2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: rxwine

While it pains me to say it, I'd rather have Sarah Palin as President over the Donald. Why? Because I think she might actually listen to advisors for one thing. She actually has maintained a sense of humor. And she wouldn't be up at 3am making retaliatory tweets to the last person who dissed her.

(yeah and I know she endorsed Donald, but so did a bunch of others)

If the choice this fall were somehow between Palin and Trump, the border with Canada would be clogged by northward-fleeing political refugees.

It's an interesting (if horrible to contemplate) scenario. What if Moose Shooter Lady became President? Would it be all that bad? Wouldn't she just set up a deer blind in the window of the Oval Office and wait for something to wander by that she could kill? Maybe her VP would really be running everything. Who would that be? Kim Kardashian?

I'm actually kind of surprised that nominating that idiot for VP in 2008 hasn't come back to haunt the Republicans. Consider--in eight years, we've had to face the specter of both Sarah Palin and Donald Trump possibly being President of the United States! Thanks, Republicans! Yet another reason why I favor deporting them all to Baffin Island. (ALERT! Chance for Trumpers to attack me for being a nasty human being!! Go for it, guys!!!)

The amazing thing is that McCain is still with us, and, God willing, will.be thru Inauguration. So Sarah was not.going to be President. Revisionist history sigh of relief.

These two tweets sum up this election nicely:

Quote: HillaryClinton

The attack on the Orange County HQ @NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable. Very grateful that everyone is safe.

Quote: realDonaldTrump

Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP

Side note: Despite his claim they are winning, no poll of NC taken since the first debate has shown Trump in the lead.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

If the choice this fall were somehow between Palin and Trump, the border with Canada would be clogged by northward-fleeing political refugees.

I was tougher on Palin until Trump came along and gave me more perspective.

If Palin is a train wreck, Trump is surviving a train wreck and seeing another train heading at you while you're still trying to get out of first one.

And I mean that in a nice way.

Trump could probably remain sane for the initial week after inauguration. But that's as much as I can expect and then it's back to his nutzball behavior for 4 years or until it's him or us --and somebody got to go! I just can't imagine him acting in a measured way as he's never pulled it off for for more than a few days so far.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The amazing thing is that McCain is still with us, and, God willing, will.be thru Inauguration. So Sarah was not.going to be President. Revisionist history sigh of relief.

He is alive but would he have survived 8 years of presidential stress. Being president is not liking being a senator and given the added stress and everything else I'm not comfortable saying he would have survived.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

(Quote from that poster): Joe when you say "Trump is a horrible person" maybe you should look in the mirror. Almost every post you have on here is "Trump like." If someone disagrees with you you try and tell them how stupid they are and how smart you are. You're a bully and not much different then Trump. I hope you just act like this when you're hiding behind your computer and not in front of actual people. People like you are the reason liberals get a bad rap. Liberalism is about helping people and making things better for everyone. You're not nice and seem to want to destroy anyone who disagrees with you. You may hate Trump but you are a lot like him. (end quote)

Ron, this is why I disagree with you so often. You're all too willing to distort reality to make a point. I count several personal attacks in this guy's post, including "you're a bully" (HUH??) and "you're not nice." I don't see any attack on my writing--this is all personal.

It's extremely hypocritical of you to scold me for the tone of my posts and then try to be an apologist for the above poster. If you object to nasty language, then you should object to this guy's post as well as anything you didn't like about my posts. On the other hand, if the REAL reason you've been criticizing me is because you don't agree with me, it makes perfect sense that you're apologizing for him.

I don't agree with a lot of people here. Your writing is totally different than theirs. It has been from the start. Very few of those who I disagree with have been disagreeable in their writing; they state their point without being nasty about it. Your writing? Not so much.

I am not apologizing for him; I said that he did not do a good job of attacking the writing and not the writer. Meanwhile, you ignore others that don't disagree with you all that much but who also have issues with your writing style.

I have no problem with you not agreeing with me about political issues very often--I am a conservative and that appears to be a bad word to you. I tend to be more moderate than you might think, but your writing tends to paint with a broad brush.

Quote: RonC

I don't agree with a lot of people here. Your writing is totally different than theirs. It has been from the start. Very few of those who I disagree with have been disagreeable in their writing; they state their point without being nasty about it. Your writing? Not so much....Meanwhile, you ignore others that don't disagree with you all that much but who also have issues with your writing style....I tend to be more moderate than you might think, but your writing tends to paint with a broad brush.

+100. Joeshlabotnik sees everything as black and white. If you're not 100% on his side, then he concludes you must be 100% on the other side. He has no conception of a political spectrum. For example, if you're not an enthusiastic Hillary supporter, Joe labels you a "rabid Trumper". If you cite polls that show what percentage of Muslims support violence, Joe says that you're an extremist motivated by hate who thinks all Muslims are out to kill Americans.

RonC and I are pretty far apart politically, but I'd much rather have a conversation with someone like him who's thoughtful and reasonable, and who actually understands what the other person is saying, rather than inventing and ascribing false positions to the people he's discussing with. I agree with ck1313 that he gives liberals a bad name. I'm embarrassed that he's on my side. I also agree with ck1313 that he emulates Donald Trump. He insults others and then whines that he's not being treated fairly. For example, he calls others stupid and then complains about "these awful things that ck1313 said about me." That's exactly like Trump, right down to the wording.

And now that I've looked up those examples (didn't take long to find some), it's back to blocking him. I don't care if I get suspended, it needed to be said. And unlike him, I didn't call anyone stupid.

In today's news roundup of the wackiest election ever:

- Trump bizarrely watches himself on SNL, blasts the show for attempting comedy.
- North Carolina RNC office gets firebombed, and Mr. Law and Order Trump blames Hillary and her supporters before due process in determining suspects being, which is a call to violence really.
- Trump continues on rampage that election is rigged, a direct attack on democracy. We can talk about voting rights and why the GOP gets no votes in a 100% black voting poll which I guess proves the election is rigged, but that's okay.
- Guliani goes full 9/11 and makes the ridiculous claim to support Trump stating dead people vote Democrat without any substantiation of his claim. Meanwhile the actual number of voter fraud INVESTIGATIONS (NOT convictions) in Ohio in the 2012 election stood at 135. Obama won by 166,000 votes.

This just goes to show you what happens when your campaign is run by Breitbart and Roger Ailes. Alienate 60% of your voters and scare the remainder into remission.

- Wikileaks continues to dump Podesta emails, with a bit of smoke for the right-wing but no fire. Clintons taking the high road and just ignoring them. After all the Wikileaks dump is espionage by a foreign government (or individuals) but Mr. Law and Order encourages it yet slams media for journalism. How about respecting the laws of the country?

All of this vitriol is not good for anyone. But you know what, if Hillary wins the same thing is going to happen again in 4 years. My prediction is that everyone gets into a tizzy and some wing-nut takes out Hillary early in the first term. Trump tweets victory, not realizing that the Vice-President is now president for four years.

I mean, really, America? Really?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

And now that I've looked up those examples (didn't take long to find some), it's back to blocking him. I don't care if I get suspended, it needed to be said. And unlike him, I didn't call anyone stupid.

Anyone who cites a poll of Muslims in Indonesia as proof that Muslims want to invade America to practice Sharia law (one of MJ's sillier assertions) certainly runs the risk of being thought of as stupid, or rabid partisan, or xenophobic.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

He insults others and then whines that he's not being treated fairly. For example, he calls others stupid and then complains about "these awful things that ck1313 said about me." That's exactly like Trump, right down to the wording.

And unlike him, I didn't call anyone stupid.

Well, in that thread I called a STATEMENT stupid, and if you truly don't understand the distinction, well...

You, MichaelBlueJay, do indeed say many, many stupid things. However, you're not stupid. Your political bent and yes, your obvious Islamophobia, make you say those very, very, stupid things. It's kind of sad to see such twisted arguments coming from someone who is actually intelligent, as I believe you are.

Quote: RonC

I don't agree with a lot of people here. Your writing is totally different than theirs. It has been from the start. Very few of those who I disagree with have been disagreeable in their writing; they state their point without being nasty about it. Your writing? Not so much.

I am not apologizing for him; I said that he did not do a good job of attacking the writing and not the writer. Meanwhile, you ignore others that don't disagree with you all that much but who also have issues with your writing style.

I have no problem with you not agreeing with me about political issues very often--I am a conservative and that appears to be a bad word to you. I tend to be more moderate than you might think, but your writing tends to paint with a broad brush.

Yes, I view conservatism as fundamentally flawed and tend to not like people who spout conservative views, mostly because those views are more often than not rationalizations based on hatred. We don't like black people. Let's stop them from voting (BECAUSE OF THE WAVE OF VOTER FRAUD!!). We don't like the idea of our tax money helping the poor to survive (SO LET'S REPEAL OBAMACARE BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN KENYA AND BY THE WAY, WE DON'T LIKE BLACK PEOPLE!).

Certainly, there are degrees of conservatism. For instance, you may not believe in the Mystical Magical Man in the Sky and purport that all our actions should be oriented to serving him. But if you're in Texas or the Bible Belt...Likewise, you may actually believe in progress--you don't necessarily believe that 1950s America was the pinnacle of human existence. So maybe the "broad brush" doesn't apply to you.

I think that this election season SHOULD, but won't, drive millions away from conservatism and by extension, the Republican party. Contrary to what many in his party say, Trump actually is the epitome--the apotheosis--of conservatism and of "Republican values." Keep your boots on the throats of the inferior classes--that's what it's all about.

What you say sometimes leads me to believe that you're in hearty agreement with all that. Other times, you sound "moderate," as you put it. Who knows what the actuality is?

Jbot, jbot, jbot, smh. Switch to decaf or something. You helped prime so many of us into Trumpers.

Quote: boymimbo

But you know what, if Hillary wins the same thing is going to happen again in 4 years. My prediction is that everyone gets into a tizzy and some wing-nut takes out Hillary early in the first term. Trump tweets victory, not realizing that the Vice-President is now president for four years.

I mean, really, America? Really?

I think it's still possible, though it's admittedly a long shot, that the ultimate result of this election is a societal mass repudiation of conservatism and the Republican party. If we as a nation can kick them into the dumpster of history where they belong, we'll FINALLY have social progress and not nearly so much jumping up and down and screaming in lieu of getting anything done.

Twenty years from now: "Mommy, who were the Republicans?" "They were the ones who tried to get that guy Trump elected." (laughter all around the dinner table)

Thirty years from now: "Gimme me my ball back, you stinking Republican!" *SLAP* "Now, Timmy, you should never call anyone bad names!"

Forty years from now: LAST REPUBLICAN DIES IN INSANE ASYLUM

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Jbot, jbot, jbot, smh. Switch to decaf or something. You helped prime so many of us into Trumpers.

I don't think I or anyone else could take a fundamentally decent person and turn them into a Trumper. I might be able to animate a zombie army, but as far as I can tell, most Trumpers aren't dead.

Quote: RonC

I don't agree with a lot of people here. Your writing is totally different than theirs. It has been from the start. Very few of those who I disagree with have been disagreeable in their writing; they state their point without being nasty about it. Your writing? Not so much.

I am not apologizing for him; I said that he did not do a good job of attacking the writing and not the writer. Meanwhile, you ignore others that don't disagree with you all that much but who also have issues with your writing style.

I have no problem with you not agreeing with me about political issues very often--I am a conservative and that appears to be a bad word to you. I tend to be more moderate than you might think, but your writing tends to paint with a broad brush.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Yes, I view conservatism as fundamentally flawed and tend to not like people who spout conservative views, mostly because those views are more often than not rationalizations based on hatred. We don't like black people. Let's stop them from voting (BECAUSE OF THE WAVE OF VOTER FRAUD!!). We don't like the idea of our tax money helping the poor to survive (SO LET'S REPEAL OBAMACARE BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN KENYA AND BY THE WAY, WE DON'T LIKE BLACK PEOPLE!).

Certainly, there are degrees of conservatism. For instance, you may not believe in the Mystical Magical Man in the Sky and purport that all our actions should be oriented to serving him. But if you're in Texas or the Bible Belt...Likewise, you may actually believe in progress--you don't necessarily believe that 1950s America was the pinnacle of human existence. So maybe the "broad brush" doesn't apply to you.

I think that this election season SHOULD, but won't, drive millions away from conservatism and by extension, the Republican party. Contrary to what many in his party say, Trump actually is the epitome--the apotheosis--of conservatism and of "Republican values." Keep your boots on the throats of the inferior classes--that's what it's all about.

What you say sometimes leads me to believe that you're in hearty agreement with all that. Other times, you sound "moderate," as you put it. Who knows what the actuality is?

So much anger...so little said...in the tiny world you write about, there is no room for opposition--that is rather scary! Your writing is some of the scariest stuff here; little wonder it has drawn criticism across the political spectrum.

I know this isn't the popular opinion on here, but I see Joe as COMMON among liberals. Sure it isn't a majority but all one has to do is go visit the Huffington Post, click on any story and read the comments. And these are from people linked to their Facebook accounts. It's pure hated of Trump supporters and conservatives.

And it happens on Breitbart the other way too. Some of the most hateful things have been said about Obama online.

But it's not new, HP has treated Cons this way for years, even the headlines are written in an insulting way. Why, because it brings readers to their site. No different than the New York Post with its crazy headlines. At least the Post is smart enough to not accept comments online.

Watch an episode of Maddow, O'Donnell or Hannity at night. Tell me these guys don't hate the other side. Or they are just playing a hateful character for a living because they know those are out there who will eat it up.

So all this talk about Joe being one of the scariest out there is just not based on facts. Joe is out there everywhere, and has been for years on both sides. Trump & Hillary didn't start it, they are just taking it to the next level.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Jbot, jbot, jbot, smh. Switch to decaf or something. You helped prime so many of us into Trumpers.

Imagine having political views so weak and fragile that you decide to vote for the worst candidate in Presidential history to spite someone you disagree with on a gambling message board...

Quote: Boz

Watch an episode of Maddow, O'Donnell or Hannity at night. Tell me these guys don't hate the other side.

Please. Watch an episode of Maddow. She doesn't hate the other side.

+1. O'Donnell and Hannity, valid criticism. Rachel is not as partisan a show. She does facts and points out absurdity wherever it shows up, does dig into and present both sides with more depth than most.

I don't agree,.Boz, that Joe is common, depends on your definition of liberal. I'd put him in the left 10% of intensity of liberals, kind of a counterpart to AZD. But not mainstream. Neither one is really representative, just very vocal.

There's some serious s**t going on in the UK today which will set the conspiracy theorists' pants on fire today.

- Assange's internet access has been taken down, leaving Wikileaks' founder silenced. Roger Stone, the RNC's connection to Assange, says that he is going to get extradited today.
- Russia Today's bank accounts are frozen in the UK.
- John Kerry is in the UK
- Mainstream is covering none of it.

Can't wait to hear Trump link it all together.

Fascinating stuff.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I think it's still possible, though it's admittedly a long shot, that the ultimate result of this election is a societal mass repudiation of conservatism and the Republican party. If we as a nation can kick them into the dumpster of history where they belong, we'll FINALLY have social progress and not nearly so much jumping up and down and screaming in lieu of getting anything done.

Twenty years from now: "Mommy, who were the Republicans?" "They were the ones who tried to get that guy Trump elected." (laughter all around the dinner table)

Thirty years from now: "Gimme me my ball back, you stinking Republican!" *SLAP* "Now, Timmy, you should never call anyone bad names!"

Forty years from now: LAST REPUBLICAN DIES IN INSANE ASYLUM

Disagree. A large proportion of the population have conservative views that warrant a major political party. You need to have a conflicting view to the widespread liberalism that is happening today. What is happening is that there are two kinds of "conservatives" - the normal kind who believe in a more fiscal and socially conservative view of the world. And then you have the "tea-party conservatives" that Trump has morphed into a frenzy. For this election, there is a third type of conservative which is the "never Hillary" conservative which is a mix of Bernie Sanders' supporters, those who believe that the government is out of control (it is), the Tea Partiers, and the regular conservatives who are more sick of Hillary than they are of Donald Trump.

And yes, Hillary's "crimes" are far less than advertised. But that of course is a matter of opinion and where you get your "news" from.

Quote: boymimbo

There's some serious s**t going on in the UK today which will set the conspiracy theorists' pants on fire today.

- Assange's internet access has been taken down, leaving Wikileaks' founder silenced. Roger Stone, the RNC's connection to Assange, says that he is going to get extradited today.
- Russia Today's bank accounts are frozen in the UK.
- John Kerry is in the UK
- Mainstream is covering none of it.

Can't wait to hear Trump link it all together.

Fascinating stuff.

TIME has detailed 4 theories as to what is going on with Julian Assange

Theory #4 is my favorite, for obvious reasons.

Quote: ams288

TIME has detailed 4 theories as to what is going on with Julian Assange

Theory #4 is my favorite, for obvious reasons.

Of course, Pam might of carried (knowingly or unknowingly) a computer virus. For whatever reason he was careless and introduced it into system.

Quote: ams288

Imagine having political views so weak and fragile that you decide to vote for the worst candidate in Presidential history to spite someone you disagree with on a gambling message board...

You're voting for him too?

Quote: RonC

So much anger...so little said...in the tiny world you write about, there is no room for opposition--that is rather scary! Your writing is some of the scariest stuff here; little wonder it has drawn criticism across the political spectrum.

Well, that you dislike me is the best validation I could ever receive.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

You're voting for him too?

I'll be writing in "John Cena" for President. (The actual John Cena, not nuked former-member JohnCena, the homophobic manbaby who is now relegated to posting nonsense over at DT).

Quote: boymimbo

Disagree. A large proportion of the population have conservative views that warrant a major political party. You need to have a conflicting view to the widespread liberalism that is happening today..

Why do we "need" that? Why is "the widespread liberalism" such a terrible thing that we need a political party to oppose it?

I'm sure that a white male in 1919, looking into the future, would view the weaker sex VOTING and AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!!! as evidence that liberalism had run amok. Same with all them black folks getting uppity! I mean, one somehow got to be President! Isn't that proof that liberalism has absolutely taken over the country anyway?? And the government gives out free food and medical care to anyone, even those who don't deserve it!

I need to push back against the lie that conservatism in the US is, as you put it, fiscally conservative. Conservatism is all about WHERE the money gets spent. Republicans have never had a problem with huge military budgets and building lots and lots of bombs, which need to be replenished because we keep dropping them on people. Meanwhile, you could feed 100,000 people for a year on what one Stealth bomber costs.

We've had a few all-too-brief periods in our recent history when "widespread liberalism" was the prevailing point of view. In those time windows, we managed to channel some of the immense resources of this country into making this a better place to live--increasing, by small amounts, the sum of human happiness. Then, of course, all too soon, conservatives stepped in the way. Conservatism is all about blocking progress, especially social progress, because, y'know, things were better in the old days (if you were a white male).

I realize that articulating the above position makes me a wild-eyed liberal extremist. But to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of human happiness is no vice.

Quote: Boz

I know this isn't the popular opinion on here, but I see Joe as COMMON among liberals. Sure it isn't a majority but all one has to do is go visit the Huffington Post, click on any story and read the comments. And these are from people linked to their Facebook accounts. It's pure hated of Trump supporters and conservatives.

Justified hatred. What is amazing is that more people don't hate them, since they are actively trying to elect a creature who exemplifies the absolute worst of humanity. If you support Trump, you will share responsibility for the suffering and death that will result from his election, just as everyone who voted for Hitler, or failed to oppose him, shared responsibility for the 60 million+ deaths that resulted from his ascension to power. If Trump is elected, will it be that bad? PROBABLY not (though it's easy to imagine some scenarios where it would be WORSE). But people WILL die who didn't have to. That's why we have to stop him--but more importantly, we have to marginalize and silence those who support him and his message of hate.

And yeah, Trumpers, saying that makes me an extremist.

Melania Trump sat down with Anderson Cooper for an interview that will air tonight at 8 on CNN.

I find it very interesting that she gave the interview to CNN. Trump constantly tweets angrily against CNN, saying they're biased and calling it Clinton News Network. And yet, Melania breaks her silence on CNN.

I honestly think she's counting the days till this election is over and she can finally file for divorce. She's looked miserable this entire campaign.

Quote: boymimbo

There's some serious s**t going on in the UK today which will set the conspiracy theorists' pants on fire today.

- Assange's internet access has been taken down, leaving Wikileaks' founder silenced. Roger Stone, the RNC's connection to Assange, says that he is going to get extradited today.

Interesting. Assange is currently a long term guest in the Equadorian Embassy where he has been given asylum. He cannot leave without fear of arrest, but similarly, he cannot be pulled from there and he is not a prisoner there. The EQUADORIAN AUTHORITIES decided that besides giving him a home and shelter, that they did not want to give him internet access. Their house: Their rules!

Quote:

- Russia Today's bank accounts are frozen in the UK.

Also interesting and not strictly true. Royal Bank of Scotland (Major UK retail bank) has told RT that they no longer wish to offer a banking service to RT and that they must take their business elsewhere as of a date in December.

Quote: BBC

RT says the entire Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) Group, of which NatWest is part, is refusing to provide its services.
The broadcaster, previously known as Russia Today, says NatWest wrote to its London office saying: "We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities."

So the accounts are not 'Frozen' as such. When accounts are frozen, the funds ( or overdrafts ) are locked in. There could be purely business reasons for RBS to take such action, such as maybe RT repeatedly going over their overdraft limits, or maybe not complying with the UK's stringent anti money laundering legislation.

Quote:

- Mainstream is covering none of it.

Our's is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37680411
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37677020

Quote:

Fascinating stuff.

Agreed

"Hustler and Flynt are offering up $1 million to anyone with salacious materials on Trump, who just last week was mired in another scandal involving a 2005 conversation he had with NBC's Billy Bush."

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/election/article/Larry-Flynt-anHustler-magazine-announce-1-9976429.php

Quote: OnceDear

Interesting. Assange is currently a long term guest in the Equadorian Embassy where he has been given asylum. He cannot leave without fear of arrest, but similarly, he cannot be pulled from there and he is not a prisoner there. The EQUADORIAN AUTHORITIES decided that besides giving him a home and shelter, that they did not want to give him internet access. Their house: Their rules!Also interesting and not strictly true. Royal Bank of Scotland (Major UK retail bank) has told RT that they no longer wish to offer a banking service to RT and that they must take their business elsewhere as of a date in December.
So the accounts are not 'Frozen' as such. When accounts are frozen, the funds ( or overdrafts ) are locked in. There could be purely business reasons for RBS to take such action, such as maybe RT repeatedly going over their overdraft limits, or maybe not complying with the UK's stringent anti money laundering legislation. Our's is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37680411
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37677020


Agreed

Wow. This is huge. Just hearing hints of this so far, but growing info in reports. Thanks.

Regardless of what happens to Assange, the Internet will still be a source of document dumps. Don't think that will change. I assume the people who got the Democrat Party emails still have the source material. Or whatever's left of it.

Quote: rxwine

Regardless of what happens to Assange, the Internet will still be a source of document dumps. Don't think that will change. I assume the people who got the Democrat Party emails still have the source material. Or whatever's left of it.

On the other side of the aisle, the National Republican Senatorial Committee's fundraising website was hacked and thousands of donors' credit cards may have been compromised:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/hacked-republican-website-skimmed-donor-credit-cards-for-6-months/

By the way, if you want to see what hacked web code looks like -- and debug it safely -- watch the video in that article.

Quote: MathExtremist

On the other side of the aisle, the National Republican Senatorial Committee's fundraising website was hacked and thousands of donors' credit cards may have been compromised:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/hacked-republican-website-skimmed-donor-credit-cards-for-6-months/

By the way, if you want to see what hacked web code looks like -- and debug it safely -- watch the video in that article.

Well, since the Republicans don't think that cyber-attacks against Democrats are anything to be bothered about, they shouldn't be bothered by this, either.

Maybe millions of dollars that were going to help Republican senators cling to their seats were stolen and used to buy whiskey and hookers. I can't think of a crime that would help American society more!

McCain Vows Permanent Gridlock on Democratic SCOTUS candidates:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/mccain-clinton-trump-supreme-court/index.html

These are people that hold the constitution up high, but only when it benefits them. Being a republican no longer means wanting government to function as intended, it's turned into a contest of who hates the democrats the most.

Some examples of Republican hypocrisy:

- If we win the presidency, our Supreme Court nominees should be confirmed. When you win the presidency, we will block you at every turn.

- If Trump wins, the election is legitimate and the people have SPOKEN. If Hillary wins, it must be RIGGED.

- Donald Trump is accused of forcing himself on over ten women. STICK TO THE ISSUES. Bill Clinton accused of misconduct by four women. His wife should be disqualified from office and imprisoned.

- Hillary Clinton has not directly mentioned any of Trump's accusers. She needs to stop distracting from real issues. Trump has a press conference with four of Bill Clinton's accusers, gives them front row seats to the debate, and mentions them during debate. Great job taking the gloves off, president Trump.

- Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. Impeach him. Trump proudly brags about sexual assault (has 5 kids with 3 wives and has cheated on his wives). Elect him.

- Hillary oversaw the Department of State while four people died in an embassy attack. JAIL HER. Two Republicans were in office while over 200 people died in embassy attacks. No problem.

- Immigrants don't pay taxes. Round them up and kick them out. Trump doesn't pay taxes. He's a business genius.

- Independent fact checkers found Trump is likely the least truthful candidate in the history of modern politics. He tells it like it is. Hillary is statistically more truthful than most politicians according to fact checkers. She is the most untrustworthy, lying liar who has ever run for political office.

- The Clinton Foundation only spent 87% of their donations helping people (average amount is 75%). CROOKED. Trump's foundation paid off his debts, bought paintings of him, and made political donations to avoid investigations for a fake university while giving less than 5% of funds to charity (and he got shut down by NY State). So savvy...put him in the White House.

- Trump made 4 billion dollars in 40 years, when an index fund started at the same time with the same "small loans" he received would be worth $12 billion today... without a trail of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits and burned small business owners. He's a real business whiz. Hillary took a loss of $700k. She's a criminal.

- Trump is the first candidate in the modern era to not release his tax returns, and he took a almost billion-dollar loss in one year. Genius. Hillary releases 40 years of taxes. Corrupt. Trump denies saying things (on the record) he actually said (on the record). He's just telling it like it is.

Their arguments are nonsensical and their willful ignorance of facts is disturbing. The double standards and eagerness to blindly support and recycle misleading rhetoric is frightening. Opinion and memes are not fact. Hypocrisy does not make for responsible governance. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave over what they have done to the once-great Republican party.

Quote: ams288

Please. Watch an episode of Maddow. She doesn't hate the other side.

Agree 100%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_qDAdw5E7k

I don't regularly watch her, but that is a remarkably civil interview/debate between herself and the charming, affable, well-spoken and otherwise bat-feces crazy Rick Santorum. Either way, they exchanged pleasantries at the end and shook hands, and it was actually a pretty delightful watch. Like the delightful conversations sides that disagree with one another should be having here about the issues rather than about each other...whether directly or in a veiled way.

Which is why I do not participate regularly in this thread, even though this is probably the subject I have about the third most interest in.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Why do we "need" that? Why is "the widespread liberalism" such a terrible thing that we need a political party to oppose it?

Advocatus Diaboli? The fact that if you do not have someone challenging your views as you are attempting to make an informed decision, then the optimal mental exercise is to try to argue in favor of the opposite of your conclusion to determine whether or not there are any holes in your priors or supporting arguments? Of course, debating with someone who fervently believes the opposite of your position, if you defend your position in good faith and with an open mind, usually results in feeling even more strongly about your position once you have (at least in your perspective) defeated the best arguments against it. Naturally, it can be assumed that someone who generally holds a belief that is diametrically opposed to your own will make more compelling arguments against your positions and supporting arguments therefor than you will yourself playing Devil's Advocate.

In essence, if you have a person who has never had his or her mind changed after debating a specific matter with someone, then it is quite likely that the person knows a lot less than that person thinks he or she knows, and further, should reevaluate his or her ability to listen.

Quote: Mission146

Agree 100%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_qDAdw5E7k

I don't regularly watch her, but that is a remarkably civil interview/debate between herself and the charming, affable, well-spoken and otherwise bat-feces crazy Rick Santorum. Either way, they exchanged pleasantries at the end and shook hands, and it was actually a pretty delightful watch. Like the delightful conversations sides that disagree with one another should be having here about the issues rather than about each other...whether directly or in a veiled way.

Which is why I do not participate regularly in this thread, even though this is probably the subject I have about the third most interest in.

Santorum had an agenda, which was probably to show how un-Trump he was. I expect similar sound bites and talk show appearances from other Republicans who are fleeing the sinking ship--they're trying not to let their political careers get sucked to the bottom. So of course he wasn't in bat-poop-crazy mode; that wouldn't have served his purpose. After all, he IS a skilled politician--wait, EWWWWW! That's why we hate Hillary!

As far as the conversations here go, well, I attack the things people say and the ideas they espouse, and they construe that as an attack on THEM--so then they attack me. And the wheel goes 'round and 'round. I've extended an olive branch to a few of the more sane people who've been throwing rocket bombs in my direction, but to no avail. I TRY to discuss the issues. But I also call out lies--which constitute about 95% of Trump's statements. Yet, our Trumpers enthusuastically support those lies. But I've been kind of dumb to call them out. After all, the "big lie" tactic, used so well by Trump, means that when you are caught lying, you double down on it. Why do I bother to argue logically against that??

I agree that we SHOULD be having reasoned conversations here. But how can anybody logically or sanely support Trump, one of the most disgusting, evil, and stupid persons to ever infest American politics? So anyone professing Trump-love, as so many people here do, isn't going to be arguing rationally. It's futile to talk to them as if they were human beings.

Quote: Mission146

Advocatus Diaboli? The fact that if you do not have someone challenging your views as you are attempting to make an informed decision, then the optimal mental exercise is to try to argue in favor of the opposite of your conclusion to determine whether or not there are any holes in your priors or supporting arguments? Of course, debating with someone who fervently believes the opposite of your position, if you defend your position in good faith and with an open mind, usually results in feeling even more strongly about your position once you have (at least in your perspective) defeated the best arguments against it. Naturally, it can be assumed that someone who generally holds a belief that is diametrically opposed to your own will make more compelling arguments against your positions and supporting arguments therefor than you will yourself playing Devil's Advocate.

In essence, if you have a person who has never had his or her mind changed after debating a specific matter with someone, then it is quite likely that the person knows a lot less than that person thinks he or she knows, and further, should reevaluate his or her ability to listen.

Not sure what your point is--that first paragraph had some kind of disjointed sentences in it.

I'm sure that many posters on this board, perhaps yourself included, would characterize me as someone who is that kind of inflexible--could never have his mind changed. Well, here's a little secret. I used to be a political conservative. Then I began to see that not only is conservatism mean-spirited and at times, evil, also, its premises and basic tenets are, well, horsecrap. I read a lot, talked to a lot of people, and the nail in the coffin of my latent conservatism was when I realized that liberal policies actually create wealth--for EVERYBODY--far more efficiently and to a far greater extent than conservatism does! So I could no longer believe in a fundamentally flawed political/social point of view.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Santorum had an agenda, which was probably to show how un-Trump he was. I expect similar sound bites and talk show appearances from other Republicans who are fleeing the sinking ship--they're trying not to let their political careers get sucked to the bottom. So of course he wasn't in bat-poop-crazy mode; that wouldn't have served his purpose. After all, he IS a skilled politician--wait, EWWWWW! That's why we hate Hillary!

As far as the conversations here go, well, I attack the things people say and the ideas they espouse, and they construe that as an attack on THEM--so then they attack me. And the wheel goes 'round and 'round. I've extended an olive branch to a few of the more sane people who've been throwing rocket bombs in my direction, but to no avail. I TRY to discuss the issues. But I also call out lies--which constitute about 95% of Trump's statements. Yet, our Trumpers enthusuastically support those lies. But I've been kind of dumb to call them out. After all, the "big lie" tactic, used so well by Trump, means that when you are caught lying, you double down on it. Why do I bother to argue logically against that??

I agree that we SHOULD be having reasoned conversations here. But how can anybody logically or sanely support Trump, one of the most disgusting, evil, and stupid persons to ever infest American politics? So anyone professing Trump-love, as so many people here do, isn't going to be arguing rationally. It's futile to talk to them as if they were human beings.

Again, your writing here tries to make it look like you are just someone who is misunderstood, but you have attacked and labeled people "Trumpers" who have stated their dislike for Trump. The mere act of not feeling that one can support Hillary does not a "Trumper" make. Your words paint with such a broad brush as to even be insulting (maybe not personally all the time, but insulting overall) to even people who lean your way.

Disagreeing with your writings makes one a person that you cannot have dialogue with on a human level. That says a lot more about the thoughts you put down on this board than it does about the other person.

I don't think anyone but you writes much about people having "Trump love"--most that are not happy about HIllary aren't exactly all that happy about Trump being a candidate, either. There may be a couple, but not all that many.

Quote: gamerfreak

Their arguments are nonsensical and their willful ignorance of facts is disturbing. The double standards and eagerness to blindly support and recycle misleading rhetoric is frightening. Opinion and memes are not fact. Hypocrisy does not make for responsible governance. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave over what they have done to the once-great Republican party.

Boy, I had a modicum of respect for McCain--until I saw that. There's an organic flaw in the system if one party can gradually destroy the Supreme Court. Patriotic Republicans! Values of our founding fathers, my ass!

You've done a great job of pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of the Republiholes. The problem is, conservatives have to continually engage in doublethink to support their insane positions. Trumpers have to do the same to support their tin god. You HAVE to lie to yourself to be a conservative. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance is just too painful.

So while I'd like to fantasize that some Trumper would read what you wrote and slap his forehead, saying, "My God, he's right! What was I thinking? I've been acting like my brain is made out of Silly Putty!", the truth is, all you (or I) can do here is preach to the choir.

Quote: RonC

Disagreeing with your writings makes one a person that you cannot have dialogue with on a human level.

So given that stated impossibility, are you currently communicating with me on a subhuman level instead?

I think we all understand that you don't like me. I don't like you either. That said, I've offered to tone it down, and acknowledged that I may have been wrong about your political views, but you rejected that. So we don't have much to say to one another, and your constant criticism of and attacks on me are kind of redundant and pointless. I'm sure that doing so provides you with some kind of visceral amusement, though, so feel free to keep attacking. It's therapeutic for you, I imagine.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

So given that stated impossibility, are you currently communicating with me on a subhuman level instead?

I think we all understand that you don't like me. I don't like you either. That said, I've offered to tone it down, and acknowledged that I may have been wrong about your political views, but you rejected that. So we don't have much to say to one another, and your constant criticism of and attacks on me are kind of redundant and pointless. I'm sure that doing so provides you with some kind of visceral amusement, though, so feel free to keep attacking. It's therapeutic for you, I imagine.

As are your constant attacks and criticisms of anyone who writes anything that may be of opposition to your writings. If I point out that your written attacks are so broad as to include even people who are on your side, you'll just deflect and say that we don't like each other. You tend to write things that don't stand up to the same scrutiny when someone comes back at you. After all, it was you who first brought not being able to talk to people who support Trump as humans; your writing reflects an inability to avoid talking down to anyone who might not see things exactly the same way you do, even some on the same side politically as you.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Boy, I had a modicum of respect for McCain--until I saw that. There's an organic flaw in the system if one party can gradually destroy the Supreme Court. Patriotic Republicans! Values of our founding fathers, my ass!

What he said was toned down a bit (as often happens) and this more likely represents how he will handle things:

"Senator McCain believes you can only judge people by their record and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees," said McCain spokesperson Rachael Dean. "That being said, Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/mccain-clinton-trump-supreme-court/index.html

I know that many nominees (other than some made during the various election cycles) were routinely confirmed by wide margins despite their political leanings in earlier days; that has not been the case all the time since Bork was rejected. Both parties push back more now and I don't expect that to get better whenever one party has the Presidency and the other has the Senate. I know it is easy to try and pin all obstructionism on the Republicans; just saying it does not make it true.

Quote: beachbumbabs

+1. O'Donnell and Hannity, valid criticism. Rachel is not as partisan a show. She does facts and points out absurdity wherever it shows up, does dig into and present both sides with more depth than most.

I don't agree,.Boz, that Joe is common, depends on your definition of liberal. I'd put him in the left 10% of intensity of liberals, kind of a counterpart to AZD. But not mainstream. Neither one is really representative, just very vocal.

The older I get, the more I see it among liberals. It's worse with the young, which is partially because they are in the process of defining themselves. They want to think of themselves as smart, moral, etc. and so it's easy to do that by defining others as evil and stupid. Most grow out of it. But, in recent years, this ancient phenomenon has reached a new intensity. Colloquially, many of these people are known as social justice warriors. This camp is focused mostly on identity politics (race, gender).

Others are just partisan hacks (huffpo types), who take on some of those tendencies. I wouldn't say is Joe far to the left at all. If you were to do the political compass thing with him, and his particular ilk, I think you'd find him center right, shading into authoritarian, near Hillary and the DNC. People on the American left would be like, Bernie, Nader, Stein, Kucinich, Fiengold, etc. Warren, to a certain degree too. Though, there is a further distinction between the more materialist left and the more cultural left.

People who behave this way this aren't always ideological extremists and are often pretty moderate in terms of the policies and politicians they favor. They are psychologically extreme in their need for narratives about their own superiority. No matter what occurs in the external world, they will mentally reshape it to that end.

The ultimate beneficiaries of almost all divisiveness are big business, political elites and that lot. The more fiercely divided we are, the easier we are to control.

Anyway, I'm quite happy and even a little proud to see such a character rejected from all sides by this forum.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

It's futile to talk to them as if they were human beings.

The majority of members of this forum selected Trump over Clinton. So your posts by definition must be futile.....

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

So anyone professing Trump-love, as so many people here do, isn't going to be arguing rationally. It's futile to talk to them as if they were human beings.

That's just a ridiculous thing to say. Someone who's fallen for Trump's bluster and other-bashing pandering is no less a human being than you are. They're misguided, but being misled by a populist demagogue after falling behind financially (and being angry about it) are not reasons for you to denigrate someone as sub-human. People are misled all the time, for many reasons. That doesn't give you an excuse to insult them.

I mean, what's your goal -- to further increase divisiveness? That's entirely antithetical to the goals of a more perfect Union and domestic Tranquility. Donald Trump, by his words, doesn't care about those things. By your words, neither do you.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Anyway, I'm quite happy and even a little proud to see such a character rejected from all sides by this forum.

You wish. The disdain of a few right-wingers (Trumpers or not) means nothing to me--other than, like you, I'm "a little proud" that they hate me. I would be ashamed, and inclined to rethink my positions, if you or they agreed with me on anything.

Quote: Rigondeaux

The ultimate beneficiaries of almost all divisiveness are big business, political elites and that lot. The more fiercely divided we are, the easier we are to control.

That's because the one constant that comes from divisiveness is stagnation. Our country's government is not set up to produce legislation, nor act on it, if the country is divided into two (or three, or four) vehemently opposed factions. When compromise becomes a dirty word, compromise doesn't happen. And that's a big problem in view of the real societal changes that are coming. Here's one that should be obvious: the rise of autonomous vehicles will put millions of truckers out of business -- and millions more in the trucker-support industries.

Here's an article that talks about the coming shift in trucking, and why a UBI (universal basic income) is one solution for rapid technological displacement:
http://www.vox.com/conversations/2016/10/17/13245808/andy-stern-work-universal-basic-income-technology-artificial-intelligence-unions

I've been worried about technological unemployment for a long time. Nobody's talking about it because we're too busy arguing about rapist illegal immigrants or dead people voting, but our economy is going to change in a way that will put tens of millions of people out of work. "Full employment" will not only be a thing of the past, but it needs to be redefined going forward. It's like arguing about putting coal miners back to work in West Virginia. Coal mining didn't go away because it's unclean, it went away because fracking makes natural gas cheaper than coal, and who wants to spend more than they need to? Industries come and go. People who can't adapt quickly enough get left behind. But is it morally just to cling to an economy that inherently leaves people behind when alternatives become practical?

In the far future, when productivity is so high that money becomes obsolete (e.g., Star Trek), you'll be able to have whatever you want whenever you want it, and people will work on what they want because they want to. Right now, the vast, vast majority of people work because they need money to buy food and pay the mortgage or rent. Getting from here to there will be very, very painful if we're not aware that it needs to happen in the first place.

But stop to think for a moment. If your basic physical human needs were taken care of, if you had a warm bed and a full belly every night without needing to work for them, do you feel that you'd be better off than you are today? Our society may not be able to provide that just yet (which is debatable), but suppose next century it could. Shouldn't it?