouldn't they all strip naked and start dancing in YouTube videos, singing "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead"?
Regardless of all that, inflating this into some kind of conspiracy issue is really, really, really asinine. Frankly, if I was traveling from here to there and found myself in NYC on a hot, humid summer morning, I might feel a little faint, too. Does that mean I'm not qualified to be an AP? Of course not! You should also vote for me for President, naturally.
Quote: rxwineIt'd be interesting to know what ratio of things DT actually does that aren't questionable.
If it's not a money skim, bankruptcy, or lawsuit , it usually a chance to be on TV or some other fame whore thing and grease his image.
I did laugh though when someone referred to Hillary as ill-ary.
Well, it's a good thing for Trump that "assholery" isn't a clinically recognized disease, as it certainly disqualifies him from the Presidency, and manifests itself several times a day to boot.
Quote: terapinedEverybody has Health issues
That's why we have a ticket and not a single candidate
Actually, I hope that she doesn't have major health issues...but Bill did have just a little slip there; who knows if it was truly an accident or just another lie that is now being covered up with the help of the mainstream media.
I wish her health should she win or lose. I wish ill health on very few except ISIS and folks like that.
I never want to see that knucklehead with the stuck eyebrows become President. He scares me...looks like a maniac or something out of a cartoon. I actually believe that she would also be a much better President than him.
When your husband says you're FREQUENTLY having fainting spells and that's probably the least of her health issues. And Bill knows how important it could be to her getting elected. She shouldn't be hiding them. If it's fine with the voters that she's very ill then so be it. I personally wouldn't want to elect someone that has serious health issues.Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, maybe in our distant future, 68-year-olds won't have health issues, but for now, I think we can pretty much expect them to have them. It's an improvement over the not-very-distant past, when 68 years old = dead.
Besides, why would Trumpers make an issue out of Hillary's health? If she was elected, then died in office, wouldn't they all strip naked and start dancing in YouTube videos, singing "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead"?
Regardless of all that, inflating this into some kind of conspiracy issue is really, really, really asinine. Frankly, if I was traveling from here to there and found myself in NYC on a hot, humid summer morning, I might feel a little faint, too. Does that mean I'm not qualified to be an AP? Of course not! You should also vote for me for President, naturally.
Not actually being an advantage player would disqualify you from doing it. Anyhow, I think that comparing AP with the job of being president is asinine.
Honestly I don't care who wins all that much, I don't think either of them are going to change issues I'm concerned with.
Quote: AxelWolfWhen your husband says you're FREQUENTLY having fainting spells and that's probably the least of her health issues. And Bill knows how important it could be to her getting elected. She shouldn't be hiding them. If it's fine with the voters that she's very ill then so be it. I personally wouldn't want to elect someone that has serious health issues.
Not actually being an advantage player would disqualify you from doing it. Anyhow, I think that comparing AP with the job of being president is asinine.
Honestly I don't care who wins all that much, I don't think either of them are going to change issues I'm concerned with.
Well, contrary to your implication, I am an AP; I just don't make a living doing it. I don't vulture Ultimate X, fish matchplays out of dumpsters, or hire some lowlife to stand behind the dealer and spook her hole card. But your point is well taken, albeit the opposite way you intended. Comparing being an AP with the job of being President is indeed asinine (I was being silly, but you seem to be a bit irony-proof).
But so is saying that catching walking pneumonia disqualifies a person from the Presidency.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not trying to defend anything, I'm merely pointing out your ridiculous lack of nuance. Not only is "Islam" not a single "general" thing, as you wrongly believe, but not all Muslims follow all tenets of the faith equally. You're Christian, I assume -- do you go to Church every weekend? Do all Christians go to Church every weekend? Do all Jews keep kosher? Do all Catholic priests bugger little boys? You should have learned by now that generalizations are virtually always incorrect, yet in this case you're seeking to generalize rather than to tease out the facts from the hyperbole. That's your own failing, it has nothing to do with religion or politics or anything. And if you're utterly incapable or unwilling to even comprehend even a basic fact like "not all Christians believe in Satan" or "not all Muslims are suicide bombers" then there's no point trying to get you to comprehend other details of, really, anything. Go ahead and live your life according to your gross generalizations, comfortable in the knowledge that you're wrong most of the time and proud that you don't care.
As has happened here many times before, your faculty lounge talk misses the broader point. Not every British Redcoat was a bad guy. I am sure there were plenty of communists that were fine chaps. And I am sure there were even several Waffen SS officers who one could have a few beers with and enjoy conversation. Heck, in WWI the first year the soldiers on either side exchanged Christmas presents.
However, the bigger issue remained. 1776 Redcoats wanted to and did terrorize the country. Communists did want to control the world. The Waffen SS I will let speak for itself. In a little safe space off somewhere you can think the way you are thinking. Out here in the real world you have to look at reality.
See, in the real world you do not get to say, "well, not all muslims are bad people!" You have to look at the cesspools that are muslim societies and ask if you want that in your neighborhood.
Quote:Over half of Americans are women who, according to Trump, "need to be treated like shit." [/q
When did Trump say or even imply this? I think you have Trump confused with Bill Clinton.All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Oh good lord. You can't possibly be that stupid.Quote: JoeshlabotnikYou were talking about AMERICAN Muslims, which only one of those polls dealt with, and that one was from 2007.
If scientists did tests where they dropped eggs from the tops of houses, hotels, and barns, and found that they consistently broke, you'd be the one saying, "Oh, but you didn't try dropping them from stadiums! Ah hah!"
About your haggling about the poll being from 2007, are you seriously suggesting that that demographics' opinions have radically changed in the last nine years? Seriously?
Speak for yourself! I cited a MASSIVE amount of public opinion polls from populations all over the world that show CONSISTENT significant support of terrorism across various demographic groups. All you've done is whine that it's somehow not relevant because we didn't drop the eggs from the stadium. If my evidence is somehow imperfect, it still certainly trumps your big bowl of NOTHING. So, let's see YOUR evidence that there's NOT a significant portion of American Muslims who approve of terrorism.Quote: JoeshlabotnikGot any polls about that, and once again, from any source other than your butt? Remember, AMERICAN Muslims.
Wait, you tried to *bait* me with a "grammar trap"? Seriously? Wow.Quote: JoeshlabotnikAnd I was wondering if you might fall into that grammar trap.
In any case, I stand corrected. I didn't read carefully, and you're right, your use of your was correct.
Good, because I never suggested otherwise. Stop inventing ridiculous straw men, and argue against what I'm actually saying, instead of something you just imagined in your head.Quote: JoeshlabotnikReally, I'm not going to concede that America is being invaded by hordes of slavering Muslims who are seeking to blow us up...
So, you're saying you can't differentiate quoting factual survey data from being bigoted. Got it.Quote: Joeshlabotnik...try to convince someone else about your bigoted ideas
Good, because I don't want you to, nor have I ever tried to get you to do so. Stop inventing ridiculous straw men, and argue against what I'm actually saying, instead of something you just imagined in your head.Quote: JoeshlabotnikWhy beat your head against a brick wall by trying to argue with me? Aside from the fact that you'll never get me to hate Muslims...
Quote: AZDuffmanYou have to look at the cesspools that are muslim societies and ask if you want that in your neighborhood.
That's not actually accurate.
It's like seeing America only through the events like Ferguson. Or thinking America looks like one way only, like downtown NYC or the Las Vegas Strip.
Nope, I don't want to live under Sharia Law, but describing the typical Muslim society as a cesspool and considering it typical is not accurate.
It's no more accurate for a foreigner to go live in the worst part of Detroit and call it typical of America.
Just make your point as best you can and move along...you aren't proving that you are brilliant by policing grammar on an internet message board!
Quote: rxwineThat's not actually accurate.
It's like seeing America only through the events like Ferguson. Or thinking America looks like one way only, like downtown NYC or the Las Vegas Strip.
Nope, I don't want to live under Sharia Law, but describing the typical Muslim society as a cesspool and considering it typical is not accurate.
Some are clean cesspools, but they are cesspools nonetheless. From Morocco to Egypt is pretty much a cesspool. Poverty and violence one side of Africa to the other. Go south in Africa and it gets worse, killing fields of the worst order. Syria we know what a mess that is, even without Obama's drone war. Saudi Arabia is a cesspool where the government hands out money to keep the peace. Yemen--give me a break. UAE and Kuwait behave themselves, but are extremely unfree nations. Pakistan is held together by military force. Indonesia, another hell hole of a place. Gaza, where they elect and support a government that preaches terror.
Then we can visit the no-go zones in Europe. Well, we cannot. There is Dearborn, MI, in the top 20% of cities when it comes to crime.
See, it is not just one or two places or even parts of many countries. This is widespread. Citing exceptions does not disprove the rule. You may not like what you see when you look at islam, but it is foolish to put on rose colored glasses and think it is a nice thing.
Quote: AZDuffmanSee, it is not just one or two places or even parts of many countries. .
I guarantee you, you're still looking at things as if you only considered the worst city areas in the US. None of which I would choose to live in on purpose.
Quote: MichaelBluejayIn other news, in just about a month, Trump has erased Clinton's whopping 25-point advantage in Florida, and is now essentially tied with her there. He's still the underdog overall, but winning Florida would certainly put him within striking distance of the presidency.
In my opinion Trump is getting the same benefit as a completely our of control grade school kid would get if he shapes up a little bit.
The teacher and parent only judges him on his extreme marked improvement in the class, not the fact that his new good behavior is still mediocre at best to the rest of class performance.
Oh no, you tried to use statistics to prove a point! Here we go:Quote: AZDuffmanSome are clean cesspools, but they are cesspools nonetheless. From Morocco to Egypt is pretty much a cesspool. Poverty and violence one side of Africa to the other. Go south in Africa and it gets worse, killing fields of the worst order. Syria we know what a mess that is, even without Obama's drone war. Saudi Arabia is a cesspool where the government hands out money to keep the peace. Yemen--give me a break. UAE and Kuwait behave themselves, but are extremely unfree nations. Pakistan is held together by military force. Indonesia, another hell hole of a place. Gaza, where they elect and support a government that preaches terror.
Then we can visit the no-go zones in Europe. Well, we cannot. There is Dearborn, MI, in the top 20% of cities when it comes to crime.
Of the top 50 cities in the world by non-war murder rate, none are in the Middle East, most are in Latin America, and 21 are in Brazil alone. About 87% of Brazilians are Christians, including about 65% Catholic and 22% Protestant. So by your laughable illogic, your Trumpian religious discrimination policy should start with Catholics.
The reason all of that is hooey is the same reason your rabid anti-Muslim ranting is hooey. Anyone can make a bogus numerical relationship look bad, and there are many here who are far, far better at it than you. So why don't you stick to what you actually know rather than the festering tripe you read on Fox and Breitbart, and keep your blatant anti-religious bigotry to yourself. It's anti-American to deny others the right to practice their faith, especially when that right is enshrined in the Constitution. To channel Khizr Khan, "have you even read it?"
As usual, your accusations of missing the point are misplaced. The Redcoats were a cohesive organization with a stated mission and procedures in place to carry it out. So was the SS.Quote: AZDuffmanAs has happened here many times before, your faculty lounge talk misses the broader point. Not every British Redcoat was a bad guy. I am sure there were plenty of communists that were fine chaps. And I am sure there were even several Waffen SS officers who one could have a few beers with and enjoy conversation. Heck, in WWI the first year the soldiers on either side exchanged Christmas presents.
"Islam" isn't even close to a cohesive organization or consistent set of beliefs, any more than "Christianity" is. You know from experience that Christians come in a wide variety of levels of religious observation and follow many, many different sets of tenets. You might not know what they all are, but you understand that there's a pretty big difference between a Catholic, a Lutheran, a Unitarian, and a Mormon -- but all of them believe in the divinity of Jesus. You would never say that "Christianity hates women" even though some Christians are undoubtedly misogynists. Yet you're apparently ignorant that the same level of variety exists in *all* major religions, including Judaism and Islam. That's the only explanation for your foundational belief that Islam is a singular entity that, as Donald Trump has said, "hates us."
You have a poor memory and you're willfully ignoring the media that's unfavorable to your favored candidate. If you haven't heard the "treat them like shit" line, you've been hiding under a rock:Quote:"Over half of Americans are women who, according to Trump, "need to be treated like shit."
When did Trump say or even imply this? I think you have Trump confused with Bill Clinton.
Read the article and you'll see a portrait, not of a great civic leader, but of a man driven by a singular ego. He was then, and is now, unworthy of public office.Quote: New York Magazine, November 9, 1992, pp. 41-43He is full of stories of supermodels, women he might call twelves (not their size), clinging to a rock star's legs and the rock star kicking them away. You have to treat them like s--- .... Women are two types for him -- those of use, and those he beds, or "sacks" .... Trump is talking about women and says, "You have to treat 'em like s---." "You'd make a good mafioso," says Johnson. "One of the greatest," says Donald as the car glides through the protected pinelands into the corrupted city.
Why in the world would you think that it's proper to exclude non-war murders in your stats? Do you think the victims die a little less when their killed due to warfare than for other reasons? It's precisely *because* of religious wars that some areas of the world are so dangerous.Quote: MathExtremistOf the top 50 cities in the world by non-war murder rate...
Dead is dead, but AZ's cite was to crime rate in Dearborn, Michigan, presumably to prop up the thesis that Muslims living in America will generate crime-ridden cities. I don't think he believes that Muslims living in America will generate organized armed warfare like in the Middle East, but who knows what's really in his head. Point is, if you're going to examine the thesis related to crime and Islam vis-a-vis cities in America (which aren't at war), you quickly learn that crime is far more prevalent in majority-Catholic cities than majority-Muslim cities. Of course, that means nothing at all, but it's always good to shine light on crackpot innumeracy masquerading as relevant statistical evidence.Quote: MichaelBluejayWhy in the world would you think that it's proper to exclude non-war murders in your stats? Do you think the victims die a little less when their killed due to warfare than for other reasons? It's precisely *because* of religious wars that some areas of the world are so dangerous.
If that's how it seems to you, you're not reading clearly. I can't help that. If you think Muslims living in America will turn our cities into war-torn wastelands like Afghanistan, that's your prerogative, but I don't think that's even what AZD was saying and it's certainly not true in any event. Don't fall into illogic traps like AZD does. He just said, and I quote, "citing exceptions does not disprove the rule." Yeah, actually, it does. So if I point out that there are lots of Muslims living up and down the West Coast and no wars, that's sufficient to demonstrate that Muslims do not always cause war-torn cities. End of story. The closest to military action on the West Coast in recent memory was when the feds took down the Malheur Wildlife Reserve occupiers and killed LaVoy Finicum. Who was not a Muslim.Quote: MichaelBluejaySorry, I'm not buying it. It seems like you're twisting the definition just so you can exclude data which undermines your point.
Condemning all Muslims because a few rotten apples went on a murderous rampage in the name of a perverted reading of Islam is no different than condemning all Christians because a few rotten apples went on a murderous rampage in the name of a perverted reading of Christianity. If you're willing to do the first, you must be willing to do the second. Do you condemn all Christians for the sins of their wayward brethren?
Quote: MichaelBluejaySorry, I'm not buying it. It seems like you're twisting the definition just so you can exclude data which undermines your point.
Quite possibly the greatest, and certainly the most prevalent of your persistent logical errors is selective perception. You greatly overweight--and sometimes completely misinterpret--information that appears to support your point of view, while greatly discounting that information that refutes it.
Of course, it is asinine to claim that Muslims cause violence and that cities with Muslim populations are more violent than others--for the simple reason that the data suggest otherwise. OF COURSE you really really really really really want this to be true, so you'll ignore data that disconfirms what you want to believe. This is a very common cognitive fault, and in fact, you'll see it quite often on Fox News.
When someone like MathExtremist points out the gaping holes in your logic, and you simply clap your hands over your ears and sing "La la la la la I'm not buying it," you appear ridiculous. In fact, I wonder why you're bothering to involve yourself in these discussions at all, since you are so dead set in your positions. What you said to me earlier about (sic) "Muslims entering the US to practice plural marriage and sharia law" was SO stupid...and yet, when I pointed out that someone wishing to engage in certain religious practices would hardly seek to enter a country where those practices are illegal, you doubled down on your foolishness.
Really, there's no honor in a mulish refusal to admit when you've adopted a foolish position and refuse to discard it. I know it's hard to admit that you're wrong, but really, first I and then MathExtremist have completely destroyed your premise. It's not a matter of macho posturing, so you would do yourself proud to admit that you have been basing your arguments on what you want (so desperately!) to be true rather than what IS true.
This week in Trump's health:
1) Trump promises to reveal new medical info on Dr. Oz and discuss a recent physical he underwent
2) Trump's campaign manager suddenly claims a "right to privacy" in interview on CNN
3) It is revealed there will be "no new medical info" during Dr. Oz interview. Interview will be a "conversation about well-being, being active, and positive thinking"
Imagine if Hillary made a huge issue about going on a TV show to discuss a recent physical she had only to back out at the last second... People like Evenbob's heads would literally explode.
Quote: ams2881) Trump promises to reveal new medical info on Dr. Oz and discuss a recent physical he underwent
.
Dr Oz
Gee a fraudster selling quack weight loss programs interviewing the Trump U fraudster
That's pretty funny in view of:Quote: ams2883) It is revealed there will be "no new medical info" during Dr. Oz interview. Interview will be a "conversation about well-being, being active, and positive thinking"
Quote: Donald Trump, Master Apprentice (2005)A lot of people sit down and discuss their lives, things like are they happy, but it’s not like that with me. I don’t think positively, I don’t think negatively, I just think about the goal. But it’s not like I sit down and write goals. I just do things.
But his flip-flop on talking about his health is the least of his worries today. Newsweek just did a huge article on Trump's foreign business dealings, specifically pointing out several major conflicts of interest between US foreign policy goals and Trump Organization interests in countries like India, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and UAE. It concludes with the following:
Quote:Never before has an American candidate for president had so many financial ties with American allies and enemies, and never before has a business posed such a threat to the United States. If Donald Trump wins this election and his company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from the Trump family, the foreign policy of the United States of America could well be for sale.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html
But the most important point in the article is near the beginning, when it describes how Trump's real business isn't real estate development, it's building his "Trump" brand and licensing it to foreign entities. That explains why he's campaigning for president (there is no better brand marketing than free 24/7 news), but it also disqualifies him from actually holding the office while simultaneously managing that brand empire.
Quote: MathExtremistBut the most important point in the article is near the beginning, when it describes how Trump's real business isn't real estate development, it's building his "Trump" brand and licensing it to foreign entities. That explains why he's campaigning for president (there is no better brand marketing than free 24/7 news), but it also disqualifies him from actually holding the office while simultaneously managing that brand empire.
I don't think a sitting President can really run any outside entity while in office. Conflict of interest stuff. Hillary can't run the Clinton Foundation, etc. He's not any more "disqualified" on that point than anyone else. Your other points may be much more valid; this one is pretty worthless overall.
No -- and you should read the article before jumping to false conclusions. Trump's for-profit organization is qualitatively different than the Clinton Foundation in several ways, number one being that he can't simply extricate himself from it the way Hillary could if she left the board of the Clinton Foundation. Not only does Trump need to quit his company, every other member of his family does too. Do you really see that happening?Quote: RonCI don't think a sitting President can really run any outside entity while in office. Conflict of interest stuff. Hillary can't run the Clinton Foundation, etc. He's not any more "disqualified" on that point than anyone else. Your other points may be much more valid; this one is pretty worthless overall.
Quote: Newsweek articleThe Trump Organization is not like the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the charitable enterprise that has been the subject of intense scrutiny about possible conflicts for the Democratic presidential nominee. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton bestowed benefits on contributors to the foundation in some sort of “pay to play” scandal when she was secretary of state, but that makes no sense because there was no “pay.” Money contributed to the foundation was publicly disclosed and went to charitable efforts, such as fighting neglected tropical diseases that infect as many as a billion people. The financials audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global independent accounting company, and the foundation’s tax filings show that about 90 percent of the money it raised went to its charitable programs. (Trump surrogates have falsely claimed that it was only 10 percent and that the rest was used as a Clinton “slush fund.”) No member of the Clinton family received any cash from the foundation, nor did it finance any political campaigns. In fact, like the Clintons, almost the entire board of directors works for free.
On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year. Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities. None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners. (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign entities in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.) Trump’s financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas entities, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world’s tax havens.
Trump’s business conflicts with America’s national security interests cannot be resolved so long as he or any member of his family maintains a financial interest in the Trump Organization during a Trump administration, or even if they leave open the possibility of returning to the company later. The Trump Organization cannot be placed into a blind trust, an arrangement used by many politicians to prevent them from knowing their financial interests; the Trump family is already aware of who their overseas partners are and could easily learn about any new ones.
Many foreign governments retain close ties to and even control of companies in their country, including several that already are partnered with the Trump Organization. Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House. This is why, without a permanent departure of the entire Trump family from their company, the prospect of legal bribery by overseas powers seeking to influence American foreign policy, either through existing or future partnerships, will remain a reality throughout a Trump presidency.
Quote: MathExtremistNo -- and you should read the article before jumping to false conclusions. Trump's for-profit organization is qualitatively different than the Clinton Foundation in several ways, number one being that he can't simply extricate himself from it the way Hillary could if she left the board of the Clinton Foundation. Not only does Trump need to quit his company, every other member of his family does too. Do you really see that happening?
Quote: Newsweek articleThe Trump Organization is not like the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the charitable enterprise that has been the subject of intense scrutiny about possible conflicts for the Democratic presidential nominee. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton bestowed benefits on contributors to the foundation in some sort of “pay to play” scandal when she was secretary of state, but that makes no sense because there was no “pay.” Money contributed to the foundation was publicly disclosed and went to charitable efforts, such as fighting neglected tropical diseases that infect as many as a billion people. The financials audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global independent accounting company, and the foundation’s tax filings show that about 90 percent of the money it raised went to its charitable programs. (Trump surrogates have falsely claimed that it was only 10 percent and that the rest was used as a Clinton “slush fund.”) No member of the Clinton family received any cash from the foundation, nor did it finance any political campaigns. In fact, like the Clintons, almost the entire board of directors works for free.
On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year. Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities. None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners. (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign entities in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.) Trump’s financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas entities, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world’s tax havens.
Trump’s business conflicts with America’s national security interests cannot be resolved so long as he or any member of his family maintains a financial interest in the Trump Organization during a Trump administration, or even if they leave open the possibility of returning to the company later. The Trump Organization cannot be placed into a blind trust, an arrangement used by many politicians to prevent them from knowing their financial interests; the Trump family is already aware of who their overseas partners are and could easily learn about any new ones.
Many foreign governments retain close ties to and even control of companies in their country, including several that already are partnered with the Trump Organization. Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House. This is why, without a permanent departure of the entire Trump family from their company, the prospect of legal bribery by overseas powers seeking to influence American foreign policy, either through existing or future partnerships, will remain a reality throughout a Trump presidency.
Any "blind trust" is not "blind" in totality--the person placing it in the trust KNOWS well what in there and also SEES what is going on in the market, so there is ALWAYS the chance that they could do something that might be in the trust's best interest even while not exactly knowing whether it is or not actually so. This is true of the Clinton Foundation and the Trump organization.
Why don't we give Trump the same benefit of the doubt we give Hillary--if he becomes President, and he does something wrong, impeach him. If his Justice Department and the FBI decide it is not worth prosecuting, as in the email issue was done, then let it go at that. The portion of this article you quoted doesn't convince me that EITHER Trump or Hillary could not potentially end up having some conflict of interest issue.
The more relevant part to me is the FEC filing issue. If he did not file something he was required by law to file, THAT should be investigated. That would potentially be a criminal or non-criminal violation that was already committed.
Quote: AZDuffmanSome are clean cesspools, but they are cesspools nonetheless. From Morocco to Egypt is pretty much a cesspool. Poverty and violence one side of Africa to the other. Go south in Africa and it gets worse, killing fields of the worst order. Syria we know what a mess that is, even without Obama's drone war. Saudi Arabia is a cesspool where the government hands out money to keep the peace. Yemen--give me a break. UAE and Kuwait behave themselves, but are extremely unfree nations. Pakistan is held together by military force. Indonesia, another hell hole of a place. Gaza, where they elect and support a government that preaches terror.
Then we can visit the no-go zones in Europe. Well, we cannot. There is Dearborn, MI, in the top 20% of cities when it comes to crime.
See, it is not just one or two places or even parts of many countries. This is widespread. Citing exceptions does not disprove the rule. You may not like what you see when you look at islam, but it is foolish to put on rose colored glasses and think it is a nice thing.
I on the other hand totally support our ALL patriotic US soldiers
Especially those that have died in the service of their and our Country
RIP Army Capt. Humayun Khan
A patriot and Hero that just happens to be Muslim
I agree that the FEC issue is another in a litany of troubling Trump acts that should be investigated, but I also think that the conflict issue is a qualitative distinction. Neither Clinton nor her family directly profits from the non-profit, charitable Clinton Foundation. Divesting management of that is a trivial matter, and I agree that she should do so (or agree to do so if elected). Trump and his family do directly profit from the Trump Organization, which is the whole point of it being a for-profit business rather than a charitable foundation. Do you think in a million years that Trump and his entire family will divest of the Trump Organization? Donald Jr. or Ivanka?Quote: RonCWhy don't we give Trump the same benefit of the doubt we give Hillary--if he becomes President, and he does something wrong, impeach him. If his Justice Department and the FBI decide it is not worth prosecuting, as in the email issue was done, then let it go at that. The portion of this article you quoted doesn't convince me that EITHER Trump or Hillary could not potentially end up having some conflict of interest issue.
The more relevant part to me is the FEC filing issue. If he did not file something he was required by law to file, THAT should be investigated. That would potentially be a criminal or non-criminal violation that was already committed.
And how would that even happen? It's easy to see how the Clintons could just turn over the reins of their foundation to someone else. After all, they're not making money from it anyway. But how would Trump and his family divest from the Trump Organization even if they wanted to? They are the Trump Organization. Read the whole article and tell me if you come away with the sense that Trump could be an unconflicted president while his kids run his business.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/here-are-the-juiciest-colin-powell-comments-about-trump-and-clinton-from-his-hacked-emails/ar-BBw94Z1?li=BBmkt5R
I think I agree with him on everything about Clinton and Trump.
*at least what I've seen so far.
Quote:"Benghazi is a stupid witch hunt. Basic fault falls on a courageous ambassador who thoughts Libyans now love me and I am ok in this very vulnerable place,” Powell wrote to Rice in December 2015, referring to former ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attack.
Powell added, though, that Clinton bore some blame: “But blame also rests on his leaders and supports back here. Pat Kennedy, Intel community, [State Department] and yes HRC" -- referring to Clinton.
“Completely agree,” Rice responded.
Powell has already said more of his emails will come out...
Quote: ams288Hmmmm.... I hate to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, but something smells fishy here:
This week in Trump's health:
1) Trump promises to reveal new medical info on Dr. Oz and discuss a recent physical he underwent
2) Trump's campaign manager suddenly claims a "right to privacy" in interview on CNN
3) It is revealed there will be "no new medical info" during Dr. Oz interview. Interview will be a "conversation about well-being, being active, and positive thinking"
Imagine if Hillary made a huge issue about going on a TV show to discuss a recent physical she had only to back out at the last second... People like Evenbob's heads would literally explode.
Hey, ams, don't misuse "literally." (It's getting to be literally a disease on the internet.) (And yes, I was literally being facetious there.)
This is Iteration #783 of the electorate and the media that claim to represent it holding Clinton to a much higher standard of transparency than Trump. It's pretty stupid, though, if you think about it, to question either candidate's health, when they are zooming around the country, making speeches and appearances here, there, and everywhere, following a schedule that would make Iron Man melt into slag. If that isn't a test of fitness, I don't know what is.
If you want to peer into the dark corners of Trump, though, you could look at his recent puzzling refusal to attack Clinton over her supposed medical issues as due to a realization that if he pressed the issue, he would be pretty much forced to provide actual detailed medical info on himself as well. Hey, maybe he has terminal cancer of the asshole! Wouldn't it be cool if he was actually dying slowly of a painful disease, has been for some time, and he was covering it up? I, for one, would be happy to send him a Don't Get Well card.
Quote: ams288Wish this would have come out earlier!
Quite a bonus that we have two former Secretary's of State agreeing on that same excerpt. One said it; one agreed.
(I don't know if I needed the semicolon but it looked nice.)
Quote: rxwineQuite a bonus that we have two former Secretary's of State agreeing on that same excerpt. One said it; one agreed.
(I don't know if I needed the semicolon but it looked nice.)
Congrats on an appropriate use of the semicolon. One good rule to use is that each of the clauses separated by the semicolon should be a complete sentence on its own; that is the case in your sentence.
However, I have to take away your gold star because you put an apostrophe in "Secretary's." You meant "Secretaries."
All that aside, what Colin Powell thinks or thought matters less than what's in my cat's litter box at the moment. Meow.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>Hey, maybe he has terminal cancer of the asshole! Wouldn't it be cool if he was actually dying slowly of a painful disease, has been for some time, and he was covering it up? I, for one, would be happy to send him a Don't Get Well card.<snip>
What a totally asinine post. You always write with a tone of moral superiority; your comments are much more like those of a morally bankrupt person than anything else.
No, dying of colon cancer is not cool. What is wrong with you?Quote: JoeshlabotnikHey, maybe he has terminal cancer of the asshole! Wouldn't it be cool if he was actually dying slowly of a painful disease...?
Quote: RonCWhat a totally asinine post. You always write with a tone of moral superiority; your comments are much more like those of a morally bankrupt person than anything else.
Am I morally superior to Trump? Certainly. Am I morally superior to Trumpers? Absolutely. Do I wish Trump would die? Yes, the same way any thoughtful person in Germany in 1932 would have wished Hitler dead.
And you know what? I advocate for common decency, compassion and care for those in society who, FOR WHATEVER REASON, are having difficulty keeping body and soul together, a general view that America should be a collective society working towards the goal of maximizing human happiness rather than a bunch of rugged individualists thinking only of themselves, and an egalitarian nation where there aren't people who make 10,000 times what others make.
And I won't speculate on your particular moral stance or ethics, since those may actually be far better than what is implied by your posts.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, dying of colon cancer is not cool. What is wrong with you?
TRUMP dying--of anything--is totally cool. Do you have any idea of how many people would die if he was elected? The misery and pain he would inflict?
I'm sorry, but evil people who wish to seize power are not in the category of "human being" in my book, insofar as they do or do not deserve to be considered as part of humanity. I would love to see Trump devoured slowly by fire ants. Consumed by flesh-eating bacteria on live YouTube video. Burned alive. Dissolved in a tank of acid.
If more people had the visceral reaction to Trump that I do, he wouldn't have a chance to get elected. But tolerating people like him, let alone worshiping them, has been a fault of human society for millennia.
So what's wrong with me? I hate evil, greedy, power-hungry, selfish, lying, thieving, bigoted, racist, sexist people. To the extent that I wish that the worst of them would die. Slowly and horribly. That's what's "wrong" with me. C'est la bloody vie.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAm I morally superior to Trump? Certainly. Am I morally superior to Trumpers? Absolutely. Do I wish Trump would die? Yes, the same way any thoughtful person in Germany in 1932 would have wished Hitler dead.
And you know what? I advocate for common decency, compassion and care for those in society who, FOR WHATEVER REASON, are having difficulty keeping body and soul together, a general view that America should be a collective society working towards the goal of maximizing human happiness rather than a bunch of rugged individualists thinking only of themselves, and an egalitarian nation where there aren't people who make 10,000 times what others make.
And I won't speculate on your particular moral stance or ethics, since those may actually be far better than what is implied by your posts.
Actually, your posts make you seem morally inferior to the majority of human beings who may well not like someone but would never wish death upon them.
Trump, for all that he is or isn't, is not Hitler.
Taking a strong stance is one thing; wishing death is something reserved for only the most despicable of humans...and then I would mostly wish them a quick death...not some awful, painful disease...except for an actual Hitler...
Your comments about my morality and ethics are quite worthless, since your comments make it seem that your own morality and ethics are so far off the scale of acceptability that perhaps you should voluntarily move to an island.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>Congrats on an appropriate use of the semicolon. One good rule to use is that each of the clauses separated by the semicolon should be a complete sentence on its own; that is the case in your sentence.
However, I have to take away your gold star because you put an apostrophe in "Secretary's." You meant "Secretaries."<snip>
I really don't think a single person cares about the award of a gold star from the grammar police here.
