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: RigondeauxThanks for the displays of mental gymnastics to defend identical, and perhaps far worse, behavior from BOTH of the Clintons. Illustrates my point well. I'm sure if Sarah Palin was running and there was a decent case to be made that Todd was a serial rapist, and she'd tried to destroy his victims, you'd react the same way. Like I said, many liberals would desperately want virtually any other man in jail. Especially if he was rich and powerful.
The other stuff is pretty divergent. Personally, I have no problem with objectifying people in the short run and in the right context. I think it's natural and harmless.
Why is it that when Trump spews some innuendo (usually to deflect criticism of himself), Trumpers adopt it as the holy words of the prophet? Hillary didn't try to destroy Bill's victims--even if we accept the dubious premise that he had any "victims" at all (yeah, yeah, Trump dug up some women to accuse Bill of something, but that means absolute zip unless you're a Trumper). Trump was fighting a hasty, clumsy, rear-guard action. Wave a few $20,000 checks in the air and you can find three women who will say the POPE raped them.
Your latter statement, above, beautifully epitomizes rape culture. YOU have no problem with objectifying "people" (women, you mean). You don't seem to be worried about silly ol' issues like CONSENT. I agree with you that objectification of women is natural--as are other forms of violence, sexual and otherwise. But harmless???? No frickin' way, dude.
Quote: 777And these accusers were paid to appear.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-campaign-2016-updates-morning-woman-who-accuses-the-clintons-got-paid-1476109925-htmlstory.html
The article says that the victim of a man Hillary defended as a lawyer was paid.
It says the accusers had their travel expenses paid, which would make their net profit zero.
Quote: 777Some may consider Trump's special prosecutor is just talk as a mean to manipulate RonC and other trumpers. But you look at Trump's "body of work" that includes his temperament, pass and current conducts, you can form a vision of Trump as a dictator.
Trump must not be given the POTUS title because he will abuse his power and destroy our democracy.
The horrible aspect of all this is that many Trumpers actually realize that BUT WILL VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY.
Trump's fraudulent narrative of "throw all of them out and everything will be all better" has a primitive, visceral appeal to Joe Sixpack, sitting on his couch and fuming because the steel mill where he worked shut down two years ago and he's finally running out of beer money. When you consider the many, many free electorates who have lined up behind a demagogue, willing to toss away their freedoms for a promise of a full-to-overflowing rice bowl, this latest manifestation is depressing, perhaps, but not surprising.
Quote: RigondeauxThe article says that the victim of a man Hillary defended as a lawyer was paid.
It says the accusers had their travel expenses paid, which would make their net profit zero.
And of course, they received NO other inducements and NO cash payments. They were motivated purely by a sense of patriotic duty and the magnetic allure of being able to share a television stage with one of the finest human beings in world history.
I'm sure Trump drove a hard bargain. Maybe he threatened to visit their homes and rape them if they didn't appear at his press conference.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
Your latter statement, above, beautifully epitomizes rape culture. YOU have no problem with objectifying "people" (women, you mean). You don't seem to be worried about silly ol' issues like CONSENT. I agree with you that objectification of women is natural--as are other forms of violence, sexual and otherwise. But harmless???? No frickin' way, dude.
You've essentially accused me of being a rapist, or at the very least condoning rape. With no evidence. I figure you should be bounced again. If that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is. Who knows? You get away with this crap constantly.
I never said or suggested that rape or assault or other violations of consent are OK. Nothing even resembling that. Never have, never will.
I explicitly said BOTH genders can be objectified and love it, in short term, appropriate situations. Not much a man would rather hear than a woman say that she loves his D. And why do you think so many young men cultivate six packs and bulging biceps?
And the reciprocal is also true, in many, many cases. Most women love the idea of driving a man mad with desire.
And before you twist it, no, I don't mean walking up to a stranger and groping her or raping her. I mean in the context of a consensual relationship.
If you think that men's natural tendency to be driven nuts be they female form, and to want to look at boobies and butts is "violence" then that says it all. Your desperate need for validation and a sense of moral superiority has driven you completely nuts.
When you started posting here, I assumed you were 19 or something and it was really annoying. I just don't read 95% of your posts because they are all just you demonizing and tearing down other people to prop up your own dubious intellect and morality. But I did see you say something about 40 years of experience, and I felt genuine pity for someone that old being so governed by pettiness and insecurity.
I still wish you'd go somewhere else, particularly if you're going to call me a rapist, or, someone who condones rape.
Quote: ams288New national NBC/WSJ poll taken after #TrumpTape:
Clinton 46
Trump 35
Johnson 9
Stein 2
It gets even worse for Trump in a two way race:
Clinton 52
Trump 38
Burn baby burn!!
And they say the Republicans are the ones filled with hate toward their fellow citizens.
Quote: 777If she has the financial resource and the celebrity power like Taylor Swift, I think she would not be afraid of naming names ( http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/taylor-swift-files-countersuit-against-radio-host-fired-for-backstage-grope-20151029 )
Her refusal to name names is strictly due to her being a small fish, and fear of having her career completely destroy and financially ruined by those with power. I personally think she should name names, but I understand and 100% support her personally decision for not naming names.
Like I said, I wonder if there's a legit difference in brain mechanism.
It's a bit apples and oranges, but I left my casino gig because of, among a few things, personal beliefs. I felt they expected me to sell my integrity, and I wasn't having it. The fact I was still buried by divorce costs, had no leads or opportunities for other employment, live in a depressed area where being a f#$%ing mailman is looked at as a "GREAT job", and was at the time right at the beginning of a child custody battle meant f#$% all. MY integrity, something I believe in, so I followed it. And every GD day since then has been misery as I've tried and continue to try to dig myself out of actual poverty. I could still be in suit and tie and climate controlled bliss having everyone jump at my command, instead of slogging out of doors having people bitch at me over nonsense for peanut paychecks. But beliefs matter. Self matters. Heart, bravery matters.
That's what you do when you believe in something, when something actually matters to you. To shun and shame those who do not stand up for what you yourself cannot bring yourself to stand up to is horse flop. To not do so when you have a genuine personal interest in it is beyond the worst.
Ah, well.
Quote: RigondeauxYou've essentially accused me of being a rapist, or at the very least condoning rape.
I still wish you'd go somewhere else, particularly if you're going to call me a rapist, or, someone who condones rape.
I think you're overreacting a wee bit, and misconstruing what I said. You said that you had no problem with objectification. The issue I raised was that of CONSENT.
Objectification does not equal rape--not even close. But the former often leads to the latter, in that it provides a pretext. "She wouldn't have dressed like a slut if she wasn't asking for it." Or for that matter, "He looks hot. I think I'll go over there and squeeze his butt."
I don't know enough about you to say whether you truly don't understand that objectification IS violence. Violence doesn't have to be physical. It is simply imposing, or trying to impose, your will on another person. To objectify someone is to treat them as a sexual object, WITHOUT OBTAINING THEIR CONSENT. I hope you understand.
I infer from the political stance you take in many of your posts that you would probably view an objection to sexual objectification--especially that which you view as "harmless"--as the dreaded "political correctness." Well, common decency is not political correctness.
I did not mean to imply that you were a rapist or would forgive someone who was. I think, however, that you may not realize how harmful and demeaning sexual objectification can be (of men OR women). In any event, our political differences make sensible dialogue between us difficult. Because I don't think the way you do, you felt free, in the above post alone, to insult me half a dozen different ways and degrade my character and intellect. But hey--I understand! You felt defensive, and you have learned from the master (he of the orange hair) that the best defense is a good offense. Calling someone you disagree with "desperate" and "nuts" is SO Donald. He would be proud of you!
I won't have anything else to say on this matter, even after your inevitable response. I would just gently suggest that you put aside your political views (and your white-hot hatred of me, if you like--sniff! :( ) and think about what I've said.
Or not.
Having a child is great, but stops you from the primal urges you must face daily now. Sometimes I think that a good thing.
Other times I wish I had no one other than me to worry about. Would sure made decisions a lot easier.
Screw the platitudes. And advice. Survive for your kid.
Look at Hillary’s voting record, activism and other public services on woman & children, you will find that Hillary is a strong defender/support of woman and children rights.
Quote: Rigondeaux
, I don't mean walking up to a stranger and groping her or raping her. I mean in the context of a consensual relationship.
.
I do wish people would bring up consent more on this issue, because there is a lot of stuff each of us does not personally condone, but we allow people consent to engage in it.
I actually consider that a liberal policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dammit!
If Donald or Bill got consent to take an actual crap on a person, if there is consent, that is their business. If they are of consenting age. I don't have to approve of it personally.
When Donald talks about grabbing a women's genitals, that sure sounds like a description which fills the requirement for sexual assault.
Quote: FaceLike I said, I wonder if there's a legit difference in brain mechanism.
It's a bit apples and oranges, but I left my casino gig because of, among a few things, personal beliefs. I felt they expected me to sell my integrity, and I wasn't having it. The fact I was still buried by divorce costs, had no leads or opportunities for other employment, live in a depressed area where being a f#$%ing mailman is looked at as a "GREAT job", and was at the time right at the beginning of a child custody battle meant f#$% all. MY integrity, something I believe in, so I followed it. And every GD day since then has been misery as I've tried and continue to try to dig myself out of actual poverty. I could still be in suit and tie and climate controlled bliss having everyone jump at my command, instead of slogging out of doors having people bitch at me over nonsense for peanut paychecks. But beliefs matter. Self matters. Heart, bravery matters.
That's what you do when you believe in something, when something actually matters to you. To shun and shame those who do not stand up for what you yourself cannot bring yourself to stand up to is horse flop. To not do so when you have a genuine personal interest in it is beyond the worst.
Ah, well.
I have a deep sympathy for your personal misfortune as much as my deep sympathy for all other sexual violence or sexual harassment victims who were too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job/career.
You want to see hated of fellow Americans, just read the comments on any liberal site. Just as bad as conservative sites.
I hope this election is seen in the future as the lowest America can get. Sadly I don't think I'm right.
Quote: 777I have a deep sympathy for your personal misfortune as much as my deep sympathy for all other sexual violence or sexual harassment victims who were too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job/career.
Not the same thing at all. Face made his own choices. And mistakes
Quote: FDEAD3709Not the same thing at all. Face made his own choices. And mistakes
I just followed your great kindness act of letting two homeless teenage boys slept in your car last night and Face still has my deep sympathy.
You kindness is greatly appreciated, and we need more of that.
Quote: BozAnd they say the Republicans are the ones filled with hate toward their fellow citizens.
Just the brown ones....
Quote: BozYet the GOP will read this the wrong way and will try to cooperate with Hillary
Given that their current strategy is to abandon The Donald and focus on not losing the Senate and the House, I think that cooperating with Hillary is the exact opposite of what they wish to do. Remember, that slime bucket Mitch McConnell said flat out that the Republicans' primary mission was to block everything that Obama wanted to accomplish. Why would they act with any sense of responsibility or duty to do their jobs just because Hillary replaced Obama?
And yes, "PC" has taken over. Political correctness is common decency. It definitely is antithetical to conservatism. The country is divided precisely because so many conservatives, on some fundamental level, can't fathom why anyone would object to rich (usually male) white folks being treated well and others...not so much.
I mean, just as an example...why on earth are so many conservatives frothing at the mouth because more people have access to health care now??? THAT'S the divide. If you're a conservative, you are roiled with a sense of injustice that the undeserving get things they're not entitled to (the poor, being lazy and stupid, are by definition undeserving). If you're a liberal, you shrug and say, "What's the difference? Some people actually need help." If conservatives would stop getting upset that people other than themselves are getting some crumbs from the pie now, they could save this country (and themselves) a lot of grief. But instead--we have 37 consecutive attempts by Republicans to repeal Obamacare. And we're PAYING them for that!
Quote: BozBest bet of all is that this country will be more divided than ever after the election among the general public. Yet the GOP will read this the wrong way and will try to cooperate with Hillary and only empower the liberals more. The GOP deserves everything they get because they fell right into every liberal trap. They allowed PC to take over and didn't realize it until it was too late. I do believe we will see a new fringe right like the Tea Party but more extreme. And both parties are to blame.
You want to see hated of fellow Americans, just read the comments on any liberal site. Just as bad as conservative sites.
I hope this election is seen in the future as the lowest America can get. Sadly I don't think I'm right.
Couldn't disagree more. The Republican Party deserves everything they get, but not because of the reason you state. The division in this country, in particular in regards to our current political climate, started when Sarah Palin started to imply that Barack Obama was a terrorist at the McCain rallies. We started to see the rise of the tea party back then, and instead of rejecting it, the republican establishment embraced it and rode the tea party wave to the 2010 mid term victory. They decided that obstructionism and not cooperating with Obama in an effort to get things done for our country was their ticket back to the White House. I happen to believe that this classic example of party before country is treason, but I guess that could also be interpreted just as extreme as the tea party folks who wanted the government to keep their hands off of their Medicare, while at the same time holding a sign that said "no socialism."
Obama was naive to this. He expected it, but I don't think he expected it at the level to which it occurred. Republicans abandoned their own championed ideas (chained cpi, payroll tax cuts, the Affordable Care Act - Bob Dole's healthcare reform plan and Heritage Foundation roots) in an effort to stand in the way of progress, all so they can overcome the huge new voting demographic challenges they had. They lost again in 2012, had their "autopsy", and decided they needed more minority outreach. Some republicans recognized this (Rubio) and decided a path towards immigration reform was the correct path. Tea party led efforts derailed this bi-partisan plan. And instead? Well, now, you have a republican party that thinks building a wall when net immigration is down is the right way to go. And instead of minority outreach they nominate a man that alienates them. I think Bobby Jindal was the one that said, "we need to quit being the party of stupid."
So displaying an unprecedented level of obstructionism in an effort to make our first African-American president a failure was their path forward. Rewarding them with the White House after this strategy would set a VERY bad precedent for this country. Now the opposing party can just stand in the way, hope the country doesn't get better, we don't fix problems, and we can blame it all on the party in power, even if none of it is factually true. The majority of Americans do NOT do their homework and are SEVERELY misinformed on what's really going on.
Same path forward or a non-politician businessman? You decide. Me? I'll take record stock market, biggest median income jump in 50 years, 15 million jobs, 5% unemployment, 150k troops home with their families. Yeah, I'll take the same path thing.
Think of where we could've been if the Republicans had helped out a little bit. All they had to do was just continue supporting the things they had ALWAYS supported before Barack Obama started supporting them.
Quote: SteverinosSo displaying an unprecedented level of obstructionism .
Instead of using the passage of the Affordable Care Act to actually get something they wanted, they decided to oppose it altogether and get nothing.
And even if we get a lot of legislation that is one-sided instead of a compromise, there will be a lot of acrimony when it passes. Which is what will happen if legislators are told to go for broke and give up nothing.
Quote: Rigondeaux...said he gropes women and they like it
Interesting; that's not how I took it.
Quote: rxwineInstead of using the passage of the Affordable Care Act to actually get something they wanted, they decided to oppose it altogether and get nothing.
And even if we get a lot of legislation that is one-sided instead of a compromise, there will be a lot of acrimony when it passes. Which is what will happen if legislators are told to go for broke and give up nothing.
Democrats deserve big credit for creating the ACA, but unfortunately ACA was not in the best form when it was created due to obstructionism from the GOP. Repealing ACA is not an option, and I sincerely hope that the GOP and Madam President Clinton will work together to make ACA better. And this only can happen if the GOP abandon its obstruction strategy or "our GOP way or the highway" attitude.
Quote: FDEAD3709No matter what, does anybody expect the loopholes to be closed or the tax code to be simplified? The more things change, the more they remain the same. The tax code is how politicians reward their friends and punish their enemies.
Yes, actually, I do. The tax code has been greatly simplified--I know, I've been doing people's taxes for thirty years. A lot of the stupidity and unfairness--aka loopholes, also unfair penalties--has been eliminated. Does the tax system still suck? Yep. Is it better than it was? Yep.
You have to realize that all you'll ever see is slow, incremental change when so many folks have their fingers in the pie. I'm not inclined to be hopelessly cynical and just throw my hands in the air and say that the politicians are all crooks and are trying to screw us over and we can't do anything about it. I've seen Democrats sponsor bills that just make sense and fix something about the tax code that's obviously broken. Republicans usually block those bills out of habit (Democrats want! This therefore bad!), but occasionally reforms do slip through. The important thing is, they're trying to fix it.
Quote: ams288New national NBC/WSJ poll taken after #TrumpTape:
Clinton 46
Trump 35
Johnson 9
Stein 2
It gets even worse for Trump in a two way race:
Clinton 52
Trump 38
Burn baby burn!!
Citing that poll is like citing the thread poll above. Good luck.
Quote: ams288Just the brown ones....
A real piece of work.
Quote: RSMaybe there's a reason the republicans didn't want to pass Obamacare --- ya know, because the system is absolute horse shjt?
I always laugh when I read something like this. First of all, the Republicans didn't want to pass Obamacare BECAUSE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS WANTED IT. Their avowed mission, for the last eight years, stated forthrightly and honestly by Republican leaders, has been to thwart Obama in everything he tries to do. And since he (and probably much of the nation) considers it to be the most significant act of his Presidency, they figure they could hurt him the most by killing it--thus, their repeated, stupidly futile attempts to repeal it.
As far as the system being "absolute horse shit," well, I doubt that the 8,000,000+ people who were able to get health insurance because of it would agree with you. Is it flawed? Of course it is. And WHY is it flawed? BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WOULDN'T TOLERATE ANYTHING BETTER. The only system that makes any sense is a government-administered single-payer system, for the simple reason that medical insurance in the open marketplace will not work: the ones who want it the most are the very ones that providers least wish to sell it to. But government health care, according to Republicans, leads to socialism, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and the eventual utter destruction of the planet. That's been their mantra regarding every social advance for the last hundred+ years.
There's also the philosophical conservative objection that social benefits only encourage the lesser breeds and the stupid, undeserving poor to keep reproducing, and "they" eventually will take this magnificent nation away from "us" if we don't exert every effort to keep "them" from being able to vote.
Dear Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I am not Sidney Blumenthal
Essentially, Sputnik (Russia's news agency) publishes an incorrect article from Blumenthal (Clinton's top confidante) to Podesta showing that Clinton acknowledged that Benghazi was preventable.
The problem was that the quote was part of a much larger article that Newsweek had written. Sputnik was quoting two sentences from a 10,000 word piece from Newsweek.
Sputnik took the article down. And no other news agency picked it up. The only source was Sputnik.
But the article appeared in Trump's stump speech on Monday night.
Quote: Donald Trump“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”
So we have the Russian news agency printing false stories to influence the election, and Trump picking up the story and slamming HRC over it. Except it is Russian propaganda that Trump is quoting.
So, Trumpers, a question. Do you want a president who will proclaim Russian propaganda as gospel? Do you want a President who allows an outside government to influence an election's result? And Trump says the election is rigged?
Quote: boymimbo
So, Trumpers, a question. Do you want a president who will proclaim Russian propaganda as gospel? Do you want a President who allows an outside government to influence an election's result? And Trump says the election is rigged?
Short answer: yes, that's EXACTLY what Trumpers want. If they didn't want a lying, thieving, unprincipled, immoral scumbag for President, they wouldn't be parading with torches and saluting at his rallies, now, would they?
I'm reminded that when the Bill Cosby accusations broke, the Comments sections of the articles were filled by people who wanted to know why the women didn't "simply" report the incidents when they happened, while at the same time the commenters (often the same commenters) were calling the accusers stupid lying gold-digging whore sluts. The second part answers the first.Quote: FiveThirtyEightA 2009 study involving 250 male undergrads found that they had negative feelings and opinions about women who confronted a harasser... http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-sexual-assault-chat/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYOU have no problem with objectifying "people" (women, you mean). You don't seem to be worried about silly ol' issues like CONSENT..
First part of that statement, you simply take what I explicitly said and claim I meant the opposite.
Second part, you've pulled from thin air. A blatant lie. I never have said, and never will said anything to indicate such a belief. A person holding such a belief would almost certainly condone rape, and might well be a rapist themselves.
As is your MO, after making your smear, you change your story and play the victim.
The rest of your post is sub intellectual drivel. The stuff of a sophomore communications major.
You cannot transmute the natural male desire for the female body into violence just by wishing it were so. Can desire play a role in violence? Sure. Violence occurs when somebody wants something, and takes it by force. The first part is the desire, the second part is the violence. They are not the same thing.
Desire for attractive women also leads men to make music, build businesses and look after their health.
Desiring money is not violence, just because some people use violence to take money. Same with fancy cars, political office or anything else. It's an absurd argument.
It's also absurd to claim that liking boobs leads people to believe that rape victims deserve it. Very few people actually believe that and those who do tend to be sex-negative conservatives. Your cousins.
There's nothing wrong with sex. Even nasty sex with lots of dirty talk. Even spanking. Even whips and chains. It's two consenting (I'm using the earth definition of that word) partners having fun. And you can't do it without partially objectifying the other person. That's what drives it. At some point, you looked at them and went "vavavooom!" And most women love the idea of driving their man crazy with their bodies. And most men love the idea of driving a woman crazy.
What a shame that fanatical puritanism as spilled over from the right to the left. But it's hardly a surprise that you think you know best for everyone.
They have tried to eradicate sexual objectification in some cultures, by the way. Turns out, those are the actual rape cultures. That's because trying to completely repress our natural tendencies never ends well.
If you'd absorbed my posts at all, you'd know I dislike Trump and won't vote for him. I hate the Clintons for being war mongering corporate shills, who have gamed the two party system and I don't support them because their interests and policies conflict with my own. I'm not right wing and, generally, not very conservative. Have you twisted Bluejay into a Trump supporter too? Maybe it's not everyone else who is the problem.
I enjoy interacting with people of all political stripes. I like to know why they think as they do. The problem between us (and between you and several others) isn't one of ideology. It's that you either consciously or unconsciously distort everything into a narrative that serves your illusory superiority. That's not a political perspective, it's a symptom of a personality disorder. Particularly when coupled with your fantasies of death, suffering and mass extermination for you imagined inferiors.
Since you pretended to give me advice as a pretext to be smug and condescending, here is some in return. You'll never successfully build yourself up by cutting everyone else down. Do it by working on yourself. Find religion, do good works, read a bunch of good self help stuff or about psychology.
Since you are smart and enjoy politics, maybe you should bother to study serious political theory or international relations or history. Then you can have substantive conversations instead of regurgitating garbage from talk radio and blogs, while trying to prove your intellectual superiority. Maybe you'll even develop enough confidence that you won't need to.
Joeshlabotnik likes to assign opinions to other members because he either doesn't understand their positions or doesn't like them. That's why I blocked him.Quote: RigondeauxSecond part, you've pulled from thin air. A blatant lie. I never have said, and never will said anything to indicate such a belief.
He said this to RonC: "Look, WE GET IT. You are a proud Trumper." Anyone who reads RonC's posts knows that he's anything but. In the post in question, RonC simply said, "How many 'Trump is a Turd' threads can one board have?" and from that Joeshlabotnik concludes "Aha! A rabid Trump supporter!"
When I posted some factual, objective data (Muslim opinion polls), he said, "Look, we get it. You hate them. They're DIFFERENT. They're all terrorists. They all want to kill Americans." Of course I never said nor believe any of that. I oppose Trump's Muslim ban and believe in religious freedom.
If someone doesn't agree with him 100%, or has a nuanced position about something, he insists that their actual position is on the extreme opposite of his. It's sophomoric black/white thinking.
Notice the phrase he used in both examples above, right before he assigned a bogus opinion to someone? Whenever he says, "Look, we get it," we can translate that into, "I have no f!#/ing clue what I'm talking about."
Quote: MaxPenCiting that poll is like citing the thread poll above. Good luck.
Yes, I'm sorry. I should have simply cited "Brexit" and nothing else.
You must have learned nothing from 2012. All the righties were convinced the polls were wrong. But they weren't. And it caused a few epic meltdowns.
I'm eagerly anticipating your epic meltdown on election night. I'm curious as to whether or not you'll just stop posting here for a while out of shame like EvenBob did in 2012.
1. Last week somebody high up in Intel took a reporter to see some trace backs to Russia from the DNC . They proved unique traces back to the State, in common with some others. Was done on background.
2. Somebody high up in Intel leaked that both DJT and HRC got classified briefings on Russian hacks, including that the DNC hack was at "high" confidence, which is over 90% surety. They noted that, for contrast, "good" confidence, at about 75%, was enough to justify killing people based on it. This was well before the debate last night.
So Trump's just playing head games with his own Intel officers, just barely not putting the info out there. Making Hillary look stupid for saying we're being hacked and manipulated, probably also trying to set a trap where she says, "yeah, you do know it's the Russians " because they both got it as classified.
Not the guy I want with the nuclear codes.
Women are flocking away from him. Young protest votes who were going to vote Johnson are going to do the right think and cast a vote against Trump and vote for Hillary. There is nothing he can do to attract one more woman to vote for him, after last week. To dismiss what he said as "locker room talk" went well over the line when he said "Grab them by the pus*y. You can do anything". And her referred to the soap star is "it". And let's remind ourselves that he has said that he would date his daughter if he could.
And now, it has been proven that Wikileaks leaks have been gathered from Russian hackers working for the Russian government. And that Trump's use of Wikileaks in his stump speeches is a tacit endorsement of espionage, which Trump urged the Russian government to do.
The fact is that no matter what Wikileaks come up with, the fact that the source is a government-sponsored Russia hacker mitigates any of the content in these emails.
Quote: realDonaldTrumpOur very weak and ineffective leader, Paul Ryan, had a bad conference call where his members went wild at his disloyalty.
*grabs popcorn*
Quote: Rigondeaux
I enjoy interacting with people of all political stripes.
Evidently :)
I'm willing to accept that you view sexual objectification as harmless. I even understand where that attitude comes from. After all, in, say, 1950, it was well-nigh universal.
I apologize if I misinterpreted your political leanings. Your mini-diatribe about how the Clintons are "war mongering corporate shills," and the many other times you've posted something similar, led me to believe that you must be a Trumper to hold such a distorted opinion. For one thing, what wars have they "mongered"? Last time I checked, it was a clown from Texas who started the current two fun wars. Also, you've engaged in the Trumper false equivalence argument many times: "Trump may be a loathsome, lying, cheating scumbag, but Hillary sent emails!" or something of that nature. I drew the logical conclusion about you, but I'll accept your word that you actually hate both sides. Fair enough.
Now, you don't like anybody saying negative things about you, but I stopped counting when I got to twenty negative things you said about me in your last two posts. Yea, verily, you're pissed, but it's the height of hypocrisy to decry something and then do it yourself in the same breath. You might want to tone it down. but I'm sure you view everything you said as justified, as well as the way you said it. Again, fair enough. You are aggrieved. We disagree on some fundamental issues. I don't think that needs to devolve into personal attacks and mischaracterizations, though, and if it makes you more receptive to that idea, I'm willing to say that it is at least as much my fault as yours that things have descended to a level where you gave me a vigorous scolding, the likes of which I have not heard since I hit a baseball through Mrs. Remy's classroom window in third grade.
So let's keep it civil, at least. OK?
Quote: MichaelBluejayJ
When I posted some factual, objective data (Muslim opinion polls), he said, "Look, we get it. You hate them. They're DIFFERENT. They're all terrorists. They all want to kill Americans." Of course I never said nor believe any of that. I oppose Trump's Muslim ban and believe in religious freedom.Quote:
That "factual, objective data," if memory serves, was a bunch of polls taken in countries other than the US. MBJ used them to support a ludicrous contention: that hordes of Muslims were clamoring to get into the US "to practice Sharia law." I gently pointed out that since many elements of Sharia law are illegal in the US, one would not expect Muslims who wished to practice it to choose the US as their home. The silly illogic of using polls from places like Indonesia to extrapolate to that contention seemed to me to indicate that MBJ was an Islamophobe. His later responses supported my impression.
I'm willing to believe that he has changed his mind, which I applaud if that's the case.
If everyone felt as you do, Trump wouldn't have won the GOP primary. (I know you weren't talking about Trump, but if the shoe fits...)Quote: RigondeauxI felt genuine pity for someone that old being so governed by pettiness and insecurity.
Quote: beachbumbabsSo.
1. Last week somebody high up in Intel took a reporter to see some trace backs to Russia from the DNC . They proved unique traces back to the State, in common with some others. Was done on background.
2. Somebody high up in Intel leaked that both DJT and HRC got classified briefings on Russian hacks, including that the DNC hack was at "high" confidence, which is over 90% surety. They noted that, for contrast, "good" confidence, at about 75%, was enough to justify killing people based on it. This was well before the debate last night.
So Trump's just playing head games with his own Intel officers, just barely not putting the info out there. Making Hillary look stupid for saying we're being hacked and manipulated, probably also trying to set a trap where she says, "yeah, you do know it's the Russians " because they both got it as classified.
Not the guy I want with the nuclear codes.
But does this sway anybody? Contrast Hillary's mistakes--sending emails, happening to be Secretary of State during a terrorist attack--with Trump's deliberate and TREASONOUS encouragement of espionage against the US. Now switch it around. Would Hillary survive making a statement that the Russians should hack Trump's emails? Of course not (though we're not sure if he actually knows how to compose anything longer than a tweet). The two candidates are held to wildly differing standards: Hillary is put under a microscope, while Trump is praised by his supporters for simply refraining from having a total meltdown and holding his insult rate under twenty an hour.
I'm not convinced that Trump listens to anybody other than himself, or that he would do so if elected. That and dozens of other character flaws (some of which are horrible) make him unfit for office. But the recent outrage and indignation are a little tardy, don't you think? He made it clear what kind of person he is a long time ago. Yet, tens of millions still line up to lick his boots, and I still see "TRUMP" signs when I've driving home from work.
Republican obstructionism is what's wrong with Washington D.C. and until they change course OR are kicked out of office, we'll continue down the path in which the only way any governing can get accomplished is through executive action.
Quote: SteverinosJust wanted to quickly point out that while Obamacare has its flaws and they need to be addressed, republicans at all levels of government have worked tirelessly in efforts to ensure it fails. Most republican governors refused to expand Medicaid which was a major provision and while some did finally come around, the damage had already been done. Medicare Part D, now a popular program, was a disaster on launch. The difference there was dems worked WITH republicans in an effort to fix the problems.
Republican obstructionism is what's wrong with Washington D.C. and until they change course OR are kicked out of office, we'll continue down the path in which the only way any governing can get accomplished is through executive action.
I'm highly amused by how this played out in Arizona in 2014:
Federal government to states: "Thanks to Obamacare, here's a huge bag of money that you can use to finance Medicaid expansion."
Republican state governors: "No way!!! It is against sacred conservative values to allow poor people to have medical--uh, to accept handouts from the government. We refuse your foul money!!!!"
Government: "Huh?"
Arizona residents (the poor and uninsured, peeping timidly): "But...but...there's been a moratorium on enrollment in the state health plan for two years because of lack of funding. Shouldn't we..."
Arizona governor: "NO."
Government:"OK then, more for everyone else."
Old people in Arizona: "Hey, wait a minute! If you don't take that money, we'll vote your ass out of office so fast, you'll think you've been chained to a freight train."
Arizona governor: "But what about sacred, holy Republican values?'
Old people in Arizona: "FORK those values! We want medical care, goddammit!"
Arizona governor: "I fully support the expansion of state Medicaid using available federal funding."
So Aridzona might be an exception to the rule. Self-interest Trumps obstructionism, and that's probably the only approach that Hillary will be able to use to work with an (unfortunately) Republican House and maybe Senate. They'll allow the lower classes to have some crumbs now and then if doing so fills their pockets and/or gets them reelected.
Quote: SteverinosJust wanted to quickly point out that while Obamacare has its flaws and they need to be addressed, republicans at all levels of government have worked tirelessly in efforts to ensure it fails. Most republican governors refused to expand Medicaid which was a major provision and while some did finally come around, the damage had already been done. Medicare Part D, now a popular program, was a disaster on launch. The difference there was dems worked WITH republicans in an effort to fix the problems.
Republican obstructionism is what's wrong with Washington D.C. and until they change course OR are kicked out of office, we'll continue down the path in which the only way any governing can get accomplished is through executive action.
It's actually obstructionism in general that is the issue, and that's on both sides of the aisle. That and corruption accepted by lawmakers from corporations and large lobbies.
It's okay to have lobbyists and political interest groups in Washington. It is not okay for "pay-to-play" where the contributions by the groups affect an election and the well-being of the politician. This is what needs to stop.
Quote: 777I have a deep sympathy for your personal misfortune as much as my deep sympathy for all other sexual violence or sexual harassment victims who were too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job/career.
I appreciate that, and it's good to know you extend the same compassion to others. But, and I may be reading more into this than there is, you didn't point this out because you think I DON'T, did you?
I certainly do. I'm far too versed in this particular offense than any man should be, and while I do see the value, nay, the necessity in offering compassion, I feel it's worth about 10 Prussian francs on its own. To soothe and console and nothing further is but a bandaid, IMO. It might give someone a much needed lifeline, a livesaver in a sea of misery, but what does it FIX?
Me, I do the same soothe and console. It is absolutely needed. But after that, we work. Whatever it takes, I get them on their feet, help them build up a backbone, and then we work. Without that, what good does the consolation do? Yeah, we may have "saved" a victim from further damage, whether by drug, drink, the business end of a gun, or just general sorrow, but we've done nothing to play our part in the bigger fix, that being the refusal to accept the behavior. I dunno, maybe my way IS wrong. But there's +1 population to the NY Corrections department because of my and my friend's willingness to fight, so that seems like the proper step was taken.
And yes, MBJ, I am aware of the horses#$% that is shunning the victim. But I don't think you'd really accept that as a valid excuse, or a good reason to encourage the behavior of silence. It's silence that allows the BS to survive or even thrive. It's a f#$%ed up quirk in our society, and we need good men and women to stand strong and fight the good fight, not roll over out of fears, real or imagined.
Quote: boymimboIt's actually obstructionism in general that is the issue, and that's on both sides of the aisle.
I've watched what has happened over the entirety of Obama's presidency. On several occasions, Obama was supporting things that were HIGHLY unpopular with his liberal base (raising retirement ages), the very same things that were highly popular among republicans. Time and time again, the republicans refused to play ball. Why?
Take infrastructure investment. The closest thing there is to a free lunch in economics and the bi-partisan response to deep recessions throughout our nation's history. Would republicans get on board? Nope. Wonder why? The answer is obvious. They attempted to hold this country down until they could possibly sniff the WH again, overcoming and convincing the Obama voting coalition that he was a mistake. Thankfully, the man has been two steps ahead of them the entire time and our country has rebounded from a deep recession with ZERO help from the other side.
Some people say they did this because Obama is black, or because he has a funny sounding name, or because he has big ears. Whatever. Hogwash. It was never about race to them. It was about power. Bill Clinton had a roaring economy and was wildly popular upon leaving office. Then Bush, who was on the complete opposite side of the spectrum and wildly unpopular upon leaving office. If Obama's economy had taken off (and actually, you can make an argument that it has in some ways) and this country had come roaring back in a big way (not the slow and sustained manner in which it has), enough Americans would start to think that Democrats might have this thing figured out (which they do). That, coupled with the new voting demographic challenges they were facing with young and minority first time voters, you could surmise what their strategy was...party before country for just long enough for us to get the WH back.
Which is shameful. So yeah, in a sense, I can agree that obstructionism does take place on both sides, but not on the level we witnessed under Obama's presidency. Not even close.
Quote: ams288Yes, I'm sorry. I should have simply cited "Brexit" and nothing else.
You must have learned nothing from 2012. All the righties were convinced the polls were wrong. But they weren't. And it caused a few epic meltdowns.
I'm eagerly anticipating your epic meltdown on election night. I'm curious as to whether or not you'll just stop posting here for a while out of shame like EvenBob did in 2012.
Max will continue to do what he always does. He will find ways to thrive in America in spite of the government, not because of it. Successful people will find opportunities to exploit the situation and continue to make money for their hard work. While the lazy will be still wondering in 4 years why their life isn't any different.
Quote: BozMax will continue to do what he always does. He will find ways to thrive in America in spite of the government, not because of it. Successful people will find opportunities to exploit the situation and continue to make money for their hard work. While the lazy will be still wondering in 4 years why their life isn't any different.
Max will have to do all that stuff without the money he lost betting on Trump.
Quote: ams288Max will have to do all that stuff without the money he lost betting on Trump.
I would be surprised if he actually had a single nickel in action on the election. We'll certainly hear about his $50,000 profit if Trump wins. If Hillary wins, that means the election was rigged, so Max will get any bets he made refunded.
I'm wondering if bookies in, say, the UK are even accepting bets on Hillary any more, or if they're at least making people lay something like 20-1. Trump's actual chance of winning is essentially zero, and to that you have to add the very real possibility that he will be pouting on the top floor of Trump Tower on Election Day, having told the Republican Party to go forkulate themselves. (That doesn't mean he'd allow Pence to step into his clown shoes, however.)
