2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: Twirdman

His quote wasn't just talking about cartels though.

That looks like he is talking about the majority of Mexicans coming over. Also everyone does it is not an excuse to use racist rhetoric to get a judge removed from court.

Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014

The crime problems are real. PC is making enforcing laws impossible. As to the judge again who cares. Judges get called far worse.

Quote:

How is it racist? Flag burning is not racist. Plenty of non racial protest use flag burning. Even calling it Mexican soil doesn't make it racist. It is an anti-American protest. It is a protest calling into question current American borders, but it is not racist.

I think I get it. Tell me if I have it wrong.

Your position is Mexicans burning a USA flag in the USA under the banner of a Mexican flag; saying California is "Mexican Soil;" and attacking mostly white supporters of someone they disagree with is NOT a racist act. HOWEVER, a candidate using words that accurately describe some Mexicans IS racist because he did not qualify it by saying "some" or another qualifier. MEANWHILE you are more upset at the words than the riots?

If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. Although for the record were you not one of the people upset at the mere sight of the Confederate Flag in the USA?

Quote: AZDuffman

Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014

The crime problems are real. PC is making enforcing laws impossible. As to the judge again who cares. Judges get called far worse.



I think I get it. Tell me if I have it wrong.

Your position is Mexicans burning a USA flag in the USA under the banner of a Mexican flag; saying California is "Mexican Soil;" and attacking mostly white supporters of someone they disagree with is NOT a racist act. HOWEVER, a candidate using words that accurately describe some Mexicans IS racist because he did not qualify it by saying "some" or another qualifier. MEANWHILE you are more upset at the words than the riots?

If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. Although for the record were you not one of the people upset at the mere sight of the Confederate Flag in the USA?

Well lets get some actual numbers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/ . Immigrants are less likely then native borns to be involved in a criminal act. The number of inmates in state and federal prisons who are not U.S. citizens, according to the latest prison population report from the Bureau of Judicial Statistics. That's about 5% of the total prison population. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/immigrants-crime/ The reason they are increasingly prevalent in federal prison has to do with several factors, but an unreasonably high rate of crime is not one of them.

Yes it is not racist for the Mexicans to do that. It is incredibly vile and worse than the words that Trump is speaking. However one is racist and the other simply isn't. They didn't attack the Trump protesters because they were white they attacked them because Trump speaks vile things. I don't agree with the attacks and the people responsible should be arrested, but you cannot just claim things you don't like are racist. Isn't that what you yell at liberals for doing.

Also Trump didn't merely forget to qualify with saying some are rapist and drug dealers. He said they are rapist and drug dealers and some are good people. He specifically implied that the good ones are in the minority.

Quote: Twirdman

His quote wasn't just talking about cartels though. That looks like he is talking about the majority of Mexicans coming over. Also everyone does it is not an excuse to use racist rhetoric to get a judge removed from court.

People can read into such statements what they want and draw their assumptions and presumptions, which usually agree with their deeply held views. For clarity, it would serve the discussion better to see just what the accused says about his actual motivations.

Speaking of Trump and race:



No, this doesn't prove Trump is a racist (although referring to a black guy as "my African-American" probably isn't a good idea).

It does, however, give more proof to the fact that he's an idiot.

Trump constantly rails against being "P.C." and yet how many times did he use the phrase "African-American" in this 1:25 clip?!

Just say "black!"

Trump comes from an era when black was a no-no. Platform shoes, dashikis, and Afro hair style, boom boxes, etc. Only black studies were Swahili and Remedial Swahili.

Quote: Twirdman

Yes it is not racist for the Mexicans to do that. It is incredibly vile and worse than the words that Trump is speaking. However one is racist and the other simply isn't. They didn't attack the Trump protesters because they were white they attacked them because Trump speaks vile things. I don't agree with the attacks and the people responsible should be arrested, but you cannot just claim things you don't like are racist. Isn't that what you yell at liberals for doing.

It is what I yell at liberals for doing. And I thank you for seeing that. And I thank you for proving my point that liberals use the term "racism" at the drop of a hat and should be ignored when they use it.

Let whites have a "South of the Border" party on a college campus and liberals will call it racist. Let Mexicans have a riot where they spit on the USA and it the fault of Trump.

The goo news is all of this is probably waking up some middle of the road voters to how society has been lost and driving them towards Trump.

Quote: Twirdman

They didn't attack the Trump protesters because they were white they attacked them because Trump speaks vile things.

I'm not going to comment on the usage of "racism" other than to say that it is used way too often when it should not be.

It seems that Trump's right to free speech is challenged by people willing to attack people who support him just for supporting him.

The Left dismisses it as Trump's fault before bothering to condemn the thugs.

Do you know who said this in 1939?

" We pay taxes to the government and what do we get? Not even protection from the army! I don't know what the government is coming to. Instead of protecting businessmen, it pokes its nose into business! Why, they're even talking now about having *bank* examiners. As if we bankers don't know how to run our own banks! Why, at home I have a letter from a popinjay official saying they were going to inspect my books. I have a slogan that should be blazoned on every newspaper in this country: America for the Americans! The government must not interfere with business! Reduce taxes! Our national debt is something shocking. Over one billion dollars a year! What this country needs is a businessman for president! "

Quote: RonC

I'm not going to comment on the usage of "racism" other than to say that it is used way too often when it should not be.

It seems that Trump's right to free speech is challenged by people willing to attack people who support him just for supporting him.

The Left dismisses it as Trump's fault before bothering to condemn the thugs.

Without getting into the fallacy of lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a monolithic whole called "The Left," I agree that physically attacking attendees at a political rally crosses a line that should not be crossed, regardless of whose rally it is or who's protesting.

But criticism is definitely deserved for those who support Trump without considering his mental illness. And if someone supports Trump because of his mental illness, that's just wrong-headed. There is no mental fitness test to hold the office of the President but, in view of several incidents throughout Presidential history (Reagan's early dementia/Alzheimer's, Wilson's strokes, FDR's seizures), there probably should be. And under any credible mental fitness test for President, I cannot imagine Trump would pass.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

Quote: onalinehorse

Do you know who said this in 1939?

" We pay taxes to the government and what do we get? Not even protection from the army! I don't know what the government is coming to. Instead of protecting businessmen, it pokes its nose into business! Why, they're even talking now about having *bank* examiners. As if we bankers don't know how to run our own banks! Why, at home I have a letter from a popinjay official saying they were going to inspect my books. I have a slogan that should be blazoned on every newspaper in this country: America for the Americans! The government must not interfere with business! Reduce taxes! Our national debt is something shocking. Over one billion dollars a year! What this country needs is a businessman for president! "

Yes -- a crooked financier who was actually holding a bag full of stolen money while he was speaking.

Timely. :)

Quote: MathExtremist

But criticism is definitely deserved for those who support Trump without considering his mental illness. And if someone supports Trump because of his mental illness, that's just wrong-headed. There is no mental fitness test to hold the office of the President but, in view of several incidents throughout Presidential history (Reagan's early dementia/Alzheimer's, Wilson's strokes, FDR's seizures), there probably should be. And under any credible mental fitness test for President, I cannot imagine Trump would pass.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

Would that standard also apply to non-Republicans?

Quote: MathExtremist

But criticism is definitely deserved for those who support Trump without considering his mental illness. And if someone supports Trump because of his mental illness, that's just wrong-headed. There is no mental fitness test to hold the office of the President but, in view of several incidents throughout Presidential history (Reagan's early dementia/Alzheimer's, Wilson's strokes, FDR's seizures), there probably should be. And under any credible mental fitness test for President, I cannot imagine Trump would pass.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

Bless your heart.

Your link didn't work but I found the article. I also found a whole bunch of articles addressing the same thing about Obama and others. I remember hearing it about Bill. Is Trump? Maybe...but he has a lot of company in politics.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Quote: MathExtremist

But criticism is definitely deserved for those who support Trump without considering his mental illness. And if someone supports Trump because of his mental illness, that's just wrong-headed. There is no mental fitness test to hold the office of the President but, in view of several incidents throughout Presidential history (Reagan's early dementia/Alzheimer's, Wilson's strokes, FDR's seizures), there probably should be. And under any credible mental fitness test for President, I cannot imagine Trump would pass.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

Would that standard also apply to non-Republicans?

One thing at a time, we are still waiting for them to apply the same standards to call someone or something "racist" when it is not a white. Republican, or conservative.

Well, not "waiting" as we will die waiting for that!

Quote: MathExtremist

Yes -- a crooked financier who was actually holding a bag full of stolen money while he was speaking.

Timely. :)

Some things never change.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Would that standard also apply to non-Republicans?

Of course. Party affiliation and political leanings should have nothing to do with qualifications to govern.

Presumably you're referring in this particular case to Obama. But we can dispense with that quickly since Obama's Presidency is nearly over.

Let's suppose Obama is just as much of a malignant narcissist as Trump is, he's just able to be more subtle about it. Is it "the GOP's turn" to put a mentally ill person in the big chair? Do you think two wrongs make a right? If Obama's malignant narcissism is responsible for the woes that befell the country over the past 8 years, why would electing another malignant narcissist be the right thing to do?

Somehow it doesn't seem proper that the decision to elect Trump would be justified by grade-school reasoning like "the Leftist socialists had their nutjob, it's only fair that now it's our turn."

Quote: AZDuffman

One thing at a time, we are still waiting for them to apply the same standards to call someone or something "racist" when it is not a white. Republican, or conservative.

What "them" do you accuse me of being an indistinguishable part of?

"Hillary’s performance is a case-study in malignant narcissism with all the attendant paranoia and disturbing inability to consider other (now dead) human beings at the center of the inquiry."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/2/tammy-bruce-hillary-clinton-case-study-narcissism/?page=all

"The problem of perceiving Hillary is exemplified in a brilliantly etched and elegantly deconstructed portrait of Mrs. Clinton by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. The focus of Noonan’s book, The Case Against Hillary Clinton, is not Mrs. Clinton’s kitsch Marxism or her perverse feminism or her cynical progressivism. It is her narcissism. In this psychological nexus, Noonan finds the key to unlock Hillary’s public persona. In Noonan’s analysis, it is almost as though Mrs. Clinton’s political beliefs were merely instrumental to her career, and as changeable as her famous hairstyles. "

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Progressive%20Narcissism.htm

"Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office. In a book released today, respected political analyst Bay Buchanan reveals that Hillary bears all the classic symptoms of “clinical narcissism.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/05/14/analysis-of-hillary-reveals-clinical-narcissism/

I am not accusing Hillary of being disqualified due to her narcissism; I am simply pointing out that it is a common accusation among people who aspire to be, or have become, President. This pretty much renders ME's point about Trump's narcissism worthless in the context of this election. If there was someone running without that non-diagnosed (in a clinical setting by actual doctors examining actual patients) personality issue, it might actually matter.

"To run for president and endure a grueling, often ugly campaign, one has to possess the staunch and unwavering belief that he or she is the best qualified person for the job. It's what keeps presidential candidates going. It's what motivates and drives them. All it takes is a foundation of grandiosity, a keen sense of entitlement, and perhaps a little lack of empathy and awareness."

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/why-narcissists-get-elected-president-with-jeffrey-kluger

It's so weird to me that people regard someone like Hillary as a Marxist. It's like accusing Cruz of being an Islamist.

If she's a Marxist, what were FDR and Eisenhower? Why is she more closely tied to big business than most Republicans, while 99% of people who would describe themselves as Marxists hate her?

What do you think 'Marxist' means?

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: AZDuffman

One thing at a time, we are still waiting for them to apply the same standards to call someone or something "racist" when it is not a white. Republican, or conservative.

What "them" do you accuse me of being an indistinguishable part of?

There are many such groups of "them." Take your pick.

Quote: MathExtremist

Presumably you're referring in this particular case to Obama. But we can dispense with that quickly since Obama's Presidency is nearly over.

Sorry, but waving off the strawman does not work. Especially seeing as how I was thinking of the two warring Democratic hopefuls. That should help avoid the no-doubt heartfelt necessity of explaining away the missteps and miseries of the last eight years.

Quote: Rigondeaux

It's so weird to me that people regard someone like Hillary as a Marxist. It's like accusing Cruz of being an Islamist.

If she's a Marxist, what were FDR and Eisenhower? Why is she more closely tied to big business than most Republicans, while 99% of people who would describe themselves as Marxists hate her?

What do you think 'Marxist' means?

In this context, expansive government, higher taxes and more government controls boosting desired programs and against unwanted endeavors.

Everyone, Republican and Democrat, is just ripping Trump a new one this morning on all the cable shows over his racist comments about the judge.

(And before anyone whines - yes, saying a judge can't do a job because he's "Mexican" is absolutely racist. Even if he was Mexican - which he isn't - it'd still be racist.)

I'm loving the outrage on the right. They've made their bed. Now lie in it.

Quote: ams288

Everyone, Republican and Democrat, is just ripping Trump a new one this morning on all the cable shows over his racist comments about the judge.

(And before anyone whines - yes, saying a judge can't do a job because he's "Mexican" is absolutely racist. Even if he was Mexican - which he isn't - it'd still be racist.)

I'm loving the outrage on the right. They've made their bed. Now lie in it.

First, "The Right" did not make their bed...the voters made the bed for them. Trump has gained support from the voters; he is slowly gaining some support from people who once opposed him but likely only because they just can't find it in them to support Hillary. Make no mistake--"The Right" (the Establishment Right) would much rather have a different candidate.

Second, they should all be on his case about this one. I am glad to see it. If he doesn't back off of the comment, the attacks will continue. This is a good thing. Politicians shouldn't be able to get away with things that they get away with all the time.

Racist--I don't really care about your "whine" comment...people are still allowed to make comments here, right? You don't get to tell them which ones to make. You'll take what I said the wrong way...I can almost guarantee it.

Quote: RonC

Racist--I don't really care about your "whine" comment...people are still allowed to make comments here, right? You don't get to tell them which ones to make. You'll take what I said the wrong way...I can almost guarantee it.

Based on this section of your response, I'd say my "whine" comment was right on the mark.

Quote: RonC

I am not accusing Hillary of being disqualified due to her narcissism; I am simply pointing out that it is a common accusation among people who aspire to be, or have become, President. This pretty much renders ME's point about Trump's narcissism worthless in the context of this election.

I disagree, and I perceive a qualitative distinction between a typical politician -- who necessarily must have sufficient ego and self-confidence to endure a campaign -- and someone like Donald Trump. It's not just a matter of degree, but of a different kind. Having high blood pressure doesn't necessarily disqualify someone from public office, but having sufficiently high blood pressure that you spend half the day unconscious would. Such is the distinction between the typical politician's narcissism and Trump's. I have never seen another candidate, from any party in any US election, openly mock a man for being physically disabled, openly accuse a woman of being unqualified because she has an unattractive face, or openly accuse an Article III judge of bias due to their ancestry or religious faith. Do you support Trump on those matters?

Normal politicians understand that in politics, it is important to actually be politic. They have controlled their narcissism. Trump has not. That's the problem. Trump's ad hominem attacks would get him banned from this forum. Wouldn't you think the standards should be at least as high for something like the U.S. Presidency?

In my opinion, the reason Trump is so outrageous is because it diverts attention from the fact that he doesn't have any real policy proposals. "I'll build a wall, believe me" isn't a policy proposal. The GOP failed to present its constituents with a candidate who had any actual political acumen yet could withstand the unprecedented personal attacks from Donald Trump. Jeb had the political chops but not the spine to stand up to the bullying. The closest was Chris Christie, who I believe could have handled Trump in a debate and would have had reasonable success as a moderate conservative president, but he was tainted by shaking hands with Obama or something about a bridge. The real problem with the GOP is that they were totally unprepared and insufficiently organized to withstand the rise of an anti-hero like Trump, someone who goes against all their values but steals their voters anyway. There will be some soul-searching during this year's beltway holiday parties.

Can you imagine if, during the early stages of the primary campaign, Lincoln Chafee had called Hillary a shrill harpy and mocked her choice of pantsuits? There would never have been a groundswell of support for Chafee after that. But Trump gets away with personal attacks and builds a loyal, angry following for it? It's as if the schoolyard bully, fifty years later, looked back on his life and said "I was king of the roost in elementary school, but all those snotty nerds I used to pummel on the playground grew up to be high-paid lawyers, investment bankers and politicians and they've been calling the shots ever since. Well, enough is enough! Time to take back the country from the nerds!"



Fortunately for anyone who believes "being a strongman" is insufficient qualification to be President, I perceive a tipping point in the Trump phenomenon. The most obvious indication is the attack on Curiel, but looking slightly deeper reveals some real problems with his campaign, namely that he doesn't really have the organization to succeed.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-does-not-have-campaign

In other words, Trump will be a loser for precisely the reason he thinks he'll win -- he believes he alone is the winner. But you can't win the Presidency by yourself just by posting on Twitter.

Quote: ams288

Based on this section of your response, I'd say my "whine" comment was right on the mark.

Nope. Wrong--I don't like the racist tone of the comment. I hear a lot of words tossed around and can't tell you if Trump is a racist or not, but it was a statement tinged in racism that should have not have been made or should have been retracted.

Quote: SanchoPanza

In this context, expansive government, higher taxes and more government controls boosting desired programs and against unwanted endeavors.

1) That's not Marxism. 2) Republicans believe in the same approach, except they more often prefer to finance it with debt rather than taxes.

Quote: RonC

Nope. Wrong--I don't like the racist tone of the comment. I hear a lot of words tossed around and can't tell you if Trump is a racist or not, but it was a statement tinged in racism that should have not have been made or should have been retracted.

That's shameful non-committal. The statement wasn't "tinged in racism," it was "completely racist" (direct quote from Joe Scarborough). The judge can't do his job because he's Mexican? How else can you take that?

And how else do you judge a man but by his words and actions? You can't tell me if Trump is racist or not? Trump judges virtually everybody by their ethnicity, their religion, their gender, or the color of their skin -- but not by the content of their character. Describe to me how that makes Trump not a racist and bigot.

Trump has not and will not retract his racist statements, nor his attack on the constitutionally independent judiciary. Will you nevertheless continue to support his candidacy for President?

Quote: MathExtremist

That's shameful non-committal. The statement wasn't "tinged in racism," it was "completely racist" (direct quote from Joe Scarborough). The judge can't do his job because he's Mexican? How else can you take that?

And how else do you judge a man but by his words and actions? You can't tell me if Trump is racist or not? Trump judges virtually everybody by their ethnicity, their religion, their gender, or the color of their skin -- but not by the content of their character. Describe to me how that makes Trump not a racist and bigot.

Trump has not and will not retract his racist statements, nor his attack on the constitutionally independent judiciary. Will you nevertheless continue to support his candidacy for President?

"Finally, some have said that Trump’s criticism of the judge reflects on his qualifications to be president. If the criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president. If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to a fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/

Trump says stupid things.

I am not sure he is a racist by those statements alone...does he actually treat other races badly or does he just say stupid crap that he should be taken to task for saying?

Hillary lies. Hillary's husband lies.

Bernie never really had a chance. based on the rules

My choices are limited in this election cycle!

Quote: RonC

"Finally, some have said that Trump’s criticism of the judge reflects on his qualifications to be president. If the criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president. If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to a fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider."

If it were an isolated incident, and actually based on a demonstrable link between Curiel's opinions/orders and Trump's commentary, that may be a valid point. But neither is true. Trump goes further and suggests that any Muslim judge may be biased as well based on his prior comments about Muslims.

So the trick to getting away with anything is to insult enough people so every judge is in one of the demographic categories you've insulted, and therefore every judge has to recuse himself/herself and nobody can hear the case? Insult Jews, no Jewish judges can hear your case; insult women, no female judges can hear your case? I don't think so. It is the main job of a judge to act impartially and fairly and follow the law, regardless of what personal feelings the judge may have as to the parties. I have personally observed judges express strong (negative) personal opinions regarding one party in a lawsuit (in both criminal and civil matters), but those personal opinions did not color the holding of the court.

Because you know what a judge cares more about than issuing biased orders due to personal animus? Not getting reversed on appeal.

" In other words, Trump will be a loser for precisely the reason he thinks he'll win -- he believes he alone is the winner. But you can't win the Presidency by yourself just by posting on Twitter. "

I would agree with that statement, had he not won the Republican nomination that way. Just saying

Quote: RonC

Trump says stupid things.

I am not sure he is a racist by those statements alone...does he actually treat other races badly or does he just say stupid crap that he should be taken to task for saying?

He's been saying stupid things for decades. At some point you have to believe him:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

Quote:

Hillary lies. Hillary's husband lies.

So does John Miller. But John Miller does so many other outrageous things that the lying is forgiven, or just overlooked because it's a relatively minor offense in comparsion? That doesn't make sense. It's like saying Hillary is a thief, and so is Donald but his thieving is okay because he's also a murderer.

Also, if Bill is fair game then shouldn't Melania be too? Ex-President and Rhodes Scholar who presided over the largest US economic expansion in over 40 years (measured by GDP growth) vs. an ex-supermodel who didn't finish college? How many people will vote for Donald Trump just because his spouse is better looking than Hillary's?
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/gdp-growth-by-president-how-does-barack-obama-compare/
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/28/which-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy

Quote:

My choices are limited in this election cycle!

No kidding. Here's the real problem with Trump -- everyone spends so much time dancing around his ridiculous nonsense that nobody looks at his politics. You don't know where he stands on anything, and neither do I, because he never actually talks about it. And when he does, he contradicts himself. You can like or dislike Hillary based on her politics because you know what they are. Same with Sanders, same with Johnson, same with Hoefling. You have no idea what Trump's politics are now, or what they will change to be later on, because he is not a man who would govern based on any set of principles. He is an opportunist who has seized a moment of chaos and weak organization and, like a remora, sucked the principles out of the GOP. You know for a fact that Trump doesn't represent or care about conservative values. So why do so many GOP voters cast their lot with him? Is it because they too don't care about conservative values? If so, that's a pretty stunning repudiation of the GOP as an entity.

Quote: onalinehorse

I would agree with that statement, had he not won the Republican nomination that way. Just saying

The Republican primary and the general election are two completely different races. Many people have been pointing this out for a while. What worked during the primary is already not working now. Twitter insults against "Crooked Hillary" do not have the same effect that Twitter insults against "Low Energy Jeb" had.

Lots of stories out today about Trump's lack of campaign infrastructure and his inability to hire senior staff.

Whereas Hillary has the extremely successful Obama machine behind her - which will be able to micro target voters down to the precinct level.

Trump will be listening to his gut.

Good luck with that.

Quote: onalinehorse

" In other words, Trump will be a loser for precisely the reason he thinks he'll win -- he believes he alone is the winner. But you can't win the Presidency by yourself just by posting on Twitter. "

I would agree with that statement, had he not won the Republican nomination that way. Just saying

I think there's a difference between subverting a party's machinery by being a lone strongman and winning an actual election the same way. At least I hope there is.

Quote: MathExtremist

You have no idea what Trump's politics are now, or what they will change to be later on, because he is not a man who would govern based on any set of principles.

Actually, I expect the same out of Hillary...Bill governed based on which way the tide was flowing in the polls; I don't expect her to be much different than that.

You keep trying to make me justify a selection that I don't really want to make which in my mind comes down to picking between someone who says a lot of stupid things and someone who is not bright enough to know that security concerns should have kept her from ever setting up a private email server...no matter what someone else did.

I am not "in love" with any candidate. I will pick the one that I think will be the best of the worst. I could be wrong; then again, so could you!

Quote: RonC

You keep trying to make me justify a selection that I don't really want to make which in my mind comes down to picking between someone who says a lot of stupid things and someone who is not bright enough to know that security concerns should have kept her from ever setting up a private email server...no matter what someone else did.

I am not "in love" with any candidate. I will pick the one that I think will be the best of the worst. I could be wrong; then again, so could you!

Agreed, and I'm not in love with any candidate either. When it comes down to Hillary vs. Trump, though, I have far more faith that Hillary will listen to her advisers than Trump will. Right now she is and he's not. If it boils down to collective wisdom vs. whatever random crap is in Trump's head at the moment, I'll pick the collective wisdom every time.

It's funny, last night I heard a commentator say that Hillary Clinton is the shining light for the GOP, the only thing keeping their voters from tuning out completely. At this point, I think Trump is equivalently the best thing for the Democrats. I think Hillary will beat Trump, probably handily. I'm not sure Hillary would beat a true conservative GOP candidate who wasn't an openly racist lunatic.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not sure Hillary would beat a true conservative GOP candidate who wasn't an openly racist lunatic.

A John Kasich or a Paul Ryan could have given her a run for her money.

Trump? Nope.

Quote: ams288

A John Kasich or a Paul Ryan could have given her a run for her money.

Trump? Nope.

John Kasich would never have won the Latino vote the way Trump says he is going to.

Quote: Rigondeaux

1) That's not Marxism. 2) Republicans believe in the same approach, except they more often prefer to finance it with debt rather than taxes.

Farm from all Republicans subscribe to expansive government and increased partisan government controls like the E.P.A. and I.R.S. Let's see your version of "Marxism."

Quote: billryan

John Kasich would never have won the Latino vote the way Trump says he is going to.

I can't wait to hear Ted Cruz being labeled "a racist."

I bet this election drove him to do it...

"Roger Clinton is the half-brother of former President Bill Clinton, who famously granted him a presidential pardon for a 1985 cocaine possession conviction, so it would be expunged from his record. "

http://abc13.com/news/roger-clinton-hillary-clintons-brother-in-law-arrested-for-dui/1373356/




**This is a joke. I am against all drunk drivers. Regardless of party affiliation or family connections.

Quote: SanchoPanza

I can't wait to hear Ted Cruz being labeled "a racist."

Where have you been ? " Cruz is not far behind Trump in his anti-immigrants, anti-Muslims rhetoric. He has said repeatedly that he supports rounding up and deporting undocumented immigrants "

not agreeing with the above statement, but some of the biggest racist's I have known are minorities.

Quote: onalinehorse

Where have you been ? " Cruz is not far behind Trump in his anti-immigrants, anti-Muslims rhetoric. He has said repeatedly that he supports rounding up and deporting undocumented immigrants "

not agreeing with the above statement, but some of the biggest racist's I have known are minorities.

Is not wanting illegal aliens and un-vetted Muslims in our country racist?

(not a question specifically for you; I am just wondering overall...)

Quote: RonC

Is not wanting illegal aliens and un-vetted Muslims in our country racist?

(not a question specifically for you; I am just wondering overall...)

How do you vet a Muslim?
How do you determine if a person is a Muslim?
How can you determine is a person is Sikh, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist?
Religion is in somebody's head
I'm an atheist but have attended church.
How do I prove I am an atheist?

Quote: RonC

Is not wanting illegal aliens and un-vetted Muslims in our country racist?

"Un-vetted" Muslims?

Give me a break!

He wants to prevent ALL Muslims from entering the country. His words. ALL.

Don't try to whitewash it with "un-vetted."

Quote: ams288

"Un-vetted" Muslims?

Give me a break!

He wants to prevent ALL Muslims from entering the country. His words. ALL.

Don't try to whitewash it with "un-vetted."

I asked a freaking question--did I mention Trump?

I am against illegal aliens getting into our country.

I am concerned about Muslim immigrants who we have no info on getting into our country.

I am not sure what the perfect way to process them would be to let some of them in and try to weed out bad actors.

I know it isn't to just let anyone in that wants to enter.

Chill, dude...I simply asked a question...

Quote: terapined

How do you vet a Muslim?
How do you determine if a person is a Muslim?
How can you determine is a person is Sikh, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist?
Religion is in somebody's head
I'm an atheist but have attended church.
How do I prove I am an atheist?

You ask. They could lie. You investigate them. The issue appears to be the lack of info to research to check most of their backgrounds. I am for keeping them out until we know more about them.

Quote: RonC

I asked a freaking question--did I mention Trump?

I am against illegal aliens getting into our country.

I am concerned about Muslim immigrants who we have no info on getting into our country.

I am not sure what the perfect way to process them would be to let some of them in and try to weed out bad actors.

I know it isn't to just let anyone in that wants to enter.

Chill, dude...I simply asked a question...

It's a silly question.

You couldn't find any politician who is for letting anyone (Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc) into the country who they have "no info" on.

Trump wants to ban all Muslims from coming in. I don't think that's "racist," just very very bigoted and prejudiced.

Quote: SanchoPanza

I can't wait to hear Ted Cruz being labeled "a racist."

That's been happening for a while now. Just google "Ted Cruz racist" and you'll get thousands upon thousands of hits.

Quote: ams288

Trump wants to ban all Muslims from coming in. I don't think that's "racist," just very very bigoted and prejudiced.

And, you know, unconstitutional.